This seems ridiculously counter-intuitive, which is why I'm posting about it. Move it to chat if you don't think it's an issue, but I feel it warrants discussion.
Basically, the concept that "green industry uses more power which creates more pollution BUT they reduce pollution faster" doesn't sound right when I say it. If it was "green industry needs more power to run their environmental bullshittery and thus needs a windmill to function better", I think this would be a little bit better. Shut down the academy to power your green industry, etc etc.
Essentially, producing energy using greener sources generally results in lower ROI.
This may not be true in the future, fingers crossed, but for the purposes of current technology and game balance, it translates to higher power for a green industry based on the greater efforts needed to procure the same amount of power.
I find it acceptably intuitive and I will go ahead and move this to chat, though I condone further discussion.
Last Edit: Jun 8, 2012 22:21:55 GMT -5 by Rasteroid
I can grok that explanation of it, but I think the concept of increasing pollution does not quite jibe. I think the problem is laying within the way power is currently executed, rather than how Green economy is interacting with power/pollution.
If Power were a resource that had to be consumed for things to operate, IE, your battle mine generates x power (1, 2, etc), the Academy uses one of that and generates a pollution in doing so, the Refinery uses another, generates a pollution. If Green industry reduced the power generated by the battle mine by taking it off at source, something can't run instead. It might be balanced currently since Windmills are decently high up the tech tree, but I also stopped playing techmonger and went warfare routing, so someone else might have a different perspective.