Right, but they aren't connected to the same grid. Google has datacenters all over the world, connected to all sorts of different grids with different source compositions.
>What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, then you drove it in a tanker across the country and poured it into generators in Virginia?
Sure, but you have to account for the emissions from that whole process as well (emissions of solar + emissions of generating the fuel + emissions of transportation + emissions of burning the fuel).
>The way I see it is that watts are watts (just like dollars are dollars)
Nope, a watt generated on one grid does not spend on another because they're not all interconnected.
Until we solve the energy storage problem, the problem is exacerbated further by continually expanding solar installations in one particular region of the US that will generate more than the consumption for part of the day.
I guess nuclear power is non-renewable but carbon neutral. Cannot think of anything that is not carbon neutral but renewable...wouldn't that require creating CO2 matter from nothing?
Would it help if the renewable source had to be connected to the same grid-tie (there are 4 I think in the US) ? Then you're putting renewable energy into the same grid you are pulling it out of.
What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, then you drove it in a tanker across the country and poured it into generators in Virginia?
The way I see it is that watts are watts (just like dollars are dollars) so if the total watts you burn are offset by renewable watts you have put in, then you are ahead. If everyone does that then by definition the entire grid is running on renewable energy.