6 ms·

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

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.
    - belorn 7y ago

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.
  - belorn 7y ago