• danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Currently, an agreement is under review to ensure that 70% of the Sphere’s power needs will come from solar sources, with the other 30% from non-renewable energy that will be offset by renewable energy credits.

    Nevada has pledged to achieve net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050, and the solar project under construction to help offset its energy debt is estimated to complete in 2027.

    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.

    • capital@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      We’ll also ignore the fact that that solar could have been used to offset actual needs instead of this BS.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        If only Las Vegas were located somewhere that the sun shines almost all day every day. \s

        • Usernameblankface@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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…

            • Morphit @feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              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.

            • capital@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Regardless, that energy could be going to offset other energy currently being produced by non-renewables no matter which way you slice it.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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

    • w2tpmf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.)

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah, that’s in the quote. I’m more complaining about the concept of “net zero”.

    • Usernameblankface@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • NecroSocial@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Fuck credits, charge a carbon tax.

      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.