[allenz]

Google's approach subsidizes the additional cost of renewable energy sources over fossil fuels. Because Google sells exactly what they consume, they aren't actually inducing more electricity demand. And even if that was a factor, renewables are still an order of magnitude more green than coal.[1] So feel free to invest in solar companies :-)

By the way, carbon neutrality is easier to achieve than 100% renewable. Google has been carbon neutral since 2007,[2] which means that they purchase carbon offsets for their carbon usage. Carbon offsets are cheaper than renewable energy credits because there is lower-hanging fruit. For example, agreeing not to clear-cut a forest for 20 years generates millions of tons of carbon credits.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis...

[2] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/carbon-neutrality-by...

[cosmic_ape]

Still don't quite get it. Additional power sold to the grid means competition to the coal-burning power plants. Assuming the plant's only goal is profit, would they just produce less power and lose money? Or would they try to lower the prices, to possibly lose a little less money? And then, if the prices do drop, the demand may rise due to the drop, and could even lead to producing more power by the plant. So Google selling that electricity could yield to even higher carbon emissions. No?