Can you explain what you mean by "pay extra for something that would
have been there..."?
From the way I see it, a REC allows you to pay a "green" producer a
slight premium for power. That is, if you didn't use REC to buy it, it
probably would have sold at a lower rate. With RECs, you are increasing,
albeit slightly, the demand for this green power. That provides an
incremental incentive to build-out more solar or wind farms.
Or, conversely, it reduces the demand for power from, say, a coal plant.
If enough power ultimately is purchased from solar or wind farms, that
would mean the price to buy kwh from a coal plant drops and at some
point the coal plant becomes unprofitable to operate.
Evidentially you see this differently?
------ Original Message ------
From: "jim--- via EV" <email@example.com>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "j...@k6ccc.org" <j...@k6ccc.org>
Sent: 04-Jan-18 1:07:33 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Smearing with coal (again)
Bob said )in part):
The California Survey back in 2012 or so showed that 45% of all EV
charged from clean energy. A 2016 Survey by Ford showed that 85% of all
EV owners charged from clean solar or subscribed for 100% renewables
their grid, or would when it was offered.
That is such a crock - I'm talking about people paying extra to get
"green" power. All that means is people are stupid enough to pay extra
for something that would have been there whether they paid for it or
not. "Buying clean power" accomplishes nothing. You are not getting
any different power than if you weren't paying the extra, and it does
not change the generation mix at all. Maybe it makes people feel
better, and it potentially helps to send a political message, but it
Jim Walls - K6CCC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)