3 ms·

If you're looking for an alternative to the (very problematic) carbon offset (CO), check out Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). COs are designed to incentives red

If you're looking for an alternative to the (very problematic) carbon offset (CO), check out Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). COs are designed to incentives reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, but verification and traceability problems make it hard for them to achieve that goal. RECs are designed to incentivize the construction of renewable energy based power plants. They're easier to monitor because verification is handled by grid operators checking the number on the meter. We (Jasmine (YC-S22)) (https://www.jasmine.energy/ https://www.jasmine.energy/) are building a RECs exchange. Governments handle REC verification. We handle liquidity, efficiency, and traceability.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Though ironically, this is exactly what is being attacked by the article. They're arguing that giving money to renewables producers should only be done, if the renewable wouldn't otherwise be a viable business, and that some credits are from older renewable energy projects that got grandfathered in, before the offset organisations decided that they could spend their money more effectively elsewhere since the renewables would get built anyway.
- tdaltonc 4y ago
  The UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is very different from Renewable Energy Certificate programs. CDM project, as a type off Carbon Offset, are supposed to be targeted have "additionality," meaning, as you said, that the project wouldn't exist if not for the subsidy. RECs are supposed to be universal because they're about tracking the production/consumption of all renewable energy on the grid. That universality makes fraud much harder.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Unbundled RECs have the exact same "additionality" issue, and I'm assuming if you're creating a market for all renewable energy on the grid, you are talking about unbundled RECs. This quote on your site appears to confirm that: > Most generators don't know they are accruing valuable credits they can sell. If you are a generator selling these credits you could off-set the cost of your system.
    - ericd 4y ago
      Yeah, that quote means that the person who didn't know about them will likely not realize that when they sell them, they're essentially no longer using renewable energy themselves.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Though ironically, this is exactly what is being attacked by the article. They're arguing that giving money to renewables producers should only be done, if the renewable wouldn't otherwise be a viable business, and that some credits are from older renewable energy projects that got grandfathered in, before the offset organisations decided that they could spend their money more effectively elsewhere since the renewables would get built anyway.

tdaltonc 4y ago
The UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is very different from Renewable Energy Certificate programs. CDM project, as a type off Carbon Offset, are supposed to be targeted have "additionality," meaning, as you said, that the project wouldn't exist if not for the subsidy. RECs are supposed to be universal because they're about tracking the production/consumption of all renewable energy on the grid. That universality makes fraud much harder.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Unbundled RECs have the exact same "additionality" issue, and I'm assuming if you're creating a market for all renewable energy on the grid, you are talking about unbundled RECs. This quote on your site appears to confirm that: > Most generators don't know they are accruing valuable credits they can sell. If you are a generator selling these credits you could off-set the cost of your system.
  - ericd 4y ago
    Yeah, that quote means that the person who didn't know about them will likely not realize that when they sell them, they're essentially no longer using renewable energy themselves.