Connect with us

Energy

Interview With Taylor Francis, Co-Founder Of Watershed, A Carbon Accounting Software Company

Published

on

Hi, what are you looking for?
Just Being An EV Isn’t Good Enough — We Need To Demand More (Part 2)
5 Top Greenwashing Examples — Interview with Assaad Razzouk
Researchers Discover Another Way To Sequester Lead In Perovskite Solar Cells
Trucks With Onboard Solar Are Becoming A Thing
New Life from the Void — Another Coal Hub Repurposed
NREL Explores Innovative Manufacturing Approach for Next-Generation Wind Turbine Blades
Recycling Wind Turbine Blades To Make A Bike Shelter — Bravo, Aalborg
More Wind Needed in Australian Grid
New Life from the Void — Another Coal Hub Repurposed
Some Good News: 10 Countries Generate Almost 100% Renewable Electricity
Some Good News: 10 Countries Generate Almost 100% Renewable Electricity
Looking At Geothermal Energy Through An International Lens
Idea For Tesla Energy: Look At Austin’s Whisper Valley For Your Next Solar Neighborhood
Using Direct Lithium Extraction To Secure U.S. Supplies
Earth To Senator Joe Manchin: Geothermal Energy. That’s It. That’s The Message.
New 4680 Tesla Batteries vs. Solid-State Batteries
Battery Storage Applications Shifting As More Batteries Added To U.S. Grid
Solid Power Turns Industrial Waste Into Solid-State Batteries
Energy Transition Must Not Make Same Human Rights Mistakes As Fossil Fuels
The Road To Solid-State EVs — Part Three
Decarbonizing the Grids with Demand Response
How To Bring More Clean Energy Into Our Homes
Modern Infrastructure Means a Modern Electric Grid
This Integrated Energy Solution Makes EV Charging More Affordable (And More Sustainable)
Tesla Is Building An Energy Trading Team
Just Being An EV Isn’t Good Enough — We Need To Demand More (Part 2)
Just Being An EV Isn’t Good Enough — We Need To Demand More (Part 1)
No, EVs Aren’t Going To Overload Electric Grids
Civil Society Groups Call On Governments To Address Appliance Energy Efficiency At COP26
Electric Motorcycles & Autocycles Don’t Get Tax Credits, But You Can Help Change That
Volkswagen Introduces ID.5 In Standard & GTX Trim
Sun Tzu & The Art Of The EV Tax Credit: How To Not Get Ripped Off By Dealers (Part 2)
Technology Versus Willpower: Getting The Grid Ready For EVs
Sun Tzu & The Art Of The EV Tax Credit: How To Not Get Ripped Off By Dealers (Part 1)
Tesla Shows Off Its Latest Software Engineering Prowess By Issuing A “Recall” For 11,706 Vehicles
Super 73 ZX E-Bike Rocks Your Ride With One Gear, All Muscle, More Fun — CleanTechnica Review
Why Do Tesla Fans Say They Don’t Experience Drowsiness & Distraction On Autopilot?
The 32 Amp Blink HQ 150 Residential EV Charger — CleanTechnica Review
Tesla FSD Beta: Chill vs. Average vs. Assertive — 1st Impressions
Tesla FSD Beta Update — How Much Has It Improved In 2 Weeks?
Sweden Holds Above 50% Plugin EV Share In October, Despite Slow-Tesla Month
Norway Remains Near 90% Plugin EV Share, Even With Tesla Off Duty In October
5 Top Greenwashing Examples — Interview with Assaad Razzouk
EV Charging & Chargers 101 — New Report
Interview With Taylor Francis, Co-Founder Of Watershed, A Carbon Accounting Software Company
EV Charging & Chargers 101 — New Report
France Hits Record 23% Plugin EV Share In October
Top 20 Plugin Electric Vehicles In The World — September 2021
Volkswagen Group Inches Out Tesla In Norway, While Tesla Dominant In Brand Ranking
Tesla Leads the BEV Takeover in Europe in September!
Super 73 ZX E-Bike Rocks Your Ride With One Gear, All Muscle, More Fun — CleanTechnica Review
Why Do Tesla Fans Say They Don’t Experience Drowsiness & Distraction On Autopilot?
The 32 Amp Blink HQ 150 Residential EV Charger — CleanTechnica Review
Tesla FSD Beta: Chill vs. Average vs. Assertive — 1st Impressions
Tesla FSD Beta Update — How Much Has It Improved In 2 Weeks?
Volkswagen Group — In-Depth Conference Call Highlights Company’s Focus On Transition
Bill McKibben On Unions, Tesla, & Elon Musk — CleanTechnica Interview
How To Watch & Listen To Tesla Q3 Earnings Call — Most Useful Livestream
Tesla Sales & Future of Tesla Discussion with Ride the Lightning, Starman, & EVANNEX
Tesla’s Q3 Deliveries (241,300) Just 1,300 (0.5%) More Than My April Forecast (240,000)
By
Published
Taylor Francis is one of the 3 co-founders of Watershed, along with Avi Itskovich and Christian Anderson.
When did you found Watershed as a company, and what’s the story behind it? What was your initial inspiration for it?
Taylor Francis
We started Watershed on this mission to put as big of a dent in the climate crisis as we possibly could. The one good thing about the climate crisis is that it is a math problem — it is easy to judge your impact based on if you are bending that global curve of how much carbon the world emits every year. We set a goal for ourselves to try to build a company that at scale can get to 500 million tonnes of CO2 reduced or removed per year. One percent of the world’s emissions.
We started Watershed’s software to help companies measure, reduce, and report their carbon emissions. Our big focus is giving companies the tools they need to actually bend their carbon graph down. It’s not enough, in our view, to just help companies report the graph. We want to help companies buy clean power, fund carbon removal, and engage their suppliers so that less carbon goes in the atmosphere every year.
With our origin story, there’s kind of two converging stories. One story is that Avi, Christian, and I have all been very passionate about climate change for our whole lives. For me, that goes back to middle school and seeing Al Gore’s movie, The Inconvenient Truth, and actually spending all of high school going around giving talks about climate change at schools, libraries, and community centers.
You were in the Al Gore Climate Reality program?
Yes, I was one of the first people who was a part of that program when I was 13. I spent all of high school giving a local version of the Inconvenient Truth slideshow.
Then, Avi, Christian, and I worked together at Stripe, the payments technology company. I joined Stripe when it was relatively early; it’s now a six-thousand person company worth a hundred billion dollars. We got to walk that journey with Stripe. It’s at Stripe that we learned that companies are really the ones with leverage. If you want to bend that global carbon graph, the way to do it is to enable organizations, businesses, companies with supply chains, offices, employees, and customers to reduce their emissions. We had a kind of first-hand experience doing that at Stripe. Christian launched Stripe’s carbon removal program and got really excited about the potential impact of companies doing climate work well. But, we were also just shocked at how inadequate the status quo was to the scale of the climate challenge.
That was when we decided to start Watershed, to basically build the toolset that companies need to actually reduce their emissions in a meaningful way. All hopefully laddering up to getting 500 million tonnes of CO2 impact every year.
If you say companies, do you have certain companies in mind? 
We think about companies across the whole economy, and our hope is that Watershed will become the software layer and marketplace that enables companies in every geography and industry to have an impact on climate change. We’re just getting started, but even today we work with companies in the US, Canada, and Europe, with suppliers all around the world — companies in food, like sweetgreen, companies in technology like Stripe and Shopify, companies in electronics, like Square, logistics like Doordash, and hospitality like Airbnb. What they all have in common is this desire to go a step beyond just paying lip service to climate, by publishing a CSR report once a year, and actually taking real action to redesign their business to be a zero carbon business.
The first companies you’re working with are global tech companies?
We work with a lot of tech companies that have a lot of leverage, both with their customers and with their suppliers. We’re also working with companies in apparel, like Everlane, in food, like sweetgreen and Imperfect Foods. It really runs the whole gamut. We’re trying to build a set of tools that eventually any company could use to redesign their business with an eye on carbon.
When did the first customer use Watershed?
It was early 2020 when the first customer started using Watershed, and we announced the company in February of 2021.
If you could go back to the founding, is there anything you’d do differently today — as inspiration to other aspiring founders?
I have two thoughts on that. One, it’s impossible to move fast enough, as a founder and on climate change. As a founder, I think speed is critical for startups to succeed. On climate change, we are working against a clock that is counting down really fast. The things I wish we’d done differently are all about moving faster.
My big piece of advice to other climate founders and founders generally is to focus on finding a customer who will pay you for something. That is the holy grail moment in starting a company. It’s about that moment that a company says yes, this is worth something to us, and we’re willing to part with resources to make it happen.
The thing that’s been really inspiring about building this company is just seeing how mainstream the motivation to act on climate has gone within companies. This is not some kind of afterthought from PR teams, this is CFOs and executive teams who are considering action on climate to be a huge imperative for them as a business.
You’re saying, move early, move as fast as you can, and have a product.
Solving a need. Exactly.
In terms of the accuracy of information you deliver with Watershed — because I assume you know — you have inputs and then you do calculations there which help companies to estimate footprints and what they could do about it. How happy are you with the current accuracy of it, and how problematic do you think it is? Because it seemed like that was always something that held back software solutions: people were afraid every company is different and had a lot of input, and then the accuracy is different because every factor is different, and so on. How do you think about this problem and how did you solve it?
Great question. We think about it in terms of helping companies measure their emissions, reduce emissions, and reporting. For measurement and reporting, data is really at the core. We spend a lot of time thinking about carbon data and how to make it better for companies.
Our approach to that has been to help companies trace carbon all the way down their supply chain. Traditionally, companies ignored emissions from their suppliers and their customers, and looked in a tunnel vision way at the carbon that came from their office, from business travel, and from commuting, which is generally only 10 or 20% of the total carbon impact of a business.
We built this whole carbon data engine under the hood at Watershed that X-rays a company’s supply chain and looks at who they are buying from and where those goods are traveling to try to figure out carbon emissions as granularly as possible.
My big thought on the accuracy of carbon data is that we should be asking a different question. We should be asking the question: What is it going to take to deliver carbon data to companies that enables them to take the right action? What is the kind of approach to carbon data oriented around actionability?
I think a good example of that is around the supply chain. Traditionally, companies would measure their supplier emissions by roughly estimating the total spend in a category, roughly estimating the carbon emissions of each dollar spent in that category, and then having that be their footprint. The problem with that is that that doesn’t actually motivate you to take the right action. It doesn’t motivate you to change suppliers or change materials or redesign your product. We’re really asking the question: How can we get companies’ data that’s granular enough to actually enable them to take the right step to reduce emissions? This isn’t just a measurement game — it’s an action and reduction game.
The data has to be topical enough that people can do something with it?
Yes, exactly.
That seems like a much better question to ask than looking retrospectively. If you look into the future, where do you hope Watershed is in 3 to 5 years? 
We work backwards from the goal of putting as big of a dent in climate change as we can. If we’re trying to get to five hundred million tonnes of CO2 reduced or removed by Watershed customers every year fast, we don’t have any time to waste. We’ve only got a decade to turn the tide on the carbon problem. We’re obsessed with scaling Watershed as fast as we can to as many companies as we can in as many geographies and sectors as we can, with a laser focus on enabling companies to take the right type of climate action. That’s focused on reductions, not offsets, that prioritizes permanent carbon removal and that engages suppliers. Three to five years from now, I hope we’re preventing half a gigaton of carbon from going to the atmosphere every year.
What else would you be doing if you weren’t a co-founder at Watershed?
We’re at a moment where the imperative is to work on the climate crisis. The question I would ask myself is, “What’s the other way to have a lot of impact on climate change?”
And any thoughts?
I think policy is the other lever. I think businesses and policy are the two levers that matter. We’re excited about Watershed and we’re excited about what our customers are doing because businesses control so much of the carbon in the economy. Policy, the rules, regulation, politics: that matters in a big way, and we’re seeing that right now with the climate bill embedded in the Infrastructure Bill in the Senate in the United States, with COP26 around the corner.
The rules of the road determine how companies determine what investments make sense. Smart policy is such a key lever in the climate fight. If I weren’t working on this I’d be trying to contribute to that in some way.
That might be even more difficult than what you’re working on right now. 
I think we need both. We cannot solve this problem without both.
How do you think of cost at Watershed? Cost for people paying for Watershed, but also costs that Watershed can help customers to avoid in the future. What’s your sort of cost vision?
The companies we talk to are living in the future, knowing that a cost on carbon is going to manifest somehow. Whether that’s explicitly in carbon taxes or implicitly because of regulation and expectations from investors and so forth kind of create a de facto cost on carbon. Companies know that that’s where the puck is headed. They view Watershed not as a charity investment but as a deep investment in safeguarding their business for the future, because they know that in a world where carbon has a cost attached to it, getting ahead of the curve on managing that cost by measuring and reducing carbon across the whole supply chain is going to future-proof them for a decarbonized world.
The other big kind of motivation we’re seeing is coming from the investment community. CFOs are the ones driving climate action at a lot of Watershed customers. CFOs know that Black Rock, the SEC, and regulators in the UK and Europe expect carbon to be reported with as much rigor as financial results, because carbon is going to be a key driver of financial results in the future. That’s the other big tidal wave that’s propelling a lot of this work.
So would you say that Black Rock is sort of like the government? That if Black Rock puts in a theoretical carbon tax, we’re halfway there?
What I would say is that we are seeing these converging waves of government regulation, government disclosure requirements, investor expectations, employee expectations, customer expectations, that are all combining into this new imperative for companies to bake climate into corporate governance. That’s the bottom line here — climate governance is going mainstream for companies around the world. It’s a step beyond just climate disclosure. Climate governance isn’t just reporting your number, it includes having a team, board level targets, and accountability for actually driving those numbers in the right direction.
These converging waves are making governance an imperative for basically every company.
I really like calling it climate governance. If you think about cleantech and climate, what do you think are the most overlooked opportunities?
There’s an interesting inverse relationship between how charismatic a climate solution is and how impactful it is. A couple of examples: two of the highest impact immediate ways to bend emissions downward are eliminating harmful refrigerant gases and eliminating methane leaks around the world. Those are both a lot less charismatic than planting trees and soil projects. But arguably, a lot more impactful. A lot of what we try to do at Watershed is to guide customers towards what the numbers say are most impactful, not just what sounds good.
Another good example is in the food space. Companies spend a lot of time thinking about packaging. Packaging is important, but it matters a lot less than what is being packaged. The difference between a beef supplier or a cheese supplier way outweighs the difference in carbon impact depending on whether or not packaging is compostable. We are really focused on bringing math, data, rigor, and results to carbon decisions, and sometimes that leads companies in the direction of solutions that aren’t obvious.
That’s the nice thing on climate, that you can put numbers behind it. 
It’s a math problem, a data problem.
If you talk policy, what policy would you enact if you could enact one or several?
The one I wish we would enact in the United States is the clean electricity payment program, CEPP, that was a part of the budget bill in front of the Senate, which the New York Times reported on. Senator Joe Manchin has torpedoed it. That one policy was going to get us most of the way towards reducing US carbon emissions 45% by 2030 at a frankly minimal cost to the economy. There is no silver bullet in climate change, but if there’s one thing the US could have done this year to turn the tide on climate and carbon, that’s it. I hope that the Biden administration is going to find a way and I hope that companies will stand up to demand that it gets back in the bill, because we are going to have a very harrowing path to our climate targets without that policy in our toolkit.
And do you have any idea why Mr Manchin torpedoed it?
I don’t know and it’s frustrating because the state he represents, West Virginia, is the US state most at risk of elevated flooding with the impacts of climate change. The bill would have created tons of new jobs for people in West Virginia. The coal industry in West Virginia needs a bridge to the future, and that bridge to the future is probably going to run through the clean economy, not to try and keep coal on life support. It seems highly misguided to me.
I wish companies spoke up more on this. I actually think it has been sad in the US to see companies that have talked the talk on climate change not stand up. A few did, like Salesforce, Logitech, and a couple of others. We need companies to speak up a lot more on these types of climate policy issues.
It seems a company which doesn’t want to get ideological can still speak up on climate policy, as it’s much more of a math problem, much less political. 
Right.
You want to move as fast as possible, so what are the major challenges at Watershed? Is it hiring people or getting customers, or onboarding customers, or what are the challenges for Watershed?
Our big challenge right now is building the team. We are hiring like crazy to try to find great people to join us in a whole bunch of different roles. And we’ve got a lot of work to do.
You raised funding through investments. How was it working with investors? What were the responses you received?
We really optimized for the caliber of person that we would have on the team. We’re trying to build this company for the long haul and we need people who are dedicated to building a really enduring business to do that. We jumped at the chance to work with John Doerr from Kleiner Perkins, and Michael Moritz from Sequoia Capital. The last time they co-led a Series A investment was actually for the Series A of Google.
That puts some expectation on the company.
That’s right!
One more question: Do you have a favorite cleantech or climate company or organization that inspires you? You can name Al Gore, he’s still out there. 
I think he doesn’t get nearly enough credit for the work he did to spark this whole movement and to educate, train, and inspire a whole generation of climate leaders that are taking it forward. We owe him a lot. He’s been working on this for 40 years.
I sometimes say he is going to be remembered when many Presidents are going to be forgotten. Let’s see. 
Yep.
I’m investing in positive companies and am passionate about climate action and long-term human challenges. Early partner at BEAM (United People of Climate Action) and CleanTechnica (#1 cleantech-focused new & analysis website in the world), among others.

#1 most loved electric vehicle, solar energy, and battery news & analysis site in the world.

 

Support our work today!

Tesla News Solar News EV News Data Reports
Advertise with CleanTechnica to get your company in front of millions of monthly readers.
Making the Earth a dumping ground for forever chemicals and plastics is a dumb idea.
Here’s what we need to do to make the Biden energy plan work.
The extreme weather effects of climate change are here, with “historic” droughts and “once in a lifetime” floods and fires coming hard and fast….
Maersk, the world’s largest ocean freight company, has just ordered 8 new container ships that will run on green methanol.
Copyright © 2021 CleanTechnica. The content produced by this site is for entertainment purposes only. Opinions and comments published on this site may not be sanctioned by and do not necessarily represent the views of CleanTechnica, its owners, sponsors, affiliates, or subsidiaries.

source

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Energy

How to meet America’s climate goals: 5 policies for Biden’s next climate bill

Published

on

Kelly Sims Gallagher, Tufts University
President Joe Biden’s new climate strategy, announced after his original plan crumbled under opposition in Congress, will represent a historic investment in clean energy technology and infrastructure if it is enacted. But it is still not likely to be enough to meet the administration’s emissions reduction goals for 2030.
As director of the Fletcher School’s Climate Policy Lab at Tufts University, I analyze ways governments can manage climate change.
As the new plan comes together, and the administration considers future steps, here are five types of policies that can help get the United States on track to achieve its climate targets. Together they would reassure the world that the United States can honor its climate commitments; help stave off the effects of a carbon border tax planned in Europe; and, if designed right, position U.S. workers and firms for the low-carbon economy of the 21st century.
The United States’ ability to compete in low-carbon and resilience technologies such as energy storage has eroded over the past two decades.
Part of the problem has been the political impasse in Washington over clean energy and climate policies. Over the past 20 years, tax credits, loan guarantees and regulations have started and stopped, depending on the political whims of whoever is in power in Congress and the White House. U.S. companies have gone bankrupt while waiting for markets to materialize.
Meanwhile, European companies, with backing from their investment and development banks, and Chinese companies have surged ahead, using their home markets to demonstrate new technologies and build industries. Wind turbines are a good example. European companies, led by Denmark’s Vestas, controlled 43% of the wind turbine market globally in 2018, and China controlled 30%. By contrast, the United States accounted for only 10%.
I believe the United States as a country needs to make choices about where it has a comparative advantage, and then the federal government can chart a clear course forward to develop those industries and compete in those global markets. Will it be electric vehicles? Electricity storage? Technology for adaptation such as sea wall construction, flood control or wildfire management? Independent advice could be provided to the administration and Congress, perhaps by the National Academies of Science, and then Congress could authorize an investment plan to conditionally support these industries.
Tempting as it is to support all technologies, public dollars are scarce. Companies that receive subsidies must be held accountable with performance requirements, and taxpayers should get a return when those companies succeed.
As part of industrial policy, officials also need to squarely face up to the fact that some workers, states, cities and towns with industries closely tied to fossil fuels are vulnerable in the transition to cleaner energy.
On an expert panel convened by the National Academies of Science and recent study, colleagues and I recommended that the government establish a national transition corporation to provide support and opportunities for displaced workers and affected communities. These communities will need to diversify their economies and their tax bases. Regional planning grants, loans and other investments can help them pivot their economies to industries that contribute less to climate change. Establishing a U.S. infrastructure bank or green bank to fund low-emissions and resilience projects could help finance these investments.
Equally important is investing in the workforce needed for a low-carbon economy. The government can subsidize the development of programs at colleges and universities to serve this economy and provide scholarships for students.
Other policies can help generate the revenue needed to support the transition to a clean economy.
Obviously, removing subsidies for fossil fuel industries is a crucial step forward. One analysis estimated, conservatively, that the U.S. provides about US$20 billion a year in direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industries. Estimates of indirect subsidies are much higher.
Tax reform can also help, such as replacing some individual and corporate income taxes with a carbon tax. This policy tool would tax the carbon in fuels, creating an incentive for companies and consumers to reduce use of fuels with the greatest impact on the climate. To avoid overburdening low-income households, the government could reduce income taxes on lower-income households or provide a dividend check.
Tax credits, loan guarantees, government procurement rules and investments in innovation are all useful tools and can shape markets for American companies. But these fiscal policy tools should not be permanent, and they should be phased down as technology costs come down.
The government has the ability to both “push” and “pull” climate technologies into the marketplace. Government investments in research and human capital are “push”-type policies, because supporting research ensures that smart people will keep moving into the field.
The government can also “pull” in technologies by creating vibrant markets for them, which will provide further incentives to innovation and spur widespread deployment. Carbon taxes and emissions trading systems can create predictable markets for industry because they provide long-term market signals that let companies know what to expect for years ahead, and they at least partially account for a product’s damage to the environment.
While the United States is investing in clean-energy research, development and demonstration, it has been less successful than China or Europe – both of which have emissions trading systems – in developing predictable, durable markets.
A tried-and-true U.S. policy tool is the use of performance standards. These standards limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per unit, such as fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles, energy efficiency standards for appliances and industrial equipment, and building efficiency standards at the state level. Fuel economy standards on automobiles since 1975 have saved about 2 trillion gallons of gas and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by about 14 gigatons, roughly three times the country’s annual emissions from energy in 2020.
Performance standards give companies the flexibility to find the best way to comply, which can also fuel innovation. The Biden administration could develop new performance standards in each major emitting sector – vehicles, power plants and buildings. Federally imposed building codes, which are set at the state and local levels, would be a difficult political lift.
The laws that established the government’s authority to set standards, such as the Clean Air Act and Energy Policy Act, have some ambiguities that can leave standards vulnerable to court challenge, however. Legal challenges have led to a zigzag in regulations in some sectors, most obviously the power sector.
A final area where policy is needed is for nature-based solutions. These might be fiscal incentives for restoring forests, which store carbon, or protecting existing lands from development, or they might be regulations.
Laws and regulations at the state level can also be enormously powerful in changing the U.S. emissions trajectory.
The centerpiece of Biden’s original climate plan was a program designed to reward and pressure utilities to shift electricity production away from fossil fuels faster. With the Senate split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin’s opposition sank the plan.
The Biden administration’s new Plan B has a number of heroic assumptions and relies heavily on fiscal and regulatory tools, along with lots of state-level actions.
Missing from Plan B is the emphasis on innovation and industrial policy, both of which might have a larger impact on U.S. emissions. The elephant in the room that cannot be ignored is that the United States needs a climate bill that puts its targets for reducing emissions by 2030 and 2050 into law, gives the right government agencies the authority to set policies and addresses industrial and workforce needs.
Kelly Sims Gallagher, Professor of Energy and Environmental Policy and Director, Center for International Environment and Resource Policy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Copyright © 2019 – 2021

source

Continue Reading

Energy

Initiative to create ‘world’s first’ transnational solar grid network formed at COP26

Published

on

At the United Nations COP26 climate summit that began this week, 80 countries endorsed plans for the world’s first transnational solar power network, led by the UK and India.
The Green Grids Initiative seeks to connect 140 countries to clean, renewable energy and reduce dependence on coal. As part of the initiative, the International Solar Alliance aims to mobilize $1 trillion in financing by 2030 to assist developing countries in expanding their solar power grids.
“What we want… is to take these inventions, these breakthroughs, and get them the finance and the support they need to make sure that they are disseminated through the whole world,” UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said.
U.S. President Joe Biden expressed support for the initiative in his speech at the launch of COP26.
“We have to scale up clean technologies that are already commercially available and cost competitive like wind and solar energy,” Biden said.
International financing for clean energy and climate change resiliency will be a focus of COP26. Developed countries committed in 2009 to provide $100 billion annually in climate finance to developing countries by 2020.
report released in September by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that developed countries mobilized $79.6 billion in 2019. Research from the World Resources Institute determined that most developed countries are not contributing their fair share toward meeting the $100 billion goals.
“Three major economies — the United States, Australia, and Canada — provided less than half their share of the financial effort in 2018, based on objective indicators such as the size of their economies and their greenhouse gas emissions,” WRI authors wrote. “Other nations that provided less than half of their fair share were Greece, Iceland, New Zealand, and Portugal. In total, more than a dozen developed countries were falling short of their responsibilities.”
Biden is working to secure enhanced emissions reduction targets from world leaders at COP 26, while his signature domestic climate change agenda remains in the balance in Congress.
On Tuesday, Biden unveiled plans to target methane emissions with a rule from the Environmental Protection Agency. The president announced in September that the U.S. would join the European Union in signing the Global Methane Pledge to reduce the world’s methane emissions by 30% below 2020 levels by 2030. More than 100 countries have now joined the pledge.
“The EPA is today proposing new regulations that will significantly broaden and strengthen methane emissions reduction for new oil and gas facilities. In addition, for the first time ever, it will require that states develop plans that will reduce methane emissions from existing sources nationwide—including from an estimated 300,000 oil and gas well sites,” the White House said in a statement. “Overall, the proposed requirements would reduce emissions from covered sources, equipment, and operations by approximately 75%.”

Copyright © 2019 – 2021

source

Continue Reading

Energy

Microsoft to power Virginia data centers with 24/7 clean energy

Published

on

Microsoft will power its data centers in Virginia with 24/7 clean energy through a 15-year agreement with AES Corporation.
The partnership supports Microsoft’s goal of matching 100% of its electricity consumption with zero carbon energy purchases by 2030.
“By leveraging AES’ capability and presence in the PJM market, we are able to both secure additional renewable supply in support of meeting our commitment to use 100% renewable energy by 2025, and also take a meaningful step toward having 100% of our electricity matched by zero-carbon resources all of the time in the region,” said Brian Janous, General Manager Energy & Renewables at Microsoft. “We believe innovative commercial structures like this with AES and integrating new technologies will be key as we continue to move toward our 100/100/0 commitment.”  
AES will source the energy from a portfolio of 576 MW of contracted renewable assets, including wind, solar, as well as battery energy storage projects in PJM.
“Microsoft is a leader in the energy transition with its commitment to being 100% powered by zero-carbon electricity by 2030. We’re proud of the solution we co-created with Microsoft to help meet that commitment with the delivery of 24/7 zero-carbon electricity to its Virginia-based data centers,” said Andrés Gluski, AES President and CEO. “Working together with leading corporations, we are setting new standards for decarbonizing their operations and the grid.”

By matching energy consumption with clean energy produced elsewhere on the grid, power purchase agreements have allowed corporations to take action to address the current and future risks posed by climate change.
But, in some cases, there’s an opportunity to go beyond the PPA, and more effectively decarbonize the grid through hourly load matching, or 24/7 matching, according to an analysis by RMI. RMI defines hourly load matching as “where a buyer attempts to procure sufficient carbon-free energy to match a given facility’s load in every hour.”
The findings of the “Clean Power by the Hour” determined: costs increased with the level of hourly load matching compared to costs for meeting annual procurement targets, near-term emissions reductions for hourly load matching depend on the regional grid mix, and hourly procurement strategies can create new markets for emerging technologies.
“Overall, we find that hourly load-matching strategies can help lay the groundwork for a decarbonized grid in the long term but should be carefully tailored to region-specific grid dynamics to also maximize emissions reductions in the near term,” RMI authors wrote in the report. “Buyers who have not yet offset 100% of their annual electricity use with procured (carbon-free energy) can feel confident that doing so based on annual targets in regions with low renewable energy adoption will continue to create material climate benefits. This can be done even as buyers who have already met that goal continue to push the envelope of sophistication and pave the way toward a 100% CFE grid.”
Copyright © 2019 – 2021

source

Continue Reading

Trending