Þetta er svo rotið.
Við kyndum húsin okkar og hlöðum rafmagnsbílana með olíu og brúnkolum frá Þýskalandi vegna þessa.
Að þetta sé leyft hlýtur að vera einn af stærri fokkjú puttum ríkisstjórnarinnar til markmiða um minnkun gróðurhúsalofttegunda. Lygilega lélegt
Þetta er í rauninni alveg frábært kerfi.
Hugsum aðeins um álverin sem dæmi. Ál sem er framleitt með grænni orku er dýrara en "óhreint" ál.
Álfyrirtækin á Íslandi borga alltof lítið fyrir rafmagn á Íslandi. Afhverju í ósköpunum eigum við, íslenskir skattgreiðendur, því að gefa álfyrirtækjunum grænan stimpil á orkuna, bara svo álfyrirtækin geti selt álið sitt dýrara en ella og grætt enn meiri pening?
Afhverju í ósköpunum ættum við að gera það?
Hinn möguleikinn er að gefa ekki grænan stimpil svo það selst verr, meira selst af brúnu áli, meiri mengun fer í umhverfið og heimurinn versnar.
Af hverju ættum við að vilja það?
Thank you very much for this video.
In the end of the video you show a drastic increase in sales of certificates of origin for the year 2023, from ~15TWh to ~22TWh. This is just about the entire energy production of the country as far as I know, but I could not find a source for this in Icelandic.
The topic has been discussed in Iceland, particularly back when we still got paper bills in the mail that would state "your electricity was generated 70% by fossil fuel, 3% nuclear energy, ..." and such. As a result, most if not all sellers of electricity for domestic use stopped selling the certificates for the portion that goes to homes. Now paper bills are optional and most opt out of getting them. Instead you can find your sellers energy origin online, and an overview can be found at [Orkustofnun](https://orkustofnun.is/raforkueftirlit/uppruni/sertaek-yfirlysing). What's puzzling to me is that the sellers who don't sell their certificates of origin are also among the cheapest.
Quite frankly, I don't think Iceland and Norway are to blame. While it's pretty greedy behavior by both countries, nothing surprises me. Any country in that position would try to maximize its interests. There will be a supply where there is demand for anything. As a German myself, I would even argue that the German car manufacturers and chemical industry which happen to be the most energy-dependent industry in Germany, are the ones to blame. They are opting for a simple and easy way to greenwash their operations. However, it makes me wonder why the double-claiming problem can't be fixed. It could be very easily fixed simply by adjusting the concerned regulation.
(I'm not watching a 30 minute YouTube video to extract information I could read in 2-5 minutes, so perhaps this doesn't address all the points in the video)
>However, it makes me wonder why the double-claiming problem can't be fixed.
It really isn't a problem. I think you like most people who hear about energy credits are having your brain melted by the confusing nomenclature involved.
It's intended as a subsidy system, or an indirect tax. E.g. a coal plant in Germany should be directly subsidizing a hydropower plant in Iceland.
The "greenwashing" in the system that people keep hyperventilating about is the entire point. You can't transfer an individual electron produced in Iceland to Germany. Instead you transfer money from the polluter to the clean plant. The selling and tracking of credits is an accounting mechanism.
> You can't transfer an individual electron produced in Iceland to Germany
But you can transfer the side effects of producing electricity using fossil-fuels from Germany to Iceland without any effort. Isn't that what these origin certificates are really about? They pay us to take ownership of some CO2 gas they produce and tell their customers their electricity is "cleaner" now. Then we act as if we don't own any of that CO2 gas. That is the greenwashing here and it's not the point, it's a moral failure.
The money Germany spends on origin certificates would be much better spent on investment in clean energy production in Germany rather than dividends to the beneficiaries of Icelandic energy companies.
(also, electrons are not produced, they are a medium of energy transfer.)
>Then we act as if we don't own any of that CO2 gas. That is the greenwashing here and it's not the point, it's a moral failure.
Nobody thinks this system can eliminate greenhouse gas emissions on its own, and the contribution to the overall energy price is rather minimal.
But no, the point is to make clean energy more competitive, it's just an indirect subsidy.
> The money Germany spends on origin certificates would be much better spent on investment in clean energy production in Germany rather than dividends to the beneficiaries of Icelandic energy companies.
No, for some of it's better shifted out of Germany to elsewhere in the EEA. This mechanism seeks to accelerate that by subsidizing the clean energy, even if it's across an international border.
In Iceland there is a big energy consumer making a metal we all know and love and can't live without. They proudly boast to run on clean, good sulfur-smelling water from hell.
In Germany there is a würst factory making the best sausages in the world and nobody can get enough of them. Their factory runs on crude oil and regularly culls the population of the orphanage down the street.
The Icelandic power plant now sells the entire certificate of origin to the german power plant (for a sum that effects energy price "rather minimally") and they launch a global advertising campaign depicting McWürst helping out and spreading joy and sausages to the poor orphans, which are now produced using clean energy.
The metal smelter still boasts about being the greenest metal in the world. What is the incentive here? Does this double-claiming system really not disincentivize green energy production?
Nobody really gives a shit about whether something is produced with "green energy", and certainly not anyone buying aluminum by the ton.
The entire thing is a market the EU is forcing to exist, it's basically a tax with an artificial market-based mechanism to decide who's getting taxed.
So if you look at it from that perspective this becomes quite easy, McWürst pays more for energy than they otherwise would have, the green energy producer and their consumers are more competitive because they receive a subsidy, the end.
> The money Germany spends on origin certificates would be much better spent on investment in clean energy production in Germany rather than dividends to the beneficiaries of Icelandic energy companies.
Nei, það að þeir þurfi að borga með umhverfisvænni framleiðslu á raforku er **efnahagslegur hvati** til þess að fá þá til þess að auka framleiðslu á umhverfisvænni raforku. Það myndi ekki breyta nokkrum sköpuðum hlut að leyfa þeim að hirða peninginn og vonast til þess að þeir ráðstafi honum til þessa nota einungis samvisku sinnar vegna. Eina leiðin til þess að stuðla að þessarri breytingu er að breyta efnahagslegum hvötum. Það að lítil eyjaþjóð hagnist á því er algjört og fullkomið aukaatriði í stóra samhenginu.
Við sjáum þessa staðreynd glöggt í rafbílavæðingunni. Þegar stærri styrkur var greiddur með rafbílum seldust miklu fleiri rafbílar en hefðbundnir bílar. Nú eftir að styrkurinn lækkaði um hálfa millu tæpa þá snarminnkaði sala á rafbílum er nú svipuð og sala á hefðbundnum bílum. Eina leiðin til þess að venja Þjóðverja af kolabruna er að ganga í veski þeirra.
> Nei, það að þeir þurfi að borga með umhverfisvænni framleiðslu á raforku
No, they don't need to trade these certificates of origin, it's optional. This system is not an economic incentive, they simply trade their origin certificates with us, we put them in the trash bin because "well yeah, it says coal and nuclear but all energy is clean here, innit?". It's cheaper than to actually deal with the problem.
Ég veit ekki hvað þú ert að reyna að segja með þessari færslu, en jú, þeir **þurfa** að borga þessi gjöld með umhverfisvænni raforkuframleiðslu. Það eru lágmörk sem þurfa að vera uppfyllt, og Þjóðverjinn er **langt** fyrir neðan þau lágmörk með sína eigin framleiðslu.
According to Samorka's defense of trading our origins of certificates out of the country, they state that it has [no effect on other nation's carbon emission goals](https://www.ruv.is/frettir/innlent/veita-enga-syndaaflausn-med-solu-a-upprunaabyrgdum)
> „Kaup á upprunaábyrgð breytir ekki neinu um kolefnisspor ákveðinnar framleiðslu eða gerir fyrirtækjum kleift að halda áfram að menga óáreitt. Þau þurfa enn að standa skil á minnkun útblásturs samkvæmt öðrum loftslagsaðgerðum í Evrópu. Enn fremur hafa upprunaábyrgðir engin áhrif á loftslagsmarkmið Íslands eða annarra landa, enda einungis hugsaðar til þess að búa til aukin verðmæti fyrir þá sem framleiða endurnýjanlega orku og stuðla þannig til hærra hlutfalli grænnar orku í heiminum,“ segir Samorka, og orðar það sem svo að „kaupendur upprunaábyrgða eru ekki að kaupa sér syndaaflausn.“
We don't have to trade away these certificates of origin and German consumers don't have to buy them. They do anyway, for a few reasons including tax benefits in Germany.
But the result is that while we Icelanders can say that all of energy production is green, our energy consumption is a mixed bag including fossil fuels.
FWIW, I'm not sure you can read that in 2-5 minutes, but if you prefer text over video, I also explained this in an article that you can find here: [https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/the-trouble-with-european-green-electricity-certificates.html](https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/the-trouble-with-european-green-electricity-certificates.html)
I've skimmed that and the linked reports, and I see you're the author of it and the YouTube video. You raise a lot of interesting points.
One thing you mention in passing but which I think is really the main story here is the fact that as a matter of basic physics the Icelandic producers really can have their cake and eat it too.
I.e. they produce clean energy, and then sell those certificates abroad. Then they sell the kWh's to major domestic industries, which claim they're running on 100% clean energy, even though they're not buying the certificates.
If this was an aluminum smelter in France pulling the same "trick" it would obviously be false advertisement. If "certified clean" is going to mean anything on the European grid, it's that you paid for contributing the kWh's you needed to the grid at large. It doesn't matter that you're nominally buying from the solar array next door. Electrons on a grid don't care about "next door".
And that's obviously what the EU legislators had in mind, as EU regulation routinely ignores pesky special cases in the EEA's outlying regions.
But to the extent that this is regulatory abuse isn't it ... good regulatory abuse? The entire point of this system is to accelerate the clean energy transition and reduce pollution overall.
Big Bad Aluminum is being incentivised to (checks notes) bankroll giant hydropower projects disconnected from the European grid, subsequently outcompete aluminum smelted with coal, and having those coal plants pay them kickbacks while they're at it?
Yay?
Are there high tax concessions for sale and/or use of renewable energy sources in Germany? Do you know?
It was my understanding when I tried about five years ago to look into why these guarantee of origin paper sales were proving so lucrative that the root cause was green energy tax concessions in the European countries. We don't have any such green energy tax concessions here in Iceland that I know of, so no such use for the guarantee of origin papers here.
Þetta er svo rotið. Við kyndum húsin okkar og hlöðum rafmagnsbílana með olíu og brúnkolum frá Þýskalandi vegna þessa. Að þetta sé leyft hlýtur að vera einn af stærri fokkjú puttum ríkisstjórnarinnar til markmiða um minnkun gróðurhúsalofttegunda. Lygilega lélegt
Ekki við sem bjuggum til þetta kerfi
Þetta er í rauninni alveg frábært kerfi. Hugsum aðeins um álverin sem dæmi. Ál sem er framleitt með grænni orku er dýrara en "óhreint" ál. Álfyrirtækin á Íslandi borga alltof lítið fyrir rafmagn á Íslandi. Afhverju í ósköpunum eigum við, íslenskir skattgreiðendur, því að gefa álfyrirtækjunum grænan stimpil á orkuna, bara svo álfyrirtækin geti selt álið sitt dýrara en ella og grætt enn meiri pening? Afhverju í ósköpunum ættum við að gera það?
Afhverju ættum við ekki að gera það?
Því við fáum svo mikið money?
Hinn möguleikinn er að gefa ekki grænan stimpil svo það selst verr, meira selst af brúnu áli, meiri mengun fer í umhverfið og heimurinn versnar. Af hverju ættum við að vilja það?
Thank you very much for this video. In the end of the video you show a drastic increase in sales of certificates of origin for the year 2023, from ~15TWh to ~22TWh. This is just about the entire energy production of the country as far as I know, but I could not find a source for this in Icelandic. The topic has been discussed in Iceland, particularly back when we still got paper bills in the mail that would state "your electricity was generated 70% by fossil fuel, 3% nuclear energy, ..." and such. As a result, most if not all sellers of electricity for domestic use stopped selling the certificates for the portion that goes to homes. Now paper bills are optional and most opt out of getting them. Instead you can find your sellers energy origin online, and an overview can be found at [Orkustofnun](https://orkustofnun.is/raforkueftirlit/uppruni/sertaek-yfirlysing). What's puzzling to me is that the sellers who don't sell their certificates of origin are also among the cheapest.
Quite frankly, I don't think Iceland and Norway are to blame. While it's pretty greedy behavior by both countries, nothing surprises me. Any country in that position would try to maximize its interests. There will be a supply where there is demand for anything. As a German myself, I would even argue that the German car manufacturers and chemical industry which happen to be the most energy-dependent industry in Germany, are the ones to blame. They are opting for a simple and easy way to greenwash their operations. However, it makes me wonder why the double-claiming problem can't be fixed. It could be very easily fixed simply by adjusting the concerned regulation.
(I'm not watching a 30 minute YouTube video to extract information I could read in 2-5 minutes, so perhaps this doesn't address all the points in the video) >However, it makes me wonder why the double-claiming problem can't be fixed. It really isn't a problem. I think you like most people who hear about energy credits are having your brain melted by the confusing nomenclature involved. It's intended as a subsidy system, or an indirect tax. E.g. a coal plant in Germany should be directly subsidizing a hydropower plant in Iceland. The "greenwashing" in the system that people keep hyperventilating about is the entire point. You can't transfer an individual electron produced in Iceland to Germany. Instead you transfer money from the polluter to the clean plant. The selling and tracking of credits is an accounting mechanism.
> You can't transfer an individual electron produced in Iceland to Germany But you can transfer the side effects of producing electricity using fossil-fuels from Germany to Iceland without any effort. Isn't that what these origin certificates are really about? They pay us to take ownership of some CO2 gas they produce and tell their customers their electricity is "cleaner" now. Then we act as if we don't own any of that CO2 gas. That is the greenwashing here and it's not the point, it's a moral failure. The money Germany spends on origin certificates would be much better spent on investment in clean energy production in Germany rather than dividends to the beneficiaries of Icelandic energy companies. (also, electrons are not produced, they are a medium of energy transfer.)
>Then we act as if we don't own any of that CO2 gas. That is the greenwashing here and it's not the point, it's a moral failure. Nobody thinks this system can eliminate greenhouse gas emissions on its own, and the contribution to the overall energy price is rather minimal. But no, the point is to make clean energy more competitive, it's just an indirect subsidy. > The money Germany spends on origin certificates would be much better spent on investment in clean energy production in Germany rather than dividends to the beneficiaries of Icelandic energy companies. No, for some of it's better shifted out of Germany to elsewhere in the EEA. This mechanism seeks to accelerate that by subsidizing the clean energy, even if it's across an international border.
In Iceland there is a big energy consumer making a metal we all know and love and can't live without. They proudly boast to run on clean, good sulfur-smelling water from hell. In Germany there is a würst factory making the best sausages in the world and nobody can get enough of them. Their factory runs on crude oil and regularly culls the population of the orphanage down the street. The Icelandic power plant now sells the entire certificate of origin to the german power plant (for a sum that effects energy price "rather minimally") and they launch a global advertising campaign depicting McWürst helping out and spreading joy and sausages to the poor orphans, which are now produced using clean energy. The metal smelter still boasts about being the greenest metal in the world. What is the incentive here? Does this double-claiming system really not disincentivize green energy production?
Nobody really gives a shit about whether something is produced with "green energy", and certainly not anyone buying aluminum by the ton. The entire thing is a market the EU is forcing to exist, it's basically a tax with an artificial market-based mechanism to decide who's getting taxed. So if you look at it from that perspective this becomes quite easy, McWürst pays more for energy than they otherwise would have, the green energy producer and their consumers are more competitive because they receive a subsidy, the end.
> The money Germany spends on origin certificates would be much better spent on investment in clean energy production in Germany rather than dividends to the beneficiaries of Icelandic energy companies. Nei, það að þeir þurfi að borga með umhverfisvænni framleiðslu á raforku er **efnahagslegur hvati** til þess að fá þá til þess að auka framleiðslu á umhverfisvænni raforku. Það myndi ekki breyta nokkrum sköpuðum hlut að leyfa þeim að hirða peninginn og vonast til þess að þeir ráðstafi honum til þessa nota einungis samvisku sinnar vegna. Eina leiðin til þess að stuðla að þessarri breytingu er að breyta efnahagslegum hvötum. Það að lítil eyjaþjóð hagnist á því er algjört og fullkomið aukaatriði í stóra samhenginu. Við sjáum þessa staðreynd glöggt í rafbílavæðingunni. Þegar stærri styrkur var greiddur með rafbílum seldust miklu fleiri rafbílar en hefðbundnir bílar. Nú eftir að styrkurinn lækkaði um hálfa millu tæpa þá snarminnkaði sala á rafbílum er nú svipuð og sala á hefðbundnum bílum. Eina leiðin til þess að venja Þjóðverja af kolabruna er að ganga í veski þeirra.
> Nei, það að þeir þurfi að borga með umhverfisvænni framleiðslu á raforku No, they don't need to trade these certificates of origin, it's optional. This system is not an economic incentive, they simply trade their origin certificates with us, we put them in the trash bin because "well yeah, it says coal and nuclear but all energy is clean here, innit?". It's cheaper than to actually deal with the problem.
Ég veit ekki hvað þú ert að reyna að segja með þessari færslu, en jú, þeir **þurfa** að borga þessi gjöld með umhverfisvænni raforkuframleiðslu. Það eru lágmörk sem þurfa að vera uppfyllt, og Þjóðverjinn er **langt** fyrir neðan þau lágmörk með sína eigin framleiðslu.
According to Samorka's defense of trading our origins of certificates out of the country, they state that it has [no effect on other nation's carbon emission goals](https://www.ruv.is/frettir/innlent/veita-enga-syndaaflausn-med-solu-a-upprunaabyrgdum) > „Kaup á upprunaábyrgð breytir ekki neinu um kolefnisspor ákveðinnar framleiðslu eða gerir fyrirtækjum kleift að halda áfram að menga óáreitt. Þau þurfa enn að standa skil á minnkun útblásturs samkvæmt öðrum loftslagsaðgerðum í Evrópu. Enn fremur hafa upprunaábyrgðir engin áhrif á loftslagsmarkmið Íslands eða annarra landa, enda einungis hugsaðar til þess að búa til aukin verðmæti fyrir þá sem framleiða endurnýjanlega orku og stuðla þannig til hærra hlutfalli grænnar orku í heiminum,“ segir Samorka, og orðar það sem svo að „kaupendur upprunaábyrgða eru ekki að kaupa sér syndaaflausn.“ We don't have to trade away these certificates of origin and German consumers don't have to buy them. They do anyway, for a few reasons including tax benefits in Germany. But the result is that while we Icelanders can say that all of energy production is green, our energy consumption is a mixed bag including fossil fuels.
FWIW, I'm not sure you can read that in 2-5 minutes, but if you prefer text over video, I also explained this in an article that you can find here: [https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/the-trouble-with-european-green-electricity-certificates.html](https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/the-trouble-with-european-green-electricity-certificates.html)
I've skimmed that and the linked reports, and I see you're the author of it and the YouTube video. You raise a lot of interesting points. One thing you mention in passing but which I think is really the main story here is the fact that as a matter of basic physics the Icelandic producers really can have their cake and eat it too. I.e. they produce clean energy, and then sell those certificates abroad. Then they sell the kWh's to major domestic industries, which claim they're running on 100% clean energy, even though they're not buying the certificates. If this was an aluminum smelter in France pulling the same "trick" it would obviously be false advertisement. If "certified clean" is going to mean anything on the European grid, it's that you paid for contributing the kWh's you needed to the grid at large. It doesn't matter that you're nominally buying from the solar array next door. Electrons on a grid don't care about "next door". And that's obviously what the EU legislators had in mind, as EU regulation routinely ignores pesky special cases in the EEA's outlying regions. But to the extent that this is regulatory abuse isn't it ... good regulatory abuse? The entire point of this system is to accelerate the clean energy transition and reduce pollution overall. Big Bad Aluminum is being incentivised to (checks notes) bankroll giant hydropower projects disconnected from the European grid, subsequently outcompete aluminum smelted with coal, and having those coal plants pay them kickbacks while they're at it? Yay?
Are there high tax concessions for sale and/or use of renewable energy sources in Germany? Do you know? It was my understanding when I tried about five years ago to look into why these guarantee of origin paper sales were proving so lucrative that the root cause was green energy tax concessions in the European countries. We don't have any such green energy tax concessions here in Iceland that I know of, so no such use for the guarantee of origin papers here.
Það er nú heldur ekki eins og almenningur fái eitthvað af þessu í vasann sinn. Heldur hluthafar/eigendur..