This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
It is always entertaining to start thinking about marking electrons for ownership...
Of course that can stimulate a Hole flow, electron flow debate.
But then we might get to squeeze in a E=IR discussion.
That can easily bring up my favorite joke of "What are they measuring in those MMTS? Temperature or voltage? Or is it resistance? Or is it current?'
My addled brain has them all tied together. They might be in a circle. They might be in orbitals. They might just be in the equation. I sort of expect the person on the other end of the joke to not laugh. It is the type of joke to stimulate the hint of a twinkle in the eye. In my brain, I can grab onto one of the variables and then check the other two. There are schemes for each of them in instrumentation.
But the accounting of power distribution where people change their 'provider' still causes me to pause...
The only switch that is thrown is in a database saying "I want to pay power company C". The hand waving that must go on in the board meetings.... I cannot begin to imagine.
My home consumes massive amounts of electricity. The bill average $75. 33 kWh a day. It is wrong to say that I qualify as "massive". 33 kWh * 250,000 => 8 GWh of supply.
Are the bills publicly accessible? Can you get a spreadsheet that lets you evaluate this?
Smoke and mirrors...
In reply to Brad, it is a strange arrangement where electric current is being marked for ownership. I can see most countries not operating an arrangement like this as it's just 'too silly'.
Bulb purportedly supplies 100% renewable electricity and 10% renewable gas to its customers. 100% renewable electricity is possible in the UK because continously available sources are available in the form of the burning of wood pellets. The 'renewable gas' is probably biomethane from sewage. The firm has built up to 100 thousand customers in recent months.
But a Bulb customer probably just gets the same electricity and gas, from whatever sources that came from, that they got before they switched. Bulb doesn't as far as I can see own any energy infrastrucure, so it definitely can't change the electricity and gas mix for the neighbourhoods of its customers. I don't think a Bulb customer is actually getting the product that they have specifically paid for, what they're paying for is to input more renewable energy into the overall UK electricity and gas network than might have happened otherwise.
The other aspect of the silliness is what I mentioned earlier in the thread, where small energy firms are exempt from charging 'Green levies'. I would imagine that most of Britain's prominent Greenies - Roger Harrabin, Jonathan Porritt, David Attenborough, Damian Carrington and so on, are signed up with these specialist small renewable energy suppliers, and they don't pay the Green levies.
The people who are keenest on a Green energy policy in the UK could be said to be voters for the Green party and the Liberal Democrat party. These kind of voters probably make up a lot of the customer base of firms like Bulb. If we now look at the statistics of average house prices in UK parliamentary constituencies, it turns out that the constituencies represented by the Greens and Lib Dems have the most expensive average house prices:
Greens and Lib Dems live in most expensive homes
So I would argue that the voters who are driving the Green energy policy are quite well-heeled and should be paying a lot more for Green energy, not getting the rest of us to pay for it.