|
|
|
|
|
|
by jacquesm
3978 days ago
|
|
|
Of course it is. The arbitrage is what makes it happen because that's what makes it profitable. If the energy so generated were labeled with the point of origin then it would count as fossil fuel and then it would yield less on the energy market. The load variations are not such that the generating capacity could not be reduced in time, but there is less money in that. This is not renewable energy though it masquerades as such. Note that before green energy became a thing this was already happening so it is simply a re-labeling rather than that these lakes suddenly got re-purposed for renewable energy storage. If the source of the electricity is not originally renewable energy then it is deceptive to sell it as such. People pay a pretty premium for renewable energy. |
|
|
Not necessarily!
It may be, it may not be. It depends on the time and place and whatnot. Pumped hydro today might be mostly "white washing" today in Scotland. It might not be "white washing" tomorrow in Germany. It depends on a lot of factors.
If the electrical rates do occasionally go negative in mainland Europe (from wind) and there are pumped hydro stations there then it's entirely possible that the wind electrons are the ones pushing the water uphill rather than the fossil fuel electrons, and then when that water eventually does generate electricity again, it's technically still renewable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...
It sounds like the plant that you visited in Scotland was white washing, at least when you visited. But that doesn't mean that all pumped hydro everywhere in the world definitely, for sure, guaranteed, is also doing the same.