4 ms·

A bit of a sideline, but I'm inclined to agree that simply counting renewable energy produced as carbon neutral isn't right. I'm not even thinking of the emissi

A bit of a sideline, but I'm inclined to agree that simply counting renewable energy produced as carbon neutral isn't right. I'm not even thinking of the emissions incurred in constructing e.g. solar plants. Energy is a liquid market, any consumption takes up a part of the total production of the relevant area, and it's the average emissions in that area we should be concerned with, IMO. It's probably not quite so cut-and dried. A gigafactory building solar to produce it's own energy certainly seems like it should get a steep discount in emissions. But where do we draw the line? I buy wind power. Does that mean it no longer matters how much power I use? That doesn't seem reasonable, either.

jarvist 8y ago
If you want to be more environmental, use power when the current carbon intensity of the grid is low. Effectively you are then providing demand-side management to reduce overall carbon dioxide production. https://carbonintensity.org.uk/ https://carbonintensity.org.uk/
- mhandley 8y ago
  What you really want to know is what the marginal carbon intensity is. In other words, if I add demand now, what form of generation will supply that additional demand? This is somewhat different from what the current mean carbon intensity is.
  - ZeroGravitas 8y ago
    That's what this API provides: https://api.watttime.org https://api.watttime.org
benj111 8y ago
Its a choice how people decide to account for it yes, the correct answer probably depends on the situation. If electricity supplied to the grid is 50% wind, and 50% coal. You could sell 50% of your customers 100% green electricity, or sell 50% green electricity to all of your customers. The former allows customer to put their money where their mouth is, and directly support the green energy build out. The latter may be more suitable for govt mandated targets. The only thing that's unreasonable is counting green electricity twice.
- ZeroGravitas 8y ago
  Note the former doesn't fully allow customers to put their money where their mouth is, since a great deal of their electricity/power will be used indirectly. So voting for government mandates will ensure that the companies they buy from are using clean power even if they are suppliers to suppliers to suppliers and so not directly influenceable via consumer action.

jarvist 8y ago

If you want to be more environmental, use power when the current carbon intensity of the grid is low. Effectively you are then providing demand-side management to reduce overall carbon dioxide production. https://carbonintensity.org.uk/ https://carbonintensity.org.uk/

mhandley 8y ago
What you really want to know is what the marginal carbon intensity is. In other words, if I add demand now, what form of generation will supply that additional demand? This is somewhat different from what the current mean carbon intensity is.
- ZeroGravitas 8y ago
  That's what this API provides: https://api.watttime.org https://api.watttime.org

benj111 8y ago

Its a choice how people decide to account for it yes, the correct answer probably depends on the situation. If electricity supplied to the grid is 50% wind, and 50% coal. You could sell 50% of your customers 100% green electricity, or sell 50% green electricity to all of your customers. The former allows customer to put their money where their mouth is, and directly support the green energy build out. The latter may be more suitable for govt mandated targets. The only thing that's unreasonable is counting green electricity twice.

ZeroGravitas 8y ago
Note the former doesn't fully allow customers to put their money where their mouth is, since a great deal of their electricity/power will be used indirectly. So voting for government mandates will ensure that the companies they buy from are using clean power even if they are suppliers to suppliers to suppliers and so not directly influenceable via consumer action.