• Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    completely on solar power’ when in reality, they just use the equivalent amount of solar power.

    I don’t see the difference myself.

    • Dave@lemmy.nzM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In this case, it looks like TWG is actually contributing to new solar installations. However, the difference to me is like this:

      NZ generates around 80% of it’s power from renewable resources. So a wind farm could just sell the right to say Countdown to say that the power generated there is for Countdown. Nothing changed, no new renewable generation was created, no one built a wind farm for Countdown. They simply painted their logo on the side and said now we are powered by renewable energy, with exacly zero environmental improvement over the state before.

      If TWG are actually funding new solar farms then that’s a bit different, it at least has a real world impact.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the Countdown example, they’d have to make sure their power use was matched by what the generator was putting in, in which case they can accurately claim they sold the power to countdown. They may well be paying significantly more per MWH than someone buying coal or gas generated power at the same time.

        While it may seem bizarre, it’s how our energy grid and market works.