▲ | p1mrx 3 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Were they buying time-independent blocks of carbon-free power, or 24/7 carbon-free power? The latter is significantly more difficult. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | jltsiren 3 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
24/7. There was enough hydro and nuclear in the grid, and even more in the connected grids in Norway and Sweden. Most of the time, carbon-free power was no more expensive than generic power, which emphasized how meaningless the entire idea was. It was a byproduct of the EU habit to create markets and competition where they don't naturally exist. You can buy electricity from any power company, and that company can then generate it itself or buy it from the market. Once you have a market like that, it's easy to add requirements such as carbon-free power. As long as the fraction of the market buying indulgences is lower than the share of the power generation meeting the requirements, fulfilling them is essentially free. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|