In a push for a cleaner planet, companies are trying hard to cut down on their carbon footprints by turning to clean energy sources.
They hope to balance out the pollution caused by using energy from fossil fuels, which is still very common today.
However, not all efforts to buy clean energy are making the difference they hoped for, according to a study led by researchers at Princeton University.
Their research, published in the journal Joule, points out that there’s a particular way of buying clean energy that could really help reduce carbon emissions significantly.
The most effective method they found is called temporal matching, or buying clean energy every hour to directly match when a company is using energy.
This approach is unique because it makes sure that the clean energy a company uses lines up with the actual time they’re consuming energy, rather than just buying a year’s worth of clean energy all at once without considering when it’s needed.
This hourly matching strategy was the only one that really helped lower overall emissions, according to the Princeton team’s study.
Currently, the most popular way companies try to go green is by annual matching—calculating their energy use over a year and then buying enough clean energy to cover that amount.
But the study shows that this method doesn’t do much to reduce long-term carbon emissions in the U.S. It’s almost like saying you’re dieting by eating a bunch of vegetables once a year instead of balancing your meals every day.
The importance of accurate emissions reporting is growing, with laws like one passed in California in 2023 that requires big companies to report all their emissions, including those from the energy they buy. This means companies can’t just make claims about being green without showing real proof.
Another method tried by companies is emission matching, where they buy clean energy based on the amount of carbon their electricity use emits. But this strategy, just like annual matching, doesn’t significantly cut down long-term emissions either.
The problem with these approaches is that they don’t consider the changing energy landscape, where clean energy sources like solar and wind are becoming cheaper and more common, often replacing other clean energy projects rather than fossil fuels.
The study also highlights how the decline in costs for clean energy technologies, helped by policy support and early buyers, has made solar and wind energy some of the most cost-effective options.
This is great for the growth of renewable energy but makes it harder to measure the impact of new clean energy purchases by companies, as many of these projects would have been built anyway due to their low costs.
Temporal matching, though more expensive than other methods, effectively tackles the issue of matching clean energy production with actual consumption, including times when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.
This approach encourages investment not just in wind and solar, but also in energy storage and other clean technologies needed for a truly decarbonized energy grid.
While the other methods might be cheaper and easier to claim, they don’t make a significant impact on reducing emissions in the long run.
Temporal matching, on the other hand, offers a more honest and impactful way for companies to really contribute to reducing carbon emissions, even if it comes at a higher price.
The journey to a fully clean power system is challenging and expensive, but it’s necessary for a sustainable future.
The research findings can be found in Joule.
Copyright © 2024 Knowridge Science Report. All rights reserved.
