Intel buys up 1.3 billion kilowatts of Renewable Energy Certificates
By Paul Miller 
posted January 29th 2008 11:17AM
posted January 29th 2008 11:17AM
Say what you will about Renewable Energy Certificates, Green Tags, carbon offsets and the like, but Intel sure does own a lot of them. Intel just became the largest purchaser of Renewable Energy Certificates in the US, with a commitment to snapping up 1.3 billion kilowatt hours a year of the stuff. RECs act as a sort of green "currency," allowing a company invest in renewable energy sources, instead of the pollution-ridden plant up the river fueled by the blood of innocents. Not a bad PR move, but the investment should make renewable energy sources more affordable down the line, so it's hard to fault them there. [Thanks, Issac]
kjb434:
Your arguments against solar are poor. Very poor. After reading your anti-solar argument, I don't even think it's worth reading the rest. To show you what's wrong with your reasoning, I'll tear apart your anti-solar thoughts:
You said:
"Solar: besides that it is not consistent and relies on harmful and toxic bateries because of this, it's not necessarily all clean."
My response:
FALSE. Solar does not rely on batteries. You can put solar panels on your house, and keep your house tied to the regular electric grid. If you're producing extra solar energy, it goes onto the grid. Many electric companies actually PAY YOU FOR THE EXTRA POWER YOU GENERATE. If you need some extra electricity, you buy it from the grid. At night, you buy power from the electric company -- generally, night-time power is very cheap since it is "off-peak." This practice is fairly common, the fact that you don't now about it says a lot about your *actual* knowledge on this subject. I'll repeat SOLAR POWER DOES NOT REQUIRE BATTERIES.
Additionally, you say that solar power is "inconsistent" -- this is true. At night, you don't generate anything. Buy from the grid or get power some other way. During the day, clouds REDUCE the solar power generated. They don't eliminate it. As I posted above, even San Francisco, the city known for clouds and fog, has decided solar power can be good for them. Again, if you don't quite produce enough to power your house, buy from the grid.
And you know what? That grid power could still be nuclear if there's a nuclear plant in the area. You can imagine the grid to be powered by your favorite source, whatever that may be. Many of the commenters seem to think that nuclear power is the savior of the earth. Maybe it is...but having solar panels on each home backed up with a nuclear powered grid shouldn't be a bad thing in your eyes.
Next, you said:
"Also, covering tons of suburban homes with solar power would create problems in the aviation (not just for planes but for many migrating bird species)."
My response:
Okay, I don't even know where you came up with this. Can you explain further what you mean by it? Maybe you think solar panels are reflective and would shine up light that confuses pilots and birds? If that's so, then you should realize that solar panels operate by absorbing sunlight, not reflecting it. So, the more sunlight that goes in, the better. Maybe some solar panels you've seen are somewhat reflective, but there is active research going on to improve the surface so that almost zero light is reflected. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=solar+panel+surface+reflectance&btnG=Search
Next, you said:
"Solar panels also add to the heat island effect (urban areas generate heat from expanses of concrete) which most pro-environmental people are trying to reverse."
Okay...so let me get this straight: sunlight hits an ordinary house roof. It gets absorbed and converted to heat. That's what happens. Put a solar panel on that roof. Now, sunlight hits the solar panel and gets absorbed. Some of it gets converted to electricity, some of it gets converted to heat. The fact that some of the sun's energy gets converted to electricity means that LESS gets converted to heat. It is simple physics. Energy must be conserved.
Additionally, by simply "shading" the roof below, a solar panel will keep the building itself slightly cooler. That means the air conditioner (which generates heat when it operates) will operate a little less, producing even less heat.
If any of the sunlight gets reflected, that's even less energy available to be converted to heat.
waste of money, carbon offsets are stupid. good job flushing money down the drain intel. *rolls eyes*
Yeah,
I think Intel like many companies feel the extortion from people like Al Gore and wacky environmental groups. These groups go out there and say how bad you are until you give money to their cause.
These companies also think this an issue that is actually on the minds of many people. It isn't. But because they think so, their marketing groups say to donate and spend some money this way so people can point the finger at you and say you're bad.
Also, companies like GE spend many times more then oil companies lobbying government to force green technology. GE isn't doing it to save any kind of environment. They are doing to make tons of money. The free market would toss out many of these technologies because they aren't cost effective, but if government going to give you tons of money make the products to be green, you can't pass it up. It's essentially free money from me the taxpayer.
I have to laugh at all the people who dis alternative energy, as though they are personally offended by it. It's especially funny coming from people who visit this site - mass users of techno gadgets that are helping to fuel the insane worldwide demand for oil AND one of the biggest causes of pollution. Every plastic case of every gadget is made of oil. Every factory that makes them relies on oil/coal/nukes and belches shit into your air. Shipping them from China etc. takes a lot of energy.
Make a choice - either stop consuming so much energy reliant crap, or quit being such a whiny baby about alternative energy. Only a Cletus redneck backwater freak would think this is some "hippy" issue in today's world.
Nuclear Power?
See: http://gpsinformation.info/joe/Energy%20Independence.html