To: combjelly who wrote (118107 ) 4/15/2019 11:23:26 AM From: neolib Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 364768 I guess what I'm commenting on is the often stated view that energy is fungible, therefore the lowest cost always wins (in a Libertarian Universe that is). So its evil to buy green electricity if it costs more (and it costs more if the Gov is subsidizing it too btw, which is an added evil) if the same kwh used in my house could instead have been sourced from coal at a lower price. The problem with that argument is that it is the same as saying that transportation is fungible, after all the point is to get from A to B when I want to. If that were also true, then it would be the case that everyone would buy the ugliest Yugo box, designed only to get you from A to B and having nothing to do with esthetics, etc. But that isn't what people buy. And do note that to some degree the transportation as a service model is in fact predicted on that. Well, true, it will appeal to some, just as getting you kwh at the lowest price as the only metric also appeals to some. But tiling your roof with what will eventually be esthetic looking solar panels and having some pride in the green effect of that is no different that having some pride in the particular curves and paint color (and brand name) of the car in your driveway. People, and economists in particular, are idiots for not understanding this. And the fact that people buy expensive cars is good for the economy not bad. Yet plenty of fools will get up and argue that a kwh that cost more than the least expensive one is bad for the economy. If true, they should try to make the argument that a car that cost more than the least expensive one is also bad for the economy. Same applies to pretty much everything else that consumers buy.