“Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.”
into question. what does it actually mean?
I haven’t the foggiest.. it is very non-specific.. Normally I would think that it might mean that he purchases 100% of renewable.. but then you would not be ‘balancing’.
Using spin mentality, it might mean that he buys 50% non-renewable and 50% renewable, effectively matching (someones concept of balancing?) the non-renewable use.. but then using electrical charges, that would be effectively adding $0.014999 to his charges, making it almost $0.09/kWh..
Does he have a business/house etc elsewhere that may be purchasing renewable energy?
The word I get stuck on is “balance”.. which would normally be associated with offsets as opposed to power generation.
Could be Kristin Hall not getting the quote right and mixing offsets with source of power generation? (Gore not using renewable energy, but paying $ into Carbon offsets to balance the amount as if he were using renewable? – Gores statements via using renewable energy vs the cost rate does not really jive well.. This is the only why I could conceivably align them) The problem then becomes one of how do you estimate the Carbon Dioxide load based upon power usage and power source mix.. I am getting more curious as to how much is contributed to offsets, which offsets and if he has any financial ties to them (ie paid speaking arrangements). Beyond the amount of power usage and the noted power rate (not matching with what one comes up with for TVA for renewable).. everything else at this point is conjecture..
