A "green energy" CEO tells it like it is

[WVPATX]

When the islands of Tasmania and El Hierro tried to power their economies with 100 percent green energy, both islands quickly switched back to diesel generators after suffering reliability problems and soaring costs. Analysis suggests it would have taken 84 years for El Hierro’s wind and hydropower systems to simply pay back their capital costs.


Green CEO Says Companies Selling Costumers 100% Wind Or Solar Energy Are Selling A ‘Hoax’

ANDREW FOLLETT
Energy and Science Reporter
A green energy CEO says companies selling the idea that everything in modern civilization can rely solely on solar and wind power are selling a “hoax.”

Customers think their homes are powered entirely with green energy and pay extra money for the service, while they’re actually getting conventional electricity in most cases.

“For starters, if you signed up for a 100 percent green energy plan, you are not actually using 100 percent green energy,” Gregory Craig, founder and CEO of the green energy company Griddy, wrote in Renewable Energy World. “So when you run your dishwasher or turn on the lights, it’s not all powered by solar and wind, but a combination of gas, oil and coal too.”

Companies claiming to sell 100 percent green energy regularly trick their customers by using misleading marketing.


Craig blames this scam on virtually unregulated voluntary Renewable Energy Credits. These credits allow companies to misleadingly brand their electricity as green energy, which they can sell at significantly marked up prices compared to conventional power. Companies can use these credits to convince customers they are helping the environment, but the benefits only exist on paper.

“Despite good intentions, these have become a cheap way for retailers to mislead consumers into thinking they are getting a product totally sourced from renewable energy — while also selling them at overpriced premiums,” Craig wrote.

Craig isn’t the only one calling out this scam. Robert Wilson, an ecosystem and global warming researcher at the University of Strathclyde, called 100 percent green energy plans a “delusion” and noted they have repeatedly failed in California and Germany.

Energizing all of society with green energy is also unfeasible, as the power grid can’t handle so much unpredictable and highly intermittent wind and solar power. This means it’s only possible to use 100 percent green energy for short time periods.

Power grids require demand for electricity to exactly match supply in order to function, which is an enormous problem for wind and solar power since their output cannot be accurately predicted in advance or easily adjusted. This is the entire reason for Renewable Energy Credits. Wind and solar can also burn out the grid if they produce too much, or not enough, electricity, leading to brownouts or blackouts. Such damage has already occurred in power grids relying too much on solar and wind power — like California and Germany.

When the islands of Tasmania and El Hierro tried to power their economies with 100 percent green energy, both islands quickly switched back to diesel generators after suffering reliability problems and soaring costs. Analysis suggests it would have taken 84 years for El Hierro’s wind and hydropower systems to simply pay back their capital costs.





Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/16/e...wind-or-solar-energy-is-a-hoax/#ixzz4eShBAMx6

 

[Keyser76]

Go buy Coal stock then, it's coming back. I don't get what energy has to do with politics beyond the lobbying dollars behind demonizing any alternative energy divorced from fossil fuels. Market forces will rule whenever the costs dictate it, not politics. Look how quickly companies switched to natural gas when it became cheaper.

 

[op2]

Below is a story about a part of Hawaii that is converting to solar. Now let's hear the objections like "But they get more Sun that most places," or whatever, which completely misses the point that they've gotten more Sun than most places or whatever for a long time but they hadn't converted to solar before this. Why is that? Because the technology didn't exist before but it does now.

Of course the changes will start with the lower hanging fruit of places where it's easier to do. Does anyone expect it will start off with the hard places?

First the technology can't do it at all. Then the technology improves and it can do the really easy places. Then the technology improves some more and it can do the easy places. Then the technology improves some more and it can do the not so easy places. Etc. Tick, tick, tick.

BTW, engineers are underappreciated and that's illustrated by the way I worded the previous paragraph. It's not that "the technology improves" but rather that "smart engineers work hard to improve the technology."

Damn it, it won't let me post a link, let me see if it'll just take the link text.

Dang it, I guess not. Okay, just skip it. Google "Tesla Hawaii Solar Power" if you want to to see it.

 

[Airport]

Go buy Coal stock then, it's coming back. I don't get what energy has to do with politics beyond the lobbying dollars behind demonizing any alternative energy divorced from fossil fuels. Market forces will rule whenever the costs dictate it, not politics. Look how quickly companies switched to natural gas when it became cheaper.

Market forces are not allowed to work when govt choses to pay for one form of energy over another. Let all energy forms stand on it's own feet and quit subsidizing all energy forms.

 

[Best Virginia]

PatX is the type of person that claims an extreme ("100%") to make a useless point seem useful.

 

[op2]

Market forces are not allowed to work when govt choses to pay for one form of energy over another. Let all energy forms stand on it's own feet and quit subsidizing all energy forms.

I agree but I find it suspicious that you we don't hear that from people until after the gov't start giving relatively small subsidies to solar for a few years after giving massive subsidies to fossil fuels for generations.

 

[Keyser76]

I agree but I find it suspicious that you we don't hear that from people until after the gov't start giving relatively small subsidies to solar for a few years after giving massive subsidies to fossil fuels for generations.

Yeah, they forget that part. Solar Ink is also a very promising story out today.

 

[WVPATX]

Below is a story about a part of Hawaii that is converting to solar. Now let's hear the objections like "But they get more Sun that most places," or whatever, which completely misses the point that they've gotten more Sun than most places or whatever for a long time but they hadn't converted to solar before this. Why is that? Because the technology didn't exist before but it does now.

Of course the changes will start with the lower hanging fruit of places where it's easier to do. Does anyone expect it will start off with the hard places?

First the technology can't do it at all. Then the technology improves and it can do the really easy places. Then the technology improves some more and it can do the easy places. Then the technology improves some more and it can do the not so easy places. Etc. Tick, tick, tick.

BTW, engineers are underappreciated and that's illustrated by the way I worded the previous paragraph. It's not that "the technology improves" but rather that "smart engineers work hard to improve the technology."

Damn it, it won't let me post a link, let me see if it'll just take the link text.

Dang it, I guess not. Okay, just skip it. Google "Tesla Hawaii Solar Power" if you want to to see it.

These Islands get a lot of sun also. It is simply not efficient thus not price competitive. And as the article states, it has many issues with the grid.

When the islands of Tasmania and El Hierro tried to power their economies with 100 percent green energy, both islands quickly switched back to diesel generators after suffering reliability problems and soaring costs. Analysis suggests it would have taken 84 years for El Hierro’s wind and hydropower systems to simply pay back their capital costs.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

Below is a story about a part of Hawaii that is converting to solar. Now let's hear the objections like "But they get more Sun that most places," or whatever, which completely misses the point that they've gotten more Sun than most places or whatever for a long time but they hadn't converted to solar before this. Why is that? Because the technology didn't exist before but it does now.

Of course the changes will start with the lower hanging fruit of places where it's easier to do. Does anyone expect it will start off with the hard places?

First the technology can't do it at all. Then the technology improves and it can do the really easy places. Then the technology improves some more and it can do the easy places. Then the technology improves some more and it can do the not so easy places. Etc. Tick, tick, tick.

BTW, engineers are underappreciated and that's illustrated by the way I worded the previous paragraph. It's not that "the technology improves" but rather that "smart engineers work hard to improve the technology."

Damn it, it won't let me post a link, let me see if it'll just take the link text.

Dang it, I guess not. Okay, just skip it. Google "Tesla Hawaii Solar Power" if you want to to see it.

The federal government is providing huge incentives to Hawaii to go solar. I know. I was on the financing side.

 

[WVPATX]

I agree but I find it suspicious that you we don't hear that from people until after the gov't start giving relatively small subsidies to solar for a few years after giving massive subsidies to fossil fuels for generations.

You argument has huge flaws. The tax changes (accelerated depreciation, intangible drilling costs, etc. were enacted in a bipartisan basis to help the U.S. become less dependent on Middle Eastern energy. It was strategic. You may not remember the energy crisis we had under Jimmy Carter.

But I agree that now that we have such abundant energy and are not nearly as exposed to outside forces, due to new technology, we should not provide tax incentives or subsidies to any form of energy or any automobile or other device that consumes energy.

 

[op2]

The federal government is providing huge incentives to Hawaii to go solar. I know. I was on the financing side.

The government has been providing huge incentives for the fossil fuel industry for over a century.

Don't get me wrong. Fossil fuels have been and will continue to be tremendously useful to humanity. I don't want to think about what the world would be like without them.

At one time we didn't use fossil fuels. Then we figured out how to use them. Sure, there were downsides but the upsides far more than out weighed the downsides. So we used fossil fuels for a long time and it was good.

Now we're starting to be able to use renewables. We'll need fossil fuels for a long time yet so let's keep them around but pretending like it's 1917 instead of 2017 just ain't gonna cut it. The times they are a-changin', and for the better.

 

[op2]

You argument has huge flaws. The tax changes (accelerated depreciation, intangible drilling costs, etc. were enacted in a bipartisan basis to help the U.S. become less dependent on Middle Eastern energy. It was strategic. You may not remember the energy crisis we had under Jimmy Carter.

But I agree that now that we have such abundant energy and are not nearly as exposed to outside forces, due to new technology, we should not provide tax incentives or subsidies to any form of energy or any automobile or other device that consumes energy.

Tax changes didn't cause the energy crisis under Carter, rather the Middle East oil embargo did. If there was another Middle East oil embargo today it would cause the same problems no matter how much oil the US produces.

"But I agree that now that we have such abundant energy and are not nearly as exposed to outside forces, due to new technology, we should not provide tax incentives or subsidies to any form of energy or any automobile or other device that consumes energy."

Then why do we spend so much military money in the Middle East? Are we just concerned for humanitarian reasons? Then why aren't we that concerned in other parts of the world in similar condition but that don't have oil? And if humanitarian concerns are the issue then why isn't Saudi Arabla an enemy instead of an ally?

We spend a ton of military money to keep the Middle East oil flowing because the world economy depends on it. That is a de facto subsidy to oil.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

The government has been providing huge incentives for the fossil fuel industry for over a century.

Don't get me wrong. Fossil fuels have been and will continue to be tremendously useful to humanity. I don't want to think about what the world would be like without them.

At one time we didn't use fossil fuels. Then we figured out how to use them. Sure, there were downsides but the upsides far more than out weighed the downsides. So we used fossil fuels for a long time and it was good.

Now we're starting to be able to use renewables. We'll need fossil fuels for a long time yet so let's keep them around but pretending like it's 1917 instead of 2017 just ain't gonna cut it. The times they are a-changin', and for the better.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drilli...about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/#a8067046e1cd

 

[old buzzard]

Here is one example of what "green energy" producers don't want you to see



Helicopters de-icing the blades of a wind turbine, and guess who pays for it.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/23/saturday-silliness-wind-turbine-photo-of-the-year/

 

[WVPATX]

The government has been providing huge incentives for the fossil fuel industry for over a century.

Don't get me wrong. Fossil fuels have been and will continue to be tremendously useful to humanity. I don't want to think about what the world would be like without them.

At one time we didn't use fossil fuels. Then we figured out how to use them. Sure, there were downsides but the upsides far more than out weighed the downsides. So we used fossil fuels for a long time and it was good.

Now we're starting to be able to use renewables. We'll need fossil fuels for a long time yet so let's keep them around but pretending like it's 1917 instead of 2017 just ain't gonna cut it. The times they are a-changin', and for the better.

Let the market rule but renewables are no where close to being price competitive. Maybe in 25 to 50 years, but not now. And you have hit on the big issue of global warming. The U.S. greatly benefited from fossil fuels as did the developed world. It was abundant and cheap. It is the single biggest beneficial factor to mankind, without question.

Now the U.N. wants to stop 3rd world countries from using fossil fuels. But they too want to have access to cheap energy to build their economies. How can the U.N. stop them? By getting all of the develop economies to provide trillions of dollars to economic development for use of renewables. And they want the U.S. to pay, big time.

 

[op2]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drilli...about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/#a8067046e1cd

I didn't read beyond their definition of "subsidy." Of course if you define "subsidy" however you like you can say that anything is or isn't subsidized.

Why have we spent so much military money for so long in the Middle East?

 

[WVPATX]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drilli...about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/#a8067046e1cd

Great article. How much did we lose on Solyndra alone? $850M?

 

[WVPATX]

I didn't read beyond their definition of "subsidy." Of course if you define "subsidy" however you like you can say that anything is or isn't subsidized.

Why have we spent so much military money for so long in the Middle East?

Come on, you have to be smarter than this. Look at the counter argument, what would happen to our economy if our foreign energy supplies are cut off or destroyed, as they were under Carter? Do you know what the cost would be? The economic outcome could be catastrophic.

The U.S. has strategic interests of all kinds, energy being one of them. And for a very, very good reason.

 

[op2]

Let the market rule but renewables are no where close to being price competitive. Maybe in 25 to 50 years, but not now. And you have hit on the big issue of global warming. The U.S. greatly benefited from fossil fuels as did the developed world. It was abundant and cheap. It is the single biggest beneficial factor to mankind, without question.

Now the U.N. wants to stop 3rd world countries from using fossil fuels. But they too want to have access to cheap energy to build their economies. How can the U.N. stop them? By getting all of the develop economies to provide trillions of dollars to economic development for use of renewables. And they want the U.S. to pay, big time.

Fossil fuels are dirty and impose costs on the world. If we have 7.5 billion people using them then things are gonna be awful. The poor parts of the world are becoming less poor and in the process they're going to start using some kind of energy.

Yes, the developed world will (are) developing the new technologies and then the undeveloped world will use them. The undeveloped world can't devote resources to making renewable resources because they're too busy feeding themselves.

This is how it works with everything. People in poor countries skipped right over landlines and went straight to cell phones. The developed countries invented cell phones. Is it a bad thing that we invent technologies that help us and they end up helping poor people across the world in the process?

 

[op2]

Come on, you have to be smarter than this. Look at the counter argument, what would happen to our economy if our foreign energy supplies are cut off or destroyed, as they were under Carter? Do you know what the cost would be? The economic outcome could be catastrophic.

EXACTLY!!! We need oil so we spend a lot of money to keep it going. That is an OIL SUBSIDY!!! But it's in our best interest so we do it.

Know what else is in our best interest? Developing renewable energy technologies so that we world economy doesn't have to rely on a bunch of maniacs in an unstable part of the world.

 

[Keyser76]

EXACTLY!!! We need oil so we spend a lot of money to keep it going. That is an OIL SUBSIDY!!! But it's in our best interest so we do it.

Know what else is in our best interest? Developing renewable energy technologies so that we world economy doesn't have to rely on a bunch of maniacs in an unstable part of the world.

Actually I am pretty sure we are no longer dependent on foreign oil and are the biggest exporter these days.

 

[op2]

Actually I am pretty sure we are no longer dependent on foreign oil and are the biggest exporter these days.

So if oil stops flowing in the Middle East and there is a worldwide oil shortage do you think the price we pay for oil is going to be the same? "We" are the biggest exporter of oil these days? I don't know about you but I'm not on the board of Exxon. Companies are going to sell us the oil whether the oil is produced in the US or not. And when they sell it they're going to get as much as they can for it.

 

[WVPATX]

Fossil fuels are dirty and impose costs on the world. If we have 7.5 billion people using them then things are gonna be awful. The poor parts of the world are becoming less poor and in the process they're going to start using some kind of energy.

Yes, the developed world will (are) developing the new technologies and then the undeveloped world will use them. The undeveloped world can't devote resources to making renewable resources because they're too busy feeding themselves.

This is how it works with everything. People in poor countries skipped right over landlines and went straight to cell phones. The developed countries invented cell phones. Is it a bad thing that we invent technologies that help us and they end up helping poor people across the world in the process?

Your renewables are many, many years away from being efficient, effective and price competitive. Third world countries need that energy today, not 25 or 50 years from now. Cell phones are available today and the technology to use them is fairly cheap (cell towers, etc.). In fact, probably cheaper than what we first did with land lines. Renewable energy is no where close and won't be for many years.

So what does a 3rd world country do? They will demand payment to avoid cheap fossil fuels in return for using expensive renewables. Who is going to pay for that? You haven't yet answered that question.

 

[WVPATX]

So if oil stops flowing in the Middle East and there is a worldwide oil shortage do you think the price we pay for oil is going to be the same? "We" are the biggest exporter of oil these days? I don't know about you but I'm not on the board of Exxon. Companies are going to sell us the oil whether the oil is produced in the US or not. And when they sell it they're going to get as much as they can for it.

We are not the biggest exporter of Oil. The Saudi's are. We do have the largest reserves of oil in the world. Our reserves or gas and coal are extraordinary. We only recently got approval to start exporting oil again.

 

[Airport]

I agree but I find it suspicious that you we don't hear that from people until after the gov't start giving relatively small subsidies to solar for a few years after giving massive subsidies to fossil fuels for generations.

Fair taxation, that's been a huge problem, no depletion allowance, no subsidies at all for any energy source.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

I didn't read beyond their definition of "subsidy." Of course if you define "subsidy" however you like you can say that anything is or isn't subsidized.

Why have we spent so much military money for so long in the Middle East?

I have no doubt you selectively resource.

 

[moe]

Let the market rule but renewables are no where close to being price competitive. Maybe in 25 to 50 years, but not now.

lol

 

[op2]

We are not the biggest exporter of Oil. The Saudi's are. We do have the largest reserves of oil in the world. Our reserves or gas and coal are extraordinary. We only recently got approval to start exporting oil again.

"Our reserves of gas and coal?" "Our" is a strange word to use. I've yet to get a check in the mail from the gas and oil companies giving me a piece of their profits.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

"Our reserves of gas and coal?" "Our" is a strange word to use. I've yet to get a check in the mail from the gas and oil companies giving me a piece of their profits.

Think of your public assistance check as oil and gas dividends.

 

[op2]

Think of your public assistance check as oil and gas dividends.

The only people that get oil and gas dividends are those that own oil and gas stocks. IOW, the owners of the companies. That's why when someone refers to it as "our" oil and gas I wonder why they're saying "our."

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

The only people that get oil and gas dividends are those that own oil and gas stocks. IOW, the owners of the companies. That's why when someone refers to it as "our" oil and gas I wonder why they're saying "our."

It's very simple. Our = America's. Their = Saudi's.

 

[op2]

It's very simple. Our = America's. Their = Saudi's.

Since I have to pay for either one what difference does it make if it's "ours" or "theirs?"

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

Since I have to pay for either one what difference does it make if it's "ours" or "theirs?"

Commie.

 

[WVPATX]

"Our reserves of gas and coal?" "Our" is a strange word to use. I've yet to get a check in the mail from the gas and oil companies giving me a piece of their profits.

I have no idea what you're trying to say but companies are in the business to make profits. You sound very socialistic.

 

[WVPATX]

lol

Not sure why you're laughing, they are nowhere near price competitive.

 

[moe]

Not sure why you're laughing, they are nowhere near price competitive.

Low Costs of Solar Power & Wind Power Crush Coal, Crush Nuclear, & Beat Natural Gas
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/2...-cost-of-wind-power-coal-nuclear-natural-gas/https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/2...-cost-of-wind-power-coal-nuclear-natural-gas/

 

[WVPATX]

Nice try. You need to stop focusing on renewable sites. They don't tell you the whole story.

The Economist explainsWhy is renewable energy so expensive?

The Economist explains
Jan 5th 2014
by M.J.

MOST people agree that carbon emissions from power stations are a significant cause of climate change. These days a fiercer argument is over what to do about it. Many governments are pumping money into renewable sources of electricity, such as wind turbines, solar farms, hydroelectric and geothermal plants. But countries with large amounts of renewable generation, such as Denmark and Germany, face the highest energy prices in the rich world. In Britain electricity from wind farms costs twice as much as that from traditional sources; solar power is even more dear. What makes it so costly?

Enthusiasts have used wind turbines to generate electricity since the 1880s, but efforts to build very large wind farms started only in the late 1970s. Utility-scale solar and other renewable generation is more recent still. Despite the lure of government subsidies, there are still too few companies making renewable kit (almost all the wind turbines in British seas, as one example, are produced by a single firm). Supply-chain bottlenecks have frustrated governments scrabbling to install new renewable capacity. And compared with traditional power stations, renewable generators are cheap to run but costly to build, which makes them particularly vulnerable to changes in the cost of capital.

A more fundamental challenge is that renewable generators also impose costs on the wider electricity grid. The best sites are often far from big cities (on Scottish hillsides, French lakes or American deserts) which makes them expensive to connect. Many common types of renewable generators only produce power intermittently—when the sun shines or when the wind blows. Wind turbines, for example, spin only about a third of the time. That means countries which have a lot of renewable generation must still pay to maintain traditional kinds of power stations ready to fire up when demand peaks. And energy from these stations also becomes more expensive because they may not run at full-blast.

The high cost of renewable generators obstructs efforts to tackle climate change, even when governments dig deep to fund them. One danger is that sharp rises in energy prices will drive manufacturers to set up in less “green” countries, which might mean citizens end up consuming more carbon, through imports. Another worry is that governments will end up extending the life of dirty coal plants to serve as back-up when renewable generation is low—or when over-ambitious renewable roll-outs run out of steam. But for now the main consequence of high renewable costs is growing interest in controversial alternatives. The price of nuclear power has been rising for decades, but it still looks less expensive than many types of renewable generation. Gas-fired power stations are roughly half as polluting as coal-fired ones. Building more of them could provide a cheaper way for countries to cut emissions in the short term, and buy renewable operators time to bring their costs under control.

Germany To Abandon $1.1 Trillion Wind Power Program By 2019

ANDREW FOLLETT
Energy and Science Reporter
Electricity from new wind power is nearly four times as expensive as electricity from existing nuclear power plants, according to analysis from the Institute for Energy Research. The rising cost of subsidies is passed onto ordinary rate-payers, which has triggered complaints that poor households are subsidizing the affluent.

Germany plans to stop building new wind farms by 2019, gradually turning away from its $1.1 trillion wind power program, according to a Thursday report in Berliner Zeitung.

The government plans to cap the total amount of wind energy at 40 to 45 percent of national capacity, according to the report. By 2019, this policy would cause a massive reduction of 6,000 megawatts of wind power capacity compared to the end of 2015’s capacity.

“The domestic market for many [wind turbine] manufacturers collapses completely,” Julia Verlinden, a spokesperson for the German Green Party, told Berliner Zeitung. “With their plan, the federal government is killing the wind companies.” Verlinden goes on to blame the political influence of “old, fossil fuel power plants.”

Germany’s government, however, has been very supportive of wind power.

The government estimates that it will spend over $1.1 trillion financially supporting wind power, even though building wind turbines hasn’t achieved the government’s goal of actually reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Germany created lucrative subsidies and tax benefits for wind power in 2011 after it decided to abandon nuclear power entirely by 2022 following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. German utilities are already suing the government for $21 billion over the nuclear shutdown plan.

Electricity from new wind power is nearly four times as expensive as electricity from existing nuclear power plants, according to analysis from the Institute for Energy Research. The rising cost of subsidies is passed onto ordinary rate-payers, which has triggered complaints that poor households are subsidizing the affluent.

Nuclear power made up 29.5 percent of Germany’s energy in 2000 — in 2015, the share dropped down to 17 percent.

 

[atlkvb]

PatX is the type of person that claims an extreme ("100%") to make a useless point seem useful.

and of course the stuff you post is nothing but objective and unvarnished truth right Best Virginia? You read all of it too just to make sure it's totally balanced and factual eh?

 

[op2]

I have no idea what you're trying to say but companies are in the business to make profits. You sound very socialistic.

Why would you say that? I'm saying the opposite. The other person referring to the gas and oil and coal as "ours." As in, things will be okay on that front because "we" have a lot of gas and coal and oil.

If our country was Communist then it would be accurate to say "we" have the gas and coal and oil. But "we" don't have it. Instead, they (the gas and oil and coal companies) have it. So why refer to "we?"

It only makes sense to say "we" have it if you're part of the gas or oil or coal company. They are private business and "they" have it, not me.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

Why would you say that? I'm saying the opposite. The other person referring to the gas and oil and coal as "ours." As in, things will be okay on that front because "we" have a lot of gas and coal and oil.

If our country was Communist then it would be accurate to say "we" have the gas and coal and oil. But "we" don't have it. Instead, they (the gas and oil and coal companies) have it. So why refer to "we?"

It only makes sense to say "we" have it if you're part of the gas or oil or coal company. They are private business and "they" have it, not me.

I bet you pulled the wings off of wasps when you were a kid, didn’t you.