970
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
970 points (95.6% liked)
Technology
59598 readers
2506 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
How stupid is it that somebody can claim “Net Zero” greenhouse gas emissions when 30% of their power is greenhouse gas.
Just gonna throw this out there. Fuck credits, charge a carbon tax.
We'll also ignore the fact that that solar could have been used to offset actual needs instead of this BS.
If only Las Vegas were located somewhere that the sun shines almost all day every day. \s
I highly doubt the operating hours of this ball of decadence match the time when solar power peaks
If only the creators of the ball had enough profit coming in to put up more solar panels and build up a battery bank for the night so they wouldn't take anything from the grid...
And yet they still couldn't cover the last 30%.
That's probably at night
Regardless, that energy could be going to offset other energy currently being produced by non-renewables no matter which way you slice it.
So build concentrated solar power and store the heat for after the sun sets. Bonus - thermal power plant turbines give inertia to the grid, which photo-voltaics don't.
Vegas exists because of the BS.
The word net does a lot of heavy lifting and it’s just a scam
You can use 100% coal power and claim net zero by buying a forest
Well you don't understand what "net" means.
It doesn't mean literally zero. It means colunm A and column B average out to zero.
To acheive a real net zero, they have to save energy somewhere else that takes that column past 100% (Such as if their solar panels produce more energy than they use during certain times.)
They probably just make some shit up to say their are saving extra somewhere they aren't (so to that point, yes...credits are bullshit.)
Maybe, I mean just maybe, they can run this thing only as long as the solar generated power lasts, and then turn it off 30% of the time.
Run it at 70% percent brightness.
Oooh, this is a good idea
IMO it seems RECs are a better solution than carbon taxes at least in situations like this. With RECs you're buying renewable energy to offset non-renewables, with a carbon tax the company is just giving the government money for use of non-renewables. Only funds spent on RECs in this case actually go to supporting the renewable energy sector. I'm no expert in this stuff so I could be off, just how I understand it.
They never claimed net zero. They plan to achieve net zero by 2050
Yeah, that’s in the quote. I’m more complaining about the concept of “net zero”.
Exactly. Carbon credits for the win! I love me some Pigouvian taxes. :)