4 ms·

The current energy discussion in Swedish politics is Green vs Nuclear. No one is discussing a stop for burning fossil fuels in power plants or banning the impor

by belorn 7y ago

The current energy discussion in Swedish politics is Green vs Nuclear. No one is discussing a stop for burning fossil fuels in power plants or banning the import of coal/NG energy from neighbors. Not even a suggestion from the green party at a total stop. Instead we get a bunch of political tricks. If we export more green energy than we import coal energy then we can pretend that that the coal did not actually get released into the air as pollution. We plant trees and talk about carbon capture, and then we discretely cut it down and turn it into biomass fuel and call it carbon neutral. Somehow that turn into negative carbon, while at the same time the old coal power plants can be reused to burn biomass and natural gas. In the latest political debate the green party representative came with this great comeback. People who want to reduce global warming with nuclear are wrong because that side want to lower taxes on gasoline. Thus nuclear is bad. I would like to think that this is isolated to the Swedish green party but somehow I doubt it. No one want to talk about a complete ban on burning fossil fuels for power. I don't have much hope with nuclear advocates, but the current data is hard to dismiss. Looking at EU the lowest gCO2eq/kWh emitting energy grids are Norway, Sweden, Iceland and France. Norway has more hydro than they need. Iceland got plenty of hydro and geothermal. Sweden got nuclear and hydro. France got nuclear. Every other energy grid in EU, regardless of political alignment, is dirtier. Even Denmark with it amazing investment into wind is at this moment (https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=DK-DK1 https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&rem...) 400% more polluting than Sweden.

nothrabannosir 7y ago
Norway sells most of their green energy and buys fossil fuel energy in return. 98% of their energy production is renewables, but only 9% of their consumption is. A solid 58% of their consumption comes from fossil fuels. Source: Norway’s department of energy. https://www.nve.no/energiforsyning/varedeklarasjon/nasjonal-varedeklarasjon-2018/ https://www.nve.no/energiforsyning/varedeklarasjon/nasjonal-... This isn’t just accounting pedantry: the countries they sell their renewables to use those, to (rightfully) claim green energy consumption. Norway then does the same, but based on their production. Reminiscent of the expression “success has many parents, but failure is an orphan.”
- avar 7y ago
  That's how it's supposed to work. A country like Norway producing 100% green energy and having 100% coal or other non-renewables on the books is the system working as designed. It means that countries who actually use non-renewables to power their grid effectively subsidize the Norwegian energy market and pay a fine for their own use. It's amazing how common the misconception that this is somehow nefarious is. I encourage you to read up on some of the published material about energy certificates, certificates of origin etc.
  - nothrabannosir 7y ago
    The issue isn’t green energy production and resale, but double counting of credits. Multiple players claiming “green energy” (leaving out whether it’s production or consumption), while none take responsibility for the fossil fuels. Energy is fungible, meaning they only sell the credits and use the green power internally. Now suddenly they use originally “green” power, never mind that the credits have been sold and someone else is doing the same. Google “Norway green energy” to get a feel for what it looks like in the media. There is no need for them to sell many of those credits, as evidenced by the fact that they don’t even transfer much of that power. Don’t forget that they lower that penalty by increasing supply. If they went off the market, other, domestic players would get more money for their own production. And Norwegians are lulled into a false sense of green compliance, thereby being less incentivised to root for reduction of fossil fuel consumption. It’s a great example for the expression “having your cake and eating it, too.” If you ever need to explain that one :)
    - avar 7y ago
      Respectfully, you're continuing to entirely misunderstand how this works. There isn't double-counting, that's the entire point of the system where "green" producers end up with "dirty" credits, because a "dirty" pays that "green" provider to take its credits in exchange, to prevent double counting. But the notion of which sort of credit you buy and what sort of energy you actually produce are two separate things. As an example Iceland is exempt from certain EU/EEA energy efficiency regulation because of its near-100% use of green energy, even though its power companies have something like >80% "dirty" energy credits on hand. This is because the regulators can distinguish between a "dirty" power plant with 100% green credits on hand (i.e. they've subsidized a "green" power plant) v.s. a "green" power plant with 100% green credits on hand. > There is no need for them to sell > many of those credits, as evidenced > by the fact that they don’t even transfer > much of that power. I think this is the crux of the issue and shows just how thoroughly you're missing the point of this system. The electron that comes through your socket doesn't need to be generated by a "green" power plant for you to consume "green" energy, this is because electrons are fungible. Of course we also want to shift to 100% green energy power plants, but in the meantime energy demand is also elastic. The point of the energy credit system is to shift electricity demand from areas that supply real "dirty" energy to those that supply "real" green energy. This happens because a "green" power plant in Norway might sell its energy for 20 cents/kWh, which would be the same as a "dirty" power plant in Denmark. But if the "dirty" plant needs to buy "green" credits from the Norwegian one it might have to raise its prices to 25 cents/kWh, and the Norwegian one can lower them to 15 cents/kWh. This would then have the effect that an energy consumer (say a factory) might move its operation to Norway to benefit from cheaper energy, or consumers would buy the subsidized Norwegian product over the Danish one. Except for the small detail that it doesn't actually have much of an effect from a macro-economic point of view, but that's because we collectively think this whole climate change thing isn't really all that important, and thus the energy credits are relatively cheap and add almost nothing to the end-user price. But that's the fault of political priorities, the system itself is relatively elegant and would have more of an effect if its designed was backed up by larger political commitments.
strainer 7y ago
>If we export more green energy than we import coal energy then we can pretend that that the coal did not actually get released into the air as pollution. That exchange is plainly not carbon neutral. Exporting green energy does usually contribute to reducing fossil fuel usage at destination - that cant reasonably be denied. It sounds like you believe the figures are being officially "double counted". But I'm quite doubtful that international agreements really allow for such plain mis-accounting , the idea more likely comes from the kind of confused climate skeptic literature, which imagines that climate science and whole green energy movement is a scam. > We plant trees and talk about carbon capture, and then we discretely cut it down and turn it into biomass fuel and call it carbon neutral. That is plainly carbon neutral. If you plant and grow trees sustainably, cut them down and burn them, it is absolutely carbon neutral. It can even be carbon negative as rootmass is left to build soil, and benefit wildlife too - depends on how intelligently its done. If you phrase your statement more succinctly its easier to see the plain sense in it: > We plant trees ... and then we ... turn it into biomass fuel and call it carbon neutral. In a bit more detail: Grow trees and turn them into fuel - that's carbon negative. Burn the fuel - that's carbon positive. Do both together - that's carbon neutral. Perfectly elementary really \"/
- bluesign 7y ago
  I think OP means by "We plant trees and talk about carbon capture", to offset some another carbon positive activity, trees are planted, then they are turned in to fuel, which in the end makes total system carbon positive. This is the "double counted" part.
  - strainer 7y ago
    In the first quote yes, but who is really doing that talking and double counting? I suspect some strawpersons. In the second quote the op is clearly complaining that schemes growing trees and burning them for fuel cant be carbon neutral, which is plainly false.
- belorn 7y ago
  > the idea more likely comes from the kind of confused climate skeptic literature https://www.svtplay.se/video/23437510/agenda/agenda-18-nov-23-45?start=auto https://www.svtplay.se/video/23437510/agenda/agenda-18-nov-2... Political debate from 2 weeks ago. Green party spoke person vs moderate party leader. It beings at 35m. The moderate describe multiple times that Sweden buys dirty coal energy when the wind is now blowing, and the green party spoke person repeats the argument of being net exporter of green energy in response. > It can even be carbon negative as rootmass is left to build soil Areas where we plant tree and don't cut them down has a name: nature sanctuary. There has been plenty of initiatives to plant trees in order to create official carbon sinks on the books, so how many of those are nature sanctuary? > It can even be carbon negative as rootmass is left to build soil, and benefit wildlife too https://www.forskning.se/2019/09/20/tradplantering-ingen-universallosning-for-klimatet/ https://www.forskning.se/2019/09/20/tradplantering-ingen-uni... https://www.svd.se/plantera-trad-loser-inte-klimatproblemen https://www.svd.se/plantera-trad-loser-inte-klimatproblemen Counting tree planting initiatives as carbon sinks when there is no planning for what happens afterward is simply wishful thinking (quote from the study). Criticism of the green movement is not automatically climate skepticism. How many climate skeptics want a complete ban of power generated from fossil fuels in the energy grid? If the green movement just would adapt that stance then I would not care. If people want to use other technologies in a non-fossil fueled world then good, just as priority one is a non-fossil fueled world. Sweden could adapt a ban on fossil fuel produced energy tomorrow and it would mostly only be a bit more expensive (some infrastructure to Norway might be needed in order handle still winter nights).
merb 7y ago
btw. the map data is from 2014. the last 4-5 years basically changed a lot.

by belorn 7y ago

nothrabannosir 7y ago

Norway sells most of their green energy and buys fossil fuel energy in return. 98% of their energy production is renewables, but only 9% of their consumption is. A solid 58% of their consumption comes from fossil fuels. Source: Norway’s department of energy. https://www.nve.no/energiforsyning/varedeklarasjon/nasjonal-varedeklarasjon-2018/ https://www.nve.no/energiforsyning/varedeklarasjon/nasjonal-... This isn’t just accounting pedantry: the countries they sell their renewables to use those, to (rightfully) claim green energy consumption. Norway then does the same, but based on their production. Reminiscent of the expression “success has many parents, but failure is an orphan.”

avar 7y ago
That's how it's supposed to work. A country like Norway producing 100% green energy and having 100% coal or other non-renewables on the books is the system working as designed. It means that countries who actually use non-renewables to power their grid effectively subsidize the Norwegian energy market and pay a fine for their own use. It's amazing how common the misconception that this is somehow nefarious is. I encourage you to read up on some of the published material about energy certificates, certificates of origin etc.
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  The issue isn’t green energy production and resale, but double counting of credits. Multiple players claiming “green energy” (leaving out whether it’s production or consumption), while none take responsibility for the fossil fuels. Energy is fungible, meaning they only sell the credits and use the green power internally. Now suddenly they use originally “green” power, never mind that the credits have been sold and someone else is doing the same. Google “Norway green energy” to get a feel for what it looks like in the media. There is no need for them to sell many of those credits, as evidenced by the fact that they don’t even transfer much of that power. Don’t forget that they lower that penalty by increasing supply. If they went off the market, other, domestic players would get more money for their own production. And Norwegians are lulled into a false sense of green compliance, thereby being less incentivised to root for reduction of fossil fuel consumption. It’s a great example for the expression “having your cake and eating it, too.” If you ever need to explain that one :)
  - avar 7y ago
    Respectfully, you're continuing to entirely misunderstand how this works. There isn't double-counting, that's the entire point of the system where "green" producers end up with "dirty" credits, because a "dirty" pays that "green" provider to take its credits in exchange, to prevent double counting. But the notion of which sort of credit you buy and what sort of energy you actually produce are two separate things. As an example Iceland is exempt from certain EU/EEA energy efficiency regulation because of its near-100% use of green energy, even though its power companies have something like >80% "dirty" energy credits on hand. This is because the regulators can distinguish between a "dirty" power plant with 100% green credits on hand (i.e. they've subsidized a "green" power plant) v.s. a "green" power plant with 100% green credits on hand. > There is no need for them to sell > many of those credits, as evidenced > by the fact that they don’t even transfer > much of that power. I think this is the crux of the issue and shows just how thoroughly you're missing the point of this system. The electron that comes through your socket doesn't need to be generated by a "green" power plant for you to consume "green" energy, this is because electrons are fungible. Of course we also want to shift to 100% green energy power plants, but in the meantime energy demand is also elastic. The point of the energy credit system is to shift electricity demand from areas that supply real "dirty" energy to those that supply "real" green energy. This happens because a "green" power plant in Norway might sell its energy for 20 cents/kWh, which would be the same as a "dirty" power plant in Denmark. But if the "dirty" plant needs to buy "green" credits from the Norwegian one it might have to raise its prices to 25 cents/kWh, and the Norwegian one can lower them to 15 cents/kWh. This would then have the effect that an energy consumer (say a factory) might move its operation to Norway to benefit from cheaper energy, or consumers would buy the subsidized Norwegian product over the Danish one. Except for the small detail that it doesn't actually have much of an effect from a macro-economic point of view, but that's because we collectively think this whole climate change thing isn't really all that important, and thus the energy credits are relatively cheap and add almost nothing to the end-user price. But that's the fault of political priorities, the system itself is relatively elegant and would have more of an effect if its designed was backed up by larger political commitments.

strainer 7y ago

>If we export more green energy than we import coal energy then we can pretend that that the coal did not actually get released into the air as pollution. That exchange is plainly not carbon neutral. Exporting green energy does usually contribute to reducing fossil fuel usage at destination - that cant reasonably be denied. It sounds like you believe the figures are being officially "double counted". But I'm quite doubtful that international agreements really allow for such plain mis-accounting , the idea more likely comes from the kind of confused climate skeptic literature, which imagines that climate science and whole green energy movement is a scam. > We plant trees and talk about carbon capture, and then we discretely cut it down and turn it into biomass fuel and call it carbon neutral. That is plainly carbon neutral. If you plant and grow trees sustainably, cut them down and burn them, it is absolutely carbon neutral. It can even be carbon negative as rootmass is left to build soil, and benefit wildlife too - depends on how intelligently its done. If you phrase your statement more succinctly its easier to see the plain sense in it: > We plant trees ... and then we ... turn it into biomass fuel and call it carbon neutral. In a bit more detail: Grow trees and turn them into fuel - that's carbon negative. Burn the fuel - that's carbon positive. Do both together - that's carbon neutral. Perfectly elementary really \"/

bluesign 7y ago
I think OP means by "We plant trees and talk about carbon capture", to offset some another carbon positive activity, trees are planted, then they are turned in to fuel, which in the end makes total system carbon positive. This is the "double counted" part.
- strainer 7y ago
  In the first quote yes, but who is really doing that talking and double counting? I suspect some strawpersons. In the second quote the op is clearly complaining that schemes growing trees and burning them for fuel cant be carbon neutral, which is plainly false.
belorn 7y ago
> the idea more likely comes from the kind of confused climate skeptic literature https://www.svtplay.se/video/23437510/agenda/agenda-18-nov-23-45?start=auto https://www.svtplay.se/video/23437510/agenda/agenda-18-nov-2... Political debate from 2 weeks ago. Green party spoke person vs moderate party leader. It beings at 35m. The moderate describe multiple times that Sweden buys dirty coal energy when the wind is now blowing, and the green party spoke person repeats the argument of being net exporter of green energy in response. > It can even be carbon negative as rootmass is left to build soil Areas where we plant tree and don't cut them down has a name: nature sanctuary. There has been plenty of initiatives to plant trees in order to create official carbon sinks on the books, so how many of those are nature sanctuary? > It can even be carbon negative as rootmass is left to build soil, and benefit wildlife too https://www.forskning.se/2019/09/20/tradplantering-ingen-universallosning-for-klimatet/ https://www.forskning.se/2019/09/20/tradplantering-ingen-uni... https://www.svd.se/plantera-trad-loser-inte-klimatproblemen https://www.svd.se/plantera-trad-loser-inte-klimatproblemen Counting tree planting initiatives as carbon sinks when there is no planning for what happens afterward is simply wishful thinking (quote from the study). Criticism of the green movement is not automatically climate skepticism. How many climate skeptics want a complete ban of power generated from fossil fuels in the energy grid? If the green movement just would adapt that stance then I would not care. If people want to use other technologies in a non-fossil fueled world then good, just as priority one is a non-fossil fueled world. Sweden could adapt a ban on fossil fuel produced energy tomorrow and it would mostly only be a bit more expensive (some infrastructure to Norway might be needed in order handle still winter nights).

merb 7y ago

btw. the map data is from 2014. the last 4-5 years basically changed a lot.