The more salient point here is that a) that energy should be feeding the actual energy needs of the economy, not being wasted and b) those solar panels/wind turbines are still built using fossil fuels for mining and so on. This company is specifically deleting away a portion the green transition by increasing demand this way.
Green power needs significant overcapacity at the moment though right? Because sometimes it's not sunny or not windy, and balancing that across large regions through the grid costs a ton of money.
It's a waste, sure, but it would be wasted anyway and this makes building green power a little more profitable in the system we're forced to live under.
There are myriad ways to deal with reliability, and many more under research. The problem here is that these power plants - which must be maintained, repaired and then substituted wholesale in 25 years - are being used to waste energy. Had this plant been used to power homes or factories, it would be contributing to the re-industrialization of the world, helping us win a little bit more time against the catastrophes ahead of us. This isn't just about climate change, it's about the race of electrify mining, to improve recycling methods, to find news ways to maintain industrial agriculture, and so on. In short, we either outgrow fossil fuels or we collapse wholesale.
So while you might think that, well, at least some money ended up in the pocket of a solar panel factory. The truth is that wasting the life-time of a green energy plant is a double negative. Those panels and wind turbines didn't fall from the heavens. They were made using fossil fuels, built from components mined with fossil fuels, in a society that would not be able to feed itself without fossil fuels. They are not to maintain said society, but to generate a pointless gambling/money laundering asset. It eats into what cost of opportunity we have to build the future.
Ultimately industrial policy is contingent on state power. So it's not like this demand is even relevant in that front either. If state power is not used to drive the green transition, then it won't happen.
I hate this argument. How does buying something incentivize more of it to be made when there is a substitute(dirty energy)?
It's like saying you're going to incentivize people to eat healthier by destroying vegetable crops
They aren't expected to "eat" healthier, they are expected to invest in healthier food crops. See... when you destroy crops, the supply drops relative to the demand. The price of the crop to the customers increases and it becomes more profitable and investors will invest in these profitable crops.
Iceland has been a preferred location for mining bitcoin, with geothermal emergy, since the early 2010s.
One of the bazinga rhetorical tactics I hate, hate, HATE the most is the one where something ruinously destructive, that is a Captain Planet style villain motivation like throwing a lever to produce pollution and burn forests, is stated to be cool and good because "renewable energy could be used for this."
THAT RENEWABLE ENERGY COULD DO SOMETHING FUCKING USEFUL TOO
