Posted on

Climate projects reducing greenhouse gases

Projects focusing on reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can be divided into two main types: nature projects and technical projects.

3.1 Nature Projects

These projects include tree planting and conservation of existing forests. They are strongly encouraged by leading climate initiatives such as Science Based Targets and Exponential Roadmap, and are critical in addressing the climate crisis and the perhaps even greater crisis in biodiversity. Trees are a proven method for capturing carbon dioxide and require no new technology or cost-reducing innovations to be effective.

3.1.1 The Reason We Do Not Support This Type of Project (Yet)

Despite the importance of these projects, there are complexities surrounding land use and the durability of biology that must be addressed. Issues such as the alternative use of land, suitability of tree species, and tree growth under changing climate conditions are important. There is also uncertainty about how long the carbon dioxide actually stays stored in the trees. In addition, many previous tree projects have not lived up to their quality expectations. Higher costs per ton of greenhouse gas compared to emission reduction projects is another challenge.

3.2 Technical Projects

According to the IPCC, it is necessary to remove large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the coming years. Technical projects, or ‘removals,’ are a rapidly growing and exciting area where many companies compete to develop the most effective and cost-efficient methods. For example, ClimeWorks uses giant fans similar to technical trees, and other companies are creating biochar for storage in the soil. This type of project is continuously monitored and evaluated by several initiatives.

3.2.1 The Reason We Do Not Support This Type of Project (Yet)

Currently, the cost of removing one ton of CO2e from the atmosphere using these methods is extremely high, for example, ClimeWorks costs about $1,200 per ton CO2e. Cheaper alternatives include biochar, but they are still costly. Critics argue that these technologies have difficulties scaling up to necessary levels and can distract from the main task of reducing emissions. In addition, paying private companies involves a lack of transparency and third-party certification of climate benefits.

However, we are convinced that the development of this type of project is necessary and are excited to see how the market grows!

Please get in touch at [email protected] if you think we have missed something, we are always open to learning more!

Posted on

Projects Contributing to Reduced Emissions

This is part three of our article series about how we consider the climate projects we support. This part is about the projects that contribute to reduced emissions and covers the projects that GoClimate primarily supports today. 

This category includes, for example, energy-efficient stoves that reduce the need for wood and thus deforestation. There are also projects in renewable energy that reduce the need for coal power plants and those that handle harmful methane gas by converting it into electricity, replacing fossil energy sources. More examples of these climate projects are available here.

2.1 Why We Support This Type of Project

There is scientific consensus that it is urgent to reduce the world’s emissions. Therefore, it is reasonable that at the present time, when there is so much left to do, the focus should simply be on supporting projects that reduce the world’s emissions.

2.1.1 The Technology is Already Here

To reduce emissions, both capital and technology dissemination are required. The necessary technology to cope with climate change already exists to a large extent, but it needs to be spread, financed, and implemented. The type of climate financing that we, our members, and customers contribute to plays a big role here; this is exactly what is needed to speed up the transition. But it’s not just a question of investing money, the projects must be effective and well thought out too.

2.2 Challenges with These Types of Projects

The climate benefit of the projects is often calculated based on hypothetical scenarios, which can be problematic. Changed subsidies, norms, and knowledge levels can affect the projects over time. Some projects may no longer need support due to technical development and price reductions in renewable energy. However, the role of climate financing is crucial. It has historically contributed to economies of scale and price reductions, meaning that some projects no longer need the same support. To manage these dynamic factors, one can choose to support newer projects or specific years.

Despite the complexity of these projects, we are convinced that they can be supported effectively, especially if the right type of project is chosen.

2.3 Projects We Do Not Support in This Category

In this category are projects that we consider to be less efficient or problematic. For example, we do not support the construction of large-scale hydroelectric power plants, as they require large land areas and can have a negative impact on both the environment and local communities.

New renewable energy projects in countries not on the UN’s list of least developed countries are also not certified according to the standard – Gold Standard – that we go by. These projects are often considered to not need financial support to the same extent as they did in the past.

However, it is important to understand the climate credit market and how it affects the lifespan and financing of projects. We still support certain energy projects that would not be certified today, because if we stop supporting certain projects that were certified because climate financing was deemed necessary earlier, it could undermine the confidence in the climate credit market and make it more difficult for future projects to get financing.

We also do not support local projects in Sweden, as the country already has access to financing and relatively low climate emissions compared to other regions. Our strategy is to support projects where they can have the greatest positive climate impact. Even though projects like solar cell support in Sweden can be beneficial, financing does more good when used in other countries, for example, those with a higher mix of fossil fuel sources in their electricity mix.

Please get in touch ([email protected]) if you think there’s anything we’ve missed; we are always open to learning more!

Posted on

Climate Impact and Safe Drinking Water with Nazava Water Filters

Together with our amazing members, GoClimate have now offset another 9087 ton CO2eq in the Gold Standard certified project Nazava Water Filters.

According to the World Economic Forum, lack of access to safe drinking water is one of the biggest threats to humanity today. The Nazava project is a social enterprise that sells affordable ceramic water filters to low-income households in Indonesia (where the lack of clean water is a wide-spread problem) enabling access to safe drinking water. The project also leads to reduced CO2 emissions as well as a number of other benefits, both on a global and a local level.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this!

Difficulties for low-income households to get water

The positive impact safe drinking water has on public health is pretty obvious. It prevents disease and even death. The conventional methods for obtaining drinking water involve fetching, transporting and storing water and then boiling it to make it safe enough to drink. The fact that the water often needs to be transported a long way and to then be stored for a long period of time, means that the risk of it being contaminated is large, even if the water was clean at the point of fetching. Boiling is an energy intensive and time-consuming purification method, often involving burning wood or charcoal. In cases where fetching drinking water is not an option, low-income households are left to spend money on buying water, leading to an unsustainable financial situation.

The Nazava Water Filter project saves CO2 

The Nazava Water Filter project leads to a reduction in GHG emissions, as burning wood or fossil fuel for cleaning water is omitted. The project activity has the potential to give an annual average CO2 emission reduction of up to 372,774 t CO2e over a 10 year period. This yearly reduction in energy is comparable to one year’s CO2 emissions from 5 000 Swedish households.

The Filter

The technology used for this specific filter is a ceramic type that produces water of safe drinking water quality. The Nazava Water Filters remove 99.9% of bacteria as tested by WHO – a result honoring the name Nazava, which is arabic for “cleanliness”. The filters are easy to use and sold at an affordable price, making them accessible for the low-income households affected.  The filters can be used thousands of times before they need to be replaced, making this technique a highly sustainable one.

Other important benefits

The positive impact of access to safe drinking water and the great climate impact is probably pretty clear by now, but the Nazava project keeps on giving with it’s many other social and economic benefits!

Not having to carry water a long way reduces the risk of wear and tear. Not having to boil water reduces the indoor air pollution from burning wood, which is a health risk important to avoid.

The project also creates value for the local community in important ways. Buying and using the filters, low-income households saves the cost for buying wood or water, and as well as saves the labour spent on fetching and preparing the water. User surveys show that this is welcomed as a considerable advantage and the project has been well received. 

The selling and distribution is carried out by a network of informal resellers or micro-entrepreneurs, many of which are women, working under the brand name Nazava Water Filters. 

The Nazava project has a positive impact on many of the UN Sustainability Goals – numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, and 15 (No poverty, Good Health and Wellbeing, Gender equality, Good Health and sanitation, Decent work and economic growth, Climate action and Life on land).

Posted on

The Price of Carbon Offsets

The last 6 months have been busy in the voluntary carbon offset market. Demand have surged and prices have increased 3-5 fold. This happened mostly on what is called off the shelf credits – credits that are available for purchase now – but also on credits that can be contracted for future issuance.

The Background

When a certified climate project does climate impact and it can be verified, they receive one climate credit for every tonne CO2e saved from entering the atmosphere.

Certified carbon credits are then sold on a market – the voluntary carbon offset market. It being a market means that the price is determined by the buyers and sellers agreeing on a price that is beneficial for both parties.

The effect of this is that prices can vary over time, so when sellers see an increase in demand they can increase the price and vice versa.

A market has many advantages, it’s easy to scale, it’s efficient and it minimizes waste. But, it also has some disadvantages, the primary one many are feeling now is that it’s hard to predict where the prices are going in order to plan future purchases.

How much of an increase are we seeing now?

As of January 2022, we at GoClimate saw an increase of prices with 3-5 times for the type of high quality Gold Standard-certified projects we support. This has resulted in that we increased our prices to our GoClimate members from 4 EUR per tonne to 15 EUR per tonne. This is quite a dramatic increase which have lead to members scaling down the amount they offset, and business customers needing to redo their budgets.

Bear in mind that we at GoClimate are buying big volumes (50-100k) and spending lots of time sourcing the best and most efficient high quality carbon credits. Prices for smaller volumes are typically higher.

What are the consequences?

Just to be clear, this price increase is brilliant news for the climate. It will mean that:

  1. Companies and individuals are even more incentivized to lower their emissions.
  2. Climate projects get more money for doing climate impact. This leads to even more climate projects being built – and more climate impact!

This price increase happening now is exactly what we at GoClimate has strived for since the start. Finally it starts to get even more profitable to save the climate!

Why are we seeing an increase now?

It’s not possible to know the exact reasons, but clear is that demand for climate credits have increased by a lot. Our hypothisis on why this has happened is:

  1. After COP26 the interest among individuals and companies to do something about climate change increased, and offsetting – even though not the only tool – is something you can do now and that has a fairly high impact (if done in high quality climate projects) for a relatively low effort.
  2. Cryptocurrency has entered the market. KlimaDAO has purchased about 14,7 million credits in just the last few months. And that are even more crypto projects out there.
  3. Net Zero-targets have been set by many companies. SBTi definition of Net Zero mentions offsets a tool to help with climate financing even though it’s not enough to claim Net Zero (which is also GoClimates view).
  4. The general awareness of climate crisis has increased. It’s more clear to businesses and individuals that we all need to act now and that time is running out.

Feel free to add other thoughts in the comments below.

The Future

It’s impossible to predict the future of a market, but I personally don’t see anything which suggests a decrease in demand the coming 5-10 years, rather the opposite. That could be interpeted as a reasons that the price would not go down, but as in all chaotic systems this view might already be priced into the market.

On the supply side of the market, I believe it will take a couple of years for climate projects to initiated and credits being approved and issued. This means that the market will not see lots of new climate projects any time soon.

Depending on what type of offsets you are looking at there are speculation that the prices will continue to rise, maybe as much as 50x more. I feel quite confident that this is not the case of Gold Standard credits though, but an 2x increase during 2022 is of course not possible to rule out.

Posted on

Untangling the climate vocabulary

There are currently multiple terms floating around regarding the climate and our relation to our emissions. This can be especially complicated for companies, who want to communicate their efforts to do good for the climate, but want to avoid confusion and even being accused of greenwashing. Therefore, it is important to use the right terminology with the right intent. Let’s figure this out!

The way forward for companies include some balancing

What does carbon neutral mean?

“Carbon neutral” is something (like a product or a company) where the carbon emissions it causes are balanced, or compensated for, elsewhere. The result is that no additional CO2 reaches the atmosphere because of this product/company.

In order to call something carbon neutral, we must first measure the emissions that it causes, and make a careful documentation on this (GoClimate uses the GHG Protocol to measure the carbon footprint of companies). Then, efforts to reduce the emissions are implemented. This is obviously important because all emissions need to be drastically lowered to save the climate, but also to demonstrate commitment and integrity. Finally, the emissions that for some reason cannot be immediately abated are compensated for by offsetting (see our previous post of types of offsets). It is also important to note that all emissions throughout the life cycle and value chain should be included, not just the emissions from your own chimney.

There are two international standards which define carbon neutrality – ISO 14021 and PAS 2060.

Climate neutral is often used interchangeably with carbon neutral. Some argue that climate neutral distinguishes itself by including all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and not only carbon. However, the common practice is that non-carbon GHG emissions are converted into CO2-equivalents, to make for a fair comparison and easier overview. Therefore, carbon neutral is in practice usually also climate neutral.

Which direction should your company go in?

What does Net Zero mean?

The IPCC defines net-zero as that point when “anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere are balanced by anthropogenic removals over a specified period”. The Paris Agreement sets out the need to achieve this balance by the second half of this century.

The process for becoming Net Zero is therefore fundamentally similar to being carbon neutral – emissions need to be measured, reduced and balanced. The difference lies in the level of ambition and as a consequence, the execution. The reductions should follow a serious plan to be aligned with the Paris Agreement, which implies reducing emissions by at least 50% every decade. The offsets to compensate for the remaining emissions need to be of the type called permanent removals, which actually binds atmospheric carbon dioxide and stores it with confidence in its stability (see our previous post of types of offsets).

The requirements for what can be classified as Net Zero is an ongoing work, currently driven by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Their comprehensive paper Foundations for Net Zero gives a solid description of the common ground, and which challenges still need to be resolved regarding this concept.

Climate positive

There is currently no common standard definition of climate positive, and sometimes the expression climate negative is even used to define the same idea. This is however built upon the concept of carbon neutral (climate neutral), and means that what it refers to (a product, usually) has been compensated for with more offsets than it actually causes. This means that the product comes with added climate benefits.

Business as usual

In this context, business as usual means to continue operations as if climate change didn’t concern you at all. We can all do better than this!

Hopefully this breakdown made these concepts clearer to you. If there are other terms you come across and would like to see included here, please leave us a comment below!

Posted on

Different kinds of carbon offsets – a quick guide

Since the start of carbon offsetting, a lot has happened. We have learned more about how we can efficiently and effectively finance the transition to a sustainable society, and these insights have allowed for the offsets to develop in several aspects. Here, we will explain the different kinds of offsets that one can choose from.

Avoided emissions

At GoClimate, we offer carbon offsetting in a type of projects that are referred to as Avoided Emissions. The idea is to prevent emissions which would have been released if it had not been for this project.

To explain with an example: in a village, everyone is cooking over open fires and collect firewood in the forest nearby. The project developer supplies improved cookstoves, which contains the heat and reduces the amount of firewood needed. The savings in firewood (reduced deforestation) is measured, and then converted into a common unit – tonnes of CO2, which can be purchased by those who want to support this project.

Perhaps the most common type of projects that can be categorized as avoided emissions are renewable energy projects. The current (polluting) energy production is compared to the installation and production of clean energy, and the difference is considered avoided emissions.

You can read more about climate projects in this previous post, and on our project page.

One kind of improved cookstove

Another type of project that avoids emissions can be natural resource management, or the protection of forests. Areas which are in danger of being deforested are identified and the protection of them is financed, to make sure that they keep storing (and capturing) carbon dioxide. This has additional benefits of biodiversity protection, but it can be hard to prove that the flora would be degraded without the protection.

Removals

Another type of offsets is referred to as removals. There are two main types of removals, where the simplest form is tree planting (reforestation or afforestation*). Tree planting can have additional benefits for the biodiversity and local populations, and is definitely needed to restore damaged ecosystems. However, although the trees bind CO2 while they grow and live, this will be released at the end of their life. This can happen unintentionally in a forest fire or naturally after 80 years, but this does not guarantee a permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Are there permanent removals of CO2 from the atmosphere? Yes, but it’s costly and energy intensive. These technologies are sometimes called Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), or Direct Air Capture (DAC). The most well-known initiative for this is probably the Swiss company Climeworks, whose technology aims to “vacuum clean” the air from CO2. Another pioneer is Project Vesta, which will use natural wave energy to capture CO2 into rocks (weathering). These technologies are under development, and need to scale up to be really useful.

Climeworks aim to suck CO2 from the air

What should you choose?

What should we focus on? We at GoClimate believe that “if your faucet is running, you should turn it off before you start mopping the floor”, which is why we are offering offsets in the form of avoided emissions. We urgently need to stop emitting CO2, and offsetting is effectively a way to help finance the transition to renewable energy globally. But the scary truth is that as we are not doing this fast enough, we will need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to keep global warming from spinning out of control. And to invest in it now is necessary for the research and development to happen fast enough for the technologies to scale. If these methods are only available in 50 years, it will simply be too late.

Therefore, GoClimate is currently investigating how we can also support removals as a way to stop climate change. Stay tuned to find out more and be part of the movement!

* Afforestation is the establishment of a forest or stand of trees (forestation) in an area where there was no previous tree cover

Posted on

Capturing methane from manure and saving energy – Biogas project in China

We have now offset another 25,000 ton CO2eq in a Gold Standard certified project! Thank you for taking part in this!

This is our project

In the province Shuicheng in China, this project aims to help small-scale pig farmers to build methane digesters. In these digesters, organic matter (including manure and wastes) are decayed an aerobically. According to the preparatory study, there are on average 4.3 pigs in every peasant household. Therefore, and a standard biogas digester with a volume of 8m3 is constructed. This anaerobic digester can fully handle the manure of these pigs, and collects the biogas generated during the treatment process for heat supply. This meets the thermal demands of the households themselves, by using the biogas stove with rated power 2.33kW each unit. 18 934 of these methane digesters were installed, to the benefit of an equal amount of small-scale farmers and their families.

Cooking on new gas stoves

What was the situation before?

Before the project construction, all the swine manure was stored in an uncovered anaerobic mature management system (i.e. deep pit). Large amounts of methane was emitted to the atmosphere during the manure storage, due to the anaerobic condition in the deep pit. Methane is a greenhouse gas that has an impact on the climate change some 25 times worse than CO2! Moreover, according to the preparatory investigation, the householders were using coal for cooking and heating. This was also releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, and caused indoor air pollution from particulate matter (soot), which is harmful to human health.

The outcomes of the project

The project thus results in a reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in these two ways: on the one hand, the recovery and utilization of biogas from digested slurry in the biogas digester, which reduces methane emissions that would otherwise have aroused from the deep pit storage. It prevents methane emissions by changing the management practice of manure in order to achieve the controlled anaerobic digestion, equipped with methane recovery system. Moreover, the biogas is used as thermal energy to replace the fossil fuel (coal) currently used to meet the households daily energy needs for cooking and heating. The heat generated from burning biogas effectively replace an equal amount of the heat which would otherwise be generated by a coal stove. The combined annual GHG emission reductions for both components of the project is estimated at 50,113 tCO2e annually.

The proposed project will have positive environmental and economic benefits and contribute to the local sustainable development in the following aspects:

  1. To recover methane and substitute the consumption of fossil energy,
  2. To increase employment for the local people through the construction of methane pools and the follow-up service,
  3. To improve the living and cooking conditions and the health of the local people,
  4. To popularize practical energy technology.

Read more about the project in the Gold Standard Registry

A big thanks to all of you for enabling this development!

Do you want to contribute to this, and other similar projects? Calculate your carbon footprint and start your offsetting today!

Posted on

More support to wind energy in Aruba

We have now offset another 50,000 ton CO2eq in a Gold Standard certified project! Thank you for taking part in this!

Cactus overlooking the energy production

This is our project

Aruba is one of the islands moving towards reduced dependency on fossil fuels and increased share of renewables. The first initiative for wind energy production on the island is the Wind Park Vader Piet N.V, which we are supporting through the purchase of carbon credits! This is the second time we support this project, so find the first blog post about the project HERE.

This wind park consists of 10 wind turbines that are located on an uninhabited part of the island. With a production capacity of 3 MW each, these turbines supply 12-14% of the total energy needed on the island! Since all energy consumed before the implementation of this project came from fossil fuel, the carbon intensity of the electricity available on the island was very high. Fortunately, Wind Park Vader Piet N.V has instigated a change for the better.

More support from GoClimate

We purchased credits (the proof of avoided emissions, expressed in tonnes of CO2) from this project last year in September, and now decided to do a second purchase. The climate projects issue new credits every year, corresponding to the amount of avoided emissions they can prove each year. Hence, with the kind of credits that we purchase from Gold Standard certified projects, we know that the emissions have already been avoided.

The continuous support that the project receives from selling credits every year makes sure that they can, for example, pay back loans that they had to take to build the wind power plants, and ensures the financial sustainability of the project. When the project is planned, this financial support from selling credits is taken into account in the economic balance. The project developer has to show that without this economic support, the project would not be financially feasible. This is what is referred to as ‘Additionality’ when we talk about climate projects.

Imported wings for the wind power plants came by boat to Aruba

What are the larger implications?

Vader Piet has permission to sell credits for 10 years. This has been an interesting time for the island Aruba. We have been talking to the electricity company on the island, WEB Aruba N.V., on what this has meant for them, and this has been proof that there is more that can be done in the area of renewables. It is especially impactful when we can support a project that is the first of its kind in a place, such as this one.

We have previously also supported the Sidrap Wind Energy Project, the first wind power park in Indonesia. This is important both for the public, to see for themselves what a wind energy park can do. Moreover, provides a great learning opportunity for local professionals to learn new skills, which can be replicable in future projects. Aruba is now in the planning stage of a second wind power plant, and we are so exited to be a part of that story!

Read more about the project in the Gold Standard Registry

A big thanks to all of you for enabling this development!

Do you want to contribute to this, and other similar projects? Calculate your carbon footprint and start your offsetting today!

Posted on

A survey on the view of the individual carbon footprint, carbon offsetting and GoClimate

During the summer 2020, we conducted a Swedish and an English survey with ten questions among all the people who offset their carbon footprint with GoClimate. A whopping 620 people participated, corresponding to 13% of our members at that point in time.

According to our English survey, 76% have reduced their carbon footprint since they joined GoClimate. Among other things, they have installed solar panels, they eat less meat, fly less and eat more vegan food than before. 23% say that they have not made any changes to impact their carbon footprint and 0.6% (1 person) say that they have increased their footprint.

In response to the question of how they view their personal carbon footprint, around 90% of the English respondants (80% of the Swedish) state that they are working actively to reduce their footprint. 3% say that they would like to, but don’t know how. Another 4% say that they are not working actively with reducing their footprint. Political actions and financial incentives are mentioned as critical parts to enable necessary lifestyle changes.

What's your attitude to your individual carbon footprint? This diagrams shows the number of people who use carbon offsetting that are actively working on reducing their carbon footprint and how many that are not.
90% of all members that carbon offset say they are working on reducing their carbon footprint.

Most members are happy with our calculator and the type of projects we support. What we can get better at is providing guidance and support to reduce the carbon footprint. Over 20% didn’t know that we have a blog, where we educate on topics related to the carbon footprint and offer tips for how to reduce the emissions.

The reasons for our members to carbon offset with GoClimate is that it’s easy, that people want to do everything they can for the environment, and because there are parts of the carbon footprint which are hard to amend. Other reasons are that GoClimate is a small organization offering transparency about where the money goes, and that it’s perceived as clear, agile and trustworthy. This is an easy way to make an extra difference for the climate, adding to what is already done in the everyday life by these committed people.

Among the respondents behavioral change was considered important to stop climate change. The answer to the question “How important do you think behavioral change is to stop climate change?” was 8.8 in average on a scale 0-10.

The majority of the respondents found out about us via recommendations and social media. So please keep discussing the climate with friends, tell them about us and share blog posts and our infographics on Instagram.

Find the results of the 2019 member survey on carbon footprint, carbon offsetting and GoClimate here.

Posted on

Supporting a Wind Power Project in the Caribbean

We have now offset another 50,000 ton CO2eq in a Gold Standard certified project! Thank you for taking part in this!

The Caribbean is a region heavily dependent on fossil fuels, while at the same time it’s a particularly promising place for renewable energies with abundant sun and wind conditions. Demand is comparatively low because the islands have small populations, which means that small scale energy solutions have the capacity to cover a large share of the energy needs.

Vader Piet N.V. Wind Park

This is our project

Aruba is one of the islands moving towards reduced dependency on fossil fuels and increased share of renewables. The first initiative for wind energy production on the island is the Wind Park Vader Piet N.V, which we are supporting through the purchase of carbon credits!

This wind park consists of 10 wind turbines that are located on an uninhabited part of the island. With a production capacity of 3 MW each, these turbines supply 12-14% of the total energy needed on the island! Since all energy consumed before the implementation of this project came from fossil fuel, the carbon intensity of the electricity available on the island was very high. Fortunately, Wind Park Vader Piet N.V has instigated a change for the better.

Plans for the future

The national energy producer, WEB Aruba, made a commitment which increased the share of renewables to 18% in 2018, and reduced the fossil fuel consumption by 40%. Moving forward, the goal is to reduce the fossil fuel consumption by a total of 67% and to increase renewables to a total of 40% by 2022. After the first wind park was built, a first solar park has also been installed and another wind park is in the development phase.

  • Construction of the wind park
  • Construction of the wind park

Why not 100% renewable today?

A challenge that Aruba and other small island nations is facing when transitioning to renewables is the grid stability. Wind and solar are intermittent energies, which means that energy is produced during certain times of the day when it’s sunny or windy. However, this doesn’t always correspond with the time that the energy is needed. In some cases, energy use in industries can be rescheduled to match peak energy availability hours, but for household electricity this is much harder.

To manage this, one option is to invest in energy storage such as batteries, and another one is to use a base load energy that can be adjusted to produce energy when demand is high and renewable production is low. In some cases, this can be done with geothermal energy (like our project Dora II in Turkey), more common is hydro power, nuclear energy or fossil fuels. WEB Aruba is working with a commitment to resolve this, taking into consideration that the development has to happen over time in order to maintain grid stability as infrastructure needs to keep up. It is also crucial to keep energy prices affordable to the local population. In Europe and other places, this challenge is cushioned by our interconnected grids, where energy surplus can be sent to a neighboring country, and energy can be purchased from where the production is the greenest in the moment.

Read more about the project in the Gold Standard Registry

Vader Piet N.V. Wind Park is located far away from the residents of the island

A big thanks to all of you for enabling this development!

Do you want to contribute to this, and other similar projects? Calculate your carbon footprint and start your offsetting today!