Currently, an agreement is under review to ensure that 70% of the Sphere’s power needs will come from solar sources, with the other 30% from non-renewable energy that will be offset by renewable energy credits.
Or are they? Some of the companies who are the best at it and seem to be genuinely trying have been shown not to be able to guarantee one way or the other.
“Wait, someone cut down that forest we planted?!” (no joke)
Just to be clear, renewable energy credits are different than carbon offsets, and easier to guarantee because they’re often tied directly to a metered renewable energy source.
That said, there are still junk RECs on the market, like those tied to energy that was produced up to 2 decades ago that nobody got around to claiming / retiring. Or RECs tied to energy sources that may have happened regardless of the REC sale.
Ohhh good point! Wanted to edit that into my comment there even, thank you.
The junk RE credits are really interesting. As is the “ha we were building that solar farm no matter what!” problem - reminds me of when that happens in… tax deductions I think.
Energy credits — what a bunch of vacuous rhetoric.
The reality is that it’s energy being taken away from the overall grid, requiring a larger grid and thus prolonging our dependence on non renewable energy while we build up renewable sources.
If we weren’t so wasteful with our energy we wouldn’t need as much of it and it’d be easier to go fully renewable.
Well this is not good math at all. If you create a project and offset all its power requirements, you haven’t added anything to the grid. The alternative is to not do stuff, which is not going to happen anytime soon*, so it’s a net good thing and needs to be incentivized, not disparaged.
*Well it will happen after the water wars and plagues wipe us out, and the sphere will stop drawing any energy at that point.
Ahh yes, energy credits. Aka bullshit.
Hey!
They’re not always BS. Just most of the time!
Or are they? Some of the companies who are the best at it and seem to be genuinely trying have been shown not to be able to guarantee one way or the other.
“Wait, someone cut down that forest we planted?!” (no joke)
Just to be clear, renewable energy credits are different than carbon offsets, and easier to guarantee because they’re often tied directly to a metered renewable energy source.
That said, there are still junk RECs on the market, like those tied to energy that was produced up to 2 decades ago that nobody got around to claiming / retiring. Or RECs tied to energy sources that may have happened regardless of the REC sale.
Ohhh good point! Wanted to edit that into my comment there even, thank you.
The junk RE credits are really interesting. As is the “ha we were building that solar farm no matter what!” problem - reminds me of when that happens in… tax deductions I think.
At least I understand forests that are replanted over and over to be used for lumber, effectively reducing the use of old lumber for myriad products.
Energy credits — what a bunch of vacuous rhetoric.
The reality is that it’s energy being taken away from the overall grid, requiring a larger grid and thus prolonging our dependence on non renewable energy while we build up renewable sources.
If we weren’t so wasteful with our energy we wouldn’t need as much of it and it’d be easier to go fully renewable.
Well this is not good math at all. If you create a project and offset all its power requirements, you haven’t added anything to the grid. The alternative is to not do stuff, which is not going to happen anytime soon*, so it’s a net good thing and needs to be incentivized, not disparaged.
*Well it will happen after the water wars and plagues wipe us out, and the sphere will stop drawing any energy at that point.
Consider ”hate credits”… like imagine the KKK can do whatever it wants so long as they claim to offset it with “hate credits”…
We shouldnt call them energy credits, but rather indulgences.
Somewhere in an ancient crypt, the bones of Luther begin to twitch to life…
We should call them FRAUD