3 ms·

Interesting - can you elaborate on this?

• bombcar 4y ago
  The idea is that you're selling your SRECs to someone (say a coal-powered bitcoin miner) so they can offset the pollution they're doing and not have to build their own controls. The argument is that if you did NOT sell, they would have to solve the problem some other way. Just like if Tesla didn't sell electric vehicle credits to other manufacturers, those companies would have to find other solutions to comply.
  • 1123581321 4y ago
    SREC mandates are used to achieve a percentage of renewable generation, not an emissions quantity.
    • bombcar 4y ago
      It works out the same, someone doesn't have to build solar that would otherwise have to if the homeowners give them their credits.
      • 1123581321 4y ago
        Yes, the end result is that energy generated in the state is sufficiently renewable per the government mandate, with homes contributing to it where it makes more financial sense than building greenfield solar or wind. In states where total demand is falling, conventional fuel plants are also likely able to be closed.
        • bombcar 4y ago
          I think the OP's point is that it would be MORE renewable if the homeowners sat on their credits.
          • 1123581321 4y ago
            Yes, I can see that, but that would have to be balanced against the lower number of installations due to the higher costs to the homeowners. For many people, the payback period would be too long without the credits. As solar becomes less expensive, these programs will cease to exist, and already don't exist in many sunny states.
      • nostrademons 4y ago
        Only if your base assumption is that everyone has to build solar, or would otherwise do it out of the goodness of their heart. If your base assumption is that nobody is going to lift a finger for the common good, than the purpose of SRECs is so that a polluting Bitcoin miner pays you to put solar panels on your home, so that you get some good out of it and we don't all have an incentive to be polluting Bitcoin miners. People who believe that everyone will naturally do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts are often nicer to be around, but tend to get screwed by their inaccurate view of reality.
  • don-code 4y ago
    While you're definitely not wrong, there are probably better vehicles for home energy users to meaningfully affect emissions. I make ~7 SRECs (7MWh) per year, and assuming I'm average, it'd take close to 100 homes not selling their SRECs for one year to offset an average coal plant for just one hour (http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/igcc/factsheet-long.pdf http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/igcc/factsheet-long.pdf says the average coal plant puts out 667MW). My state doesn't have time-of-use based pricing, but I do see this as one particularly effective way of shifting load (not installed capacity!) towards more emissions-friendly sources. The sun shines on home solar panels while we're not home; then absent any other incentives, we come home in the dark and do all sorts of energy-intense activities, like heating rooms and cooking dinner.