How to support Renewable Energy (RE) FROM Singapore?

 

Disclaimer: All views expressed are my own.

 

Dear reader, at Ape On Earth, I always begin a post by asking, does Climate Change matter to you? If you’re unsure, consider reading Blog Post #1 (5min) to find out about your inclinations before you return. And please know I appreciate it so much if you do, it literally means the world 🙂

 

This article is meant to support those who have trouble navigating the support for Renewable Energy (RE) in Singapore.

 

And trust me when I say, “When you look hard enough, energy troubles are aplenty”.

 

Some of us may feel that support for Renewable Energy (RE) “IN Singapore” will be quite restricted due to geographical resource limitations.

 

You’re quite right my friend.

 

But that doesn’t mean we can’t support it remotely “FROM Singapore” 🙂

 

I also realised I have to be very clear in explaining why I refer to “Renewable Energy (RE)” in my article, instead of other similar, equivalent or more popular and recently coined terms. In short, it’s because RE is a term often used in UN IPCC reports when discussing the energy transition, or climate change mitigation.

 

Why is the UN IPCC so important? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. 

 

What is Renewable Energy (RE)?

 

The UN IPCC defines RE as follows, 

“Renewable energy (RE): Any form of energy that is replenished by natural processes at a rate that equals or exceeds its rate of use.”

 

RE examples: Solar energy, wind energy, hydropower, marine/ocean energy, and geothermal energy.

 

Also, UN IPCC separately acknowledges low-carbon energy sources – nuclear energy, and fossil or bioenergy with CCS. IPCC also refers to the use of alternative energy carriers such as hydrogen, bioenergy, and ammonia to substitute for fossil fuels in sectors less amenable to electrification, in their IPCC AR6 WG3 Report. It is important to note that all these energy sources may be low-carbon, but do not fall under their latest definition of RE.

 

List of popular and recently coined terms:

• Green Energy
• Carbon Neutral Energy
• Green Electricity Plan (commonly used by SG electricity retailers)

 

It is important that we refrain from using the above recently coined terms interchangeably during serious discussions on our energy transition, to avoid inconsistencies in communications, as well as to avoid falling prey to some companies’ #greenwashing tactics.

 

However, I will still refer to “Solar Plan” and “Green Electricity Plan” in this article, as they are the most commonly used terms in Singapore, to identify the majority of electricity plans in our market that carry a more favourable attitude towards our energy transition to a low carbon future.

 

Why support Renewable Energy (RE)?

 

First and foremost, because Climate Change matters. 

 

The world is legally bound by the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.

 

The world also has to reconcile the science-based Global Carbon Budget, which specifies that the world can only afford to emit a further 300-500 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2 from the start of 2020 (based on >50% likelihood of limiting warming to 1.5 deg C). This is an absolute budget, not an annual budget. There will be no other carbon budget. And there is no other Earth. (#noplanetb)

 

Singapore electricity generation fuel mix (2015 – 2021)

 

Observe the chart below. Singapore’s electricity generation has been approximately 95% sourced from Natural Gas, a fossil fuel, for 7 straight years. 

 

Source: EMA. Singapore Electricity Generation Fuel Mix

 

In no way am I suggesting that we can completely do without Natural Gas in our energy mix transition due to short-term energy security concerns. But surely, one can expect the energy mix to be much less than 95% Natural Gas very soon, no? After all, isn’t 7 years too long to have just statistical stagnation at the national scale?

 

It is imperative that we first take broad and systemic strokes in cutting greenhouse gas emissions early on in our climate transition. Early action is required because infrastructural changes would take many years to complete. Once the transformations are in place, we will be rewarded with large cuts in annual emission rates, thus significantly reducing the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

 

Why is this important? Because paraphrasing from the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 Report FAQ 12.3, CO2’s lifetime in the atmosphere is very complicated and hard to pin down. As a result, it can remain in the atmosphere for decades to millennia.

 

Every ton of CO2 emitted by mistake tomorrow, will cause you, and your children, to repay for those mistakes over centuries to come, and that means even long after you’re gone. 

 

An eye for an eye?

 

More like an eye for ann-eye-ilation [annihilation].

 

Still need to use fossil fuels? Sure. But can we make sure there are verifiable, additional, and permanent Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies in place to remove equivalent carbon from our atmosphere, e.g. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), so at least we are REAL net zero on our fossil fuels?

 

According to the IPCC AR6 WG3 Report, CDR technologies are anthropogenic activities that remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it durably in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products.

 

I also liken the above approach to how one might sensibly prioritise using one’s salary, to pay off one’s credit card bills first every month, simply because they usually cost us the most in per month interest-related fees, should we default on repayment.

 

 

It’s not that we don’t have other bills, just that credit card bills carry one of the highest penalties and maintenance charges. Fossil fuels are quite similar to credit cards, in that sense.

 

Doing so will then allow us to claw back more time, and extend the runway of the Global Carbon Budget for other carbon mitigation, adaptation, and CDR methodologies to gain critical momentum. That said, we all can do with a little more breathing space, don’t you agree?

 

According to 2018 data by NCCS, 

“Singapore ranks 27th out of 142 countries in terms of emissions per capita based on the latest IEA data”. 

Why is this specific ranking important? Because say we loosely agree on the basis of fairness and simpler math, that every man in the world should ideally be allocated the same amount of hard-to-abate residual emissions, regardless of nationality. Yet what the ranking data essentially says about Singapore, is that we are amongst the top 20% emitters per person, in the world. By any metric, how is that fair?

 

I quote José Pardo de Santayana, IEEE Research Coordinator, in the IEEE analysis paper, “Energy security during the energy transition”, 

“…talk of a smooth transition to clean energy is fanciful: there is no way that the world can avoid major upheavals as it remakes the entire energy system. The IEA recognises that the world is not investing enough to meet future energy needs.” 

 

It’s crucial that in the short to medium run, all support and investments in RE, FROM Singapore, can no longer be left with little change to show for in our energy mix, as we fast approach the UN IPCC carbon mitigation milestone target (to cut GHG emissions by about 43 percent from 2019 levels, by 2030), with barely 8 years left from the date of this article.

 

Fun fact: Check out ST article, “Importing more clean energy among ways to help S’pore power sector reach net-zero emissions by 2050: Report”, for fresh insights on Singapore’s possible future energy mix scenarios. Solar, Green Hydrogen*, Geothermal, Nuclear* and Electricity Imports have been considered.

* not under IPCC’s definition of RE.

 

Energy is the elephant in the room. 

 

Energy is so important that global wars are fought over it, even today. 

 

On top of that, Singapore has embarked on an ambitious transformation towards digitalisation, and widespread electrification of its end uses, eg. electrification of vehicles for transport use. Although one would normally welcome these efforts when one is for the averting of Climate Change, all these changes will increase the proportion of emissions attributed to Singapore’s “Electricity and Heat Production” sector. And there will be a significant shift of burden towards our electricity producers/retailers, in order to achieve/maintain net zero emissions on their turf.

 

In Singapore, I love energy as much as I hate it. I love energy because it enables me to write and publish this post, and hope it will find and benefit others. But I hate that energy is still predominantly sourced from fossil fuels, emitting greenhouse gases in the process, that is the root of our climate change problem.

 

Food for thought: You might hate energy a lot less in a country like Iceland, where they have achieved almost 100% of their energy mix sourced from RE (74% hydropower, and 27% geothermal). Yes, you read that correctly my friend, 100%! Although one must never fail to highlight that Iceland is very lucky for being blessed with naturally available geothermal energy and suitable geography for hydropower. In Singapore, we are not so lucky. 

 

Then how?

 

Two simple strategies

 

1. Mitigation – Find all ways to decarbonise by systematically reducing your monthly energy usage to put less strain on our RE resources
2. Adaptation – Subscribe to a local Solar or Green Electricity Plan offered by a producer/retailer which has made public commitments to invest in RE infrastructure, whether locally or overseas

 

Some may argue that they can’t afford to switch to a Solar or Green Electricity Plan when they already struggle paying for a traditional plan. I’m sure we all can empathise. But what’s stopping you from systematically reducing your monthly energy usage? If you insist on continuing to throw out excuses for inaction, my work cannot help you. But if you are willing to try, I can help you do the math 🙂

 

Mitigation – Systematically reduce your monthly energy usage

 

Unfortunately, the subjects of Whole Life Carbon, Urban Heat Island Effect Mitigation, and Passive Design (external building facade) are beyond most of us to influence or manage, even if good Passive Design largely holds the key to passively reducing building energy consumption. And we are only left to rely on our industry professionals to do so responsibly. Yet, I can still cite Singaporean residential developments that TOP as recently as 2017, that have fallen victim to poor building design. 

 

Hey, you professionals (you know who you are)…do you think Climate Change is a joke? Doesn’t mean something is not yet sufficiently regulated or illegal, means anyone should go ahead and deny one’s country the best. 

 

Last warning: Property Developers/Architects/Building Contractors/Building Material Traders/Manufacturers all better wake up your idea.

 

Sorry…had a moment there. It’s just difficult to stand by and witness people you know having to live with the mistakes made by so-called building professionals for the next 99 years of their property lease period. Forgive me.

 

So my dear readers, run through the list below and see if any heading catches your fancy. They all help, perhaps some more than others…

• Choose high energy efficiency appliances
• Spotlight: Best practice for choosing your air-conditioner system (whopping 36% of average household electricity consumption!)
• Use a Lighting Power Budget 
• Use task lighting
• Harness the sun – solar PV 
• Master the winds – promote cross ventilation 
• Install automated controls (smart home)
• Install door and window seals
• Demand Low-E glass for external facade windows
• Demand external facade window shading
• Demand heat-reflective paint (cool paint) for building facade and pavement

 

The above lists ways to systematically reduce your monthly energy usage. The more you implement, the more you save! And the more you decarbonise!

 

I have adapted elements from the BCA’s Green Mark Scheme that are relevant for households and compiled them into my article, “BCA Green Mark (Ape On Earth’s Household Edition)”. If you need more info on how to implement any of the above listed cost-saving measures, do check the article out!

 

For readers who mean business, you may wish to study BCA’s Green Mark Scheme on your own. Honestly though, I do wish we were all schooled on this at some point.

 

Adaptation – Subscribe to a local Solar or Green Electricity Plan

(check that the producer/retailer has made public commitments to invest in RE infrastructure, whether locally or overseas)

 

As of the date of this article, Solar or Green Electricity Plans in Singapore are still not the cheapest yet, but the gap occasionally narrows. So check the rates more often!

 

Personally, I am only paying 28.1 cents/kWh (Feb 2022) for a 100% Green Electricity Plan, compared to SP’s baseline tariff of 27.22 cents/kWh (Feb 2022). Both rates quoted include GST. Yes, you didn’t read that wrong! I’m paying just 0.88 cents/kWh (Feb 2022) more! Even if you stay in a landed property in Singapore with the highest residential national average consumption of 1209 kWh per month, you would only be paying a bit over $10 more per month (based on Feb 2022 rates). That said, most of us will end up paying a lot less extra since our consumption is way lower!

 

But of course, I’m sure I’m not alone in hoping that Solar and Green Electricity Plans will turn cheapest sooner rather than later. It’s not that we are cheapo (or price-sensitive) ya’know, it’s just Economics. Until lowering prices of one substitutable good no longer dampens demand for another, what’s there to argue?

 

Not all Renewable Energy (RE) Plans are created equal

 

Last I checked, there are several blogs, including this commendable one by moneysmart covering this topic, and serve as a good starting point. Disclaimer: I am not endorsed by, directly affiliated with, maintained, authorised, or sponsored by moneysmart.

 

I would love to provide my version of electricity plan comparisons too but I feel that their price and promotion schemes change ever so frequently it’s unlikely I can keep up. ^^

 

That said, I believe there are still a few things less discussed within the community that I would like to focus on in this article. My hope is that you will be able to tread extra carefully to avoid electricity producers/retailers which are #greenwashing, by the end of this read.

 

100% Solar Plans

For 100% Solar Plans offered by electricity retailers backed up by their own solar photovoltaic (PV) assets, requiring no reliance of customers to add-on purchase of RECs, carbon credits, or other forms of carbon offsets, it’s pretty straightforward. They probably qualify as 100% RE.

 

100% Green Electricity Plans

Green Electricity Plans are less straightforward. It’s extremely important that we are able to discern between them on our own to avoid those who are #greenwashing. And to do so we need to go a little deeper so bear with me.

 

How to select a good Green Electricity Plan?

 

Look for Green Electricity Plans offered by electricity producers/retailers who have made public commitments to invest in RE infrastructure, whether locally or overseas. At least these guys put money where their mouths are. The other producers/retailers, I take a risk but I will call them out for #greenwashing. (feel free to prove me wrong, I would be relieved if I was.)

 

As of the date of this article, some Singapore “green” electricity producers/retailers are supplying you the same electricity sourced from fossil fuels (mostly natural gas) from the local grid but charge you an additional premium to purchase Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) that your energy retailers buy from RE producers, local or overseas, and eventually retire these RECs on your behalf to paint your local electricity usage “green”. But is it really green? First we need to understand what RECs are.

 

What is a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC)?

 

According to our Energy Market Authority, 

“One REC represents proof that one megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from a renewable energy source, such as solar photovoltaics (PVs), and delivered to the grid.”

Fun Fact: You may find really bad REC definitions provided by some of Singapore’s electricity producers/retailers on their respective FAQ webpage. Eh tolong la…10-year series answer already on EMA website. Don’t liddat leh…

 

RECs may go by other names and some are covered by this writeup by Investopedia.

 

For readers who have considered Green Electricity Plans before, you’ve probably heard from your electricity producers/retailers that they will retire RECs on your behalf. So why do our electricity producers/retailers purchase RECs from RE producers, only to redeem/retire them later?

 

In short, our energy producers/retailers may be trying to achieve “net zero”. Since our local energy producers are still mostly net carbon positive (net carbon emitters), one might attempt to rely on redeeming/retiring RECs in the meantime in order to achieve “net zero” (on paper at least). “Net zero” is used in this paragraph to denote instances that are NOT real net zero. Want proof? Check out how the REC ecosystem works below. I call it…The “REC Pandora’s Box” by Ape On Earth.

 

How the REC ecosystem works?

 

 

(Dear readers, I strongly recommend that you study the Figure above first before reading on. If you can immediately understand why I call it the REC Pandora’s Box, you may even skip my write-up on RECs below and jump further down to the section on being extra careful about fake carbon offsets.)

 

For every 1 MWh of electricity produced locally, or overseas, by RE resources (solar/wind/hydro/etc.), and subsequently fed into the RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE LOCAL GRID, 1 REC is then issued to the RE producer. An issued REC is proof that 1 MWh of electricity has been produced by RE resources, regardless of which country it was produced in. This 1 MWh of electricity arguably contributed no new carbon emissions during its production. So if anything, it is important to remember that it may be a carbon neutral process, but NOT a carbon negative process.

 

RECs – A marketing spin of the century?

 

With a flick and a wave, “Abraca-pandoras-box!”. And “BOOM!”, now the same 1 MWh of electricity produced by RE resources, has been accorded the add-on honour of having also avoided a batch of carbon emissions, had it been produced by non-RE resources. And a REC certificate is issued to the RE producer to bear witness to the magic!

 

Isn’t that double accounting baked into the REC fresh out of the oven? And just like that, a carbon neutral process in reality, virtually transforms into a carbon negative process! Isn’t that brilliant?! Best Marketer Award! 

 

 

It is alarming, and tragic, how far our own species will go to tip the scales of balance.

 

The REC ecosystem concept then follows that buyers of this REC can redeem/retire it to offset their carbon emissions of generating 1 MWh of electricity by non-RE resources, in our case, natural gas.

 

For accountability, it is critical that the REC must then be redeemed or retired by the buyer, so that it may not be resold in the secondary market which will result in further double counting, or worse.

 

In most cases, our electricity producer/retailer redeems/retires the REC behind the scenes on our behalf when we subscribe to their Green Electricity Plan.

 

Also, do check out this official document titled, “Difference_REC_Offset” by I-REC, which does seem to provide clues that the issue I described above is known. Why reference I-REC you ask? Because Singapore Power’s REC Platform is the sole authorised I-REC issuer in Singapore. 

 

Let’s play fair. I’ll even promise to include the PROS and CONS of this ecosystem as a Bonus Section at the end of this article. Crazy as it may sound, the REC ecosystem is not without merits.

 

But for now, let’s move on.

 

Be extra careful about FAKE carbon offsets

 

Carbon offset instruments sold in Carbon Markets today can be dressed up in a variety of ways. So don’t be surprised if you encounter a carbon offset with a different name tomorrow, only to find out that it was also issued using a similarly deceptive mechanism like the RECs.

 

In general, BE EXTRA CAREFUL about carbon offset projects that issue “credits” based on “Avoided Emissions” mechanisms. There are severe and critical flaws in the qualifying process for issuance of such “credits”.

 

Jim Hourdequin, CEO of The Lyme Timber Company, sold over 50 million in dollars worth of carbon offsets until he recently decided to be “intellectually honest” about it, and even turned into a prominent whistleblower of the entire system. According to an article by Bloomberg,

“Hourdequin is fully aware that there are downsides to speaking out. By essentially admitting the company has abetted corporate greenwashing and undermined efforts to tackle climate change, he exposes Lyme to criticism and risks losing business from offset buyers, who may prefer to purchase credits from forest owners who stubbornly insist their projects are exemplary.”

 

A simple illustration of the above flaw is that a landowner could theoretically be issued credits for preserving forested land, even if one’s trees were situated on harsh terrain that made it impractical, or unprofitable for the trees to be extracted in the first place. The landowner need only declare to a carbon project developer that one had plans to cut down one’s trees but will cease to do so in return for issued “credits” as compensation for one’s “change of behaviour”. Corporations (for eg. fossil fuel companies) then buy these issued “credits” off these landowners through a Carbon Market, and retire them so they can then theoretically claim that they avoided carbon emissions (the carbon locked away in the protected trees) and can use that to offset their own carbon emissions.

 

It’s important to realise that there is nothing really wrong about what’s been said so far, until one considers that we are fast running out of both funds, and time, to fight climate change. 

 

Or if one also considers that the good amounts of money unnecessarily squandered on “credits” issued for protecting forests, that were never at threat of being cut down in the first place, now also bear the added opportunity cost of forgone capital injection towards the accelerated research, development and demonstration of promising non-AFOLU* sector Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies.

* AFOLU stands for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

 

A more productive and sustainable three-prong alternative approach could be proposed as follows:

 

Prong 1: Consider to finance all AFOLU sector CDR methods outside of offset Carbon Markets and all protected land should be for the long-term (≥ 100 years) where applicable: 

 

The AFOLU sector accounts for approx. 25% of global CO2-eq emissions in 2010. 

 

According to IPCC AR6 WG3 Report, “Afforestation, reforestation, improved forest management, agroforestry and soil carbon sequestration are currently the only widely practiced CDR methods.” 

 

Coincidentally, these are all CDR methods in the AFOLU sector. One might begin to wonder why all widely practiced CDR methods are from JUST ONE sector?

 

Perhaps because the AFOLU sector CDR methods are so laborious to monitor across time that the attention of our sustainability professionals have been completely sucked dry?

 

It’s also crucial to note that some protected carbon removal/storage assets under the AFOLU sector, eg. forest trees may still be left vulnerable to random unforeseen events such as natural disasters, or even death by natural causes, which will ultimately be detrimental to the integrity of the offsets issued on them.

 

This is why we may have to seriously consider excluding AFOLU CDR methods from offset Carbon Markets. The sheer work required in this sector to accurately account for carbon removal/storage over time, is similar to asking one to maintain an accurate weekly count of the leaves on the plants of a distant relative’s front yard. Instead, limited sustainability manpower could be redeployed to other more productive CDR methods, perhaps even outside the AFOLU sector.

 

Yet, there is no doubt that a more responsibly-managed AFOLU sector over the long-term, will continue to have a BIG impact on our overall decarbonisation efforts primarily due to its global proportion of emissions, and thus cannot be ignored.

 

Therefore the AFOLU sector must have access to special-purpose structured finance, as required, to cover the additional costs for mandatory improved management. Fortunately, the costs are already well-known by now, since most low-quality carbon offsets today have been issued by such work over the past decade.

 

Prong 2: Offset Carbon Markets should focus on CDR technologies that produce carbon mitigation results that are practical to accurately account for: 

 

No more fake offsets, please! 

 

Can we focus offset Carbon Markets on CDR technologies that can produce carbon mitigation results that are practical to accurately account for? 

 

Even if governments and the private sector are not able to practically offset their emissions in the short run due to a shortage of real carbon offsets in existing Carbon Markets, it does not mean that other instruments for fundraising through Carbon Markets could not be structured for other nascent but promising non-AFOLU sector CDR technologies, at least until they mature enough to begin selling real carbon offsets that we demand.

 

I cannot emphasise enough that CDR technologies are THE BIGGEST INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES of our generation!

 

CDR technologies need all the capital they can get to accelerate their growth and ensure that we have the capacity to deal with all expected hard-to-abate residual emissions beyond 2030. 

 

Could sustainability reporting frameworks such as GRI, CDP, and SASB recognise investments made by entities in the growth of approved non-AFOLU sector CDR technologies, as a part of their climate action plans? 

 

For a more comprehensive list of CDR technologies compiled by IPCC in the AR6 WG3 Report, refer to Ape On Earth‘s Resources page.

 

Prong 3: Transition disproportionately affected people: 

 

Livelihoods must be protected. People will always be at the heart of what we do and why we do. Plan expenditure to help upskill and transition all disproportionately affected workforce to industries that have viable plans to achieve net-zero, or even net carbon negative outcomes preferably by 2030, latest by 2050. Avoid transitioning into industries that are well-known for significant hard-to-abate residual emissions.

 

Future for REAL carbon offsets – Non-AFOLU sector CDR technologies?

 

Moving forward, perhaps the key is to support credits that are issued for removing carbon from our atmosphere (real carbon negative) via non-AFOLU sector CDR technologies such as the following:

• Bioenergy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (BECCS),
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS),
• Carbon dioxide capture and utilisation (CCU),
• Direct air capture (DAC), 
• Direct air carbon dioxide capture and storage (DACCS), 
• Or other new CDR technologies,

Where the entire process for CO2 removal is verifiable, additional, permanent, and can produce carbon mitigation results that are practical to accurately account for.

 

But as non-AFOLU sector CDR technologies are still nascent today, we simply cannot afford to stop focusing our efforts on avoiding and reducing our carbon emissions as much as possible.

 

And remember that real carbon offsets will be in limited supply, and therefore should NOT be squandered. Instead, they should be reserved for use towards offsetting hard-to-abate residual emissions, after one has tried every other available decarbonisation method.

 

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) provides much needed clarity on this point in their FAQ webpage. 

 

Why listen to the SBTi? Because the SBTi is a partnership between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The SBTi call to action is one of the We Mean Business Coalition commitments. It defines and promotes best practice in science-based target setting.

 

In response to one key FAQ on SBTi’s webpage, 

“Does the SBTi accept all approaches to reducing emissions?”

The SBTi replies that,

“The SBTi requires that companies set targets based on emission reductions through direct action within their own boundaries or their value chains. Offsets are only considered to be an option for companies wanting to finance additional emission reductions beyond their science-based target (SBT) or net-zero target. Avoided emissions are also not counted towards SBTs. Regarding insetting, further work is required to standardize the definition of insetting projects and to develop a clear accounting methodology. For these reasons, the SBTi will assess insetting projects on a case-by-case basis during the validation process and may not approve their use. Renewable energy instruments such as renewable energy certificates (RECs) should only be used to meet reductions of scope 2 emissions using the market based approach. Please see the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance for further guidance on scope 2 accounting.”

Honestly, I can’t help but feel curious about what the SBTi would think about RECs once they discover my REC Pandora’s Box diagram.

 

Rising carbon taxes on emissions will also help incentivise companies to decarbonise further.

 

And so, this brings me back full circle to my earlier point on why Green Electricity Plans are less straightforward. If you value peace, and wish to do your part to support RE from Singapore…you can consider subscribing to a 100% Solar Plan,  or a good Green Electricity Plan.

 

Recap: Look for Green Electricity Plans offered by electricity producers/retailers who have made public commitments to invest in RE infrastructure, whether locally or overseas. At least these guys put money where their mouths are. The other producers/retailers, I take a risk but I will call them out for #greenwashing. (again, feel free to prove me wrong, I would be relieved if I was.)

 

Photo by Manny Becerra on Unsplash

 

SideQuest: Obtain an intimate understanding of what Greenwashing is. It’s quite a fuzzy topic at the moment and needs immediate support from the legal community for a legalese expansion exercise. Contribute here in the “Call For New Greenwashing Terms”. Cast your vote in a poll for new Greenwashing Terms!

 

And for all readers who have made it this far…

Thank you. It literally means the world 🙂

 

Watch this space.

 

Bonus 1: A global Renewable Energy (RE) power grid

 

As we all know by now, the Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty adopted in 2015, and entered into force in 2016. As of the date of this article, 195 out of 197 parties worldwide have signed it.

 

Singaporeans are relatively well travelled and so I don’t doubt that one would disagree when I say that the availability of RE resources depend on geography. 

 

The hard truth is that self-reliance for RE may perhaps never be possible for some countries. Then, for all which have endorsed the Paris Agreement, should we be denying any of them access to the World’s RE?

 

A true test of the World’s solidarity.

 

And a true test for Government Systems, local and regional.

 

According to Reuters, the EU 

“has set a more ambitious interim target for the EU to raise the share of renewable energy to 40% of final consumption by 2030, up from roughly 20% in 2019.” 

The raised interim target will no doubt give the World a better chance at keeping “1.5 deg C” alive. Even if one might argue that they are rushing it for themselves, and not for the world, how can one argue that the world won’t be better off for it regardless?

 

The question is, can ASEAN and its allies do the same, or even better, through its ASEAN Power Grid initiatives, such as the LTMS-PIP? Progress has been painfully slow. Since ASEAN’s founding, can we prove to ourselves that we are over 50 years wiser, and kinder?

 

Countries which are more geographically blessed, must be able to produce RE in surplus of their own consumption for any Regional Power Grid to make sense. In the short run, most countries will probably struggle to achieve 100% RE on their own turf, and will naturally have little incentive to export RE that they themselves don’t have enough of. 

 

Countries like Iceland which have already achieved 100% of their energy mix sourced from RE resources, must not stop there, and perhaps even reach out for green financing to profitably expand their local RE production in order to help their neighbours. There needs to be special green financing options to enable this cross-borders. Upfront capital costs, though a valid excuse, should not be a permanent one.

 

Amortisation is key. 

 

After all, if needs can no longer be afforded, then is money any good? 

 

And if we fail at structuring finance, then are financial institutions any good?

 

It seems that we must supercharge our ASEAN “Kampung Spirit” in order to succeed.

 

According to Power Technology, 

“ASEAN governments have laid out an aspirational five-year sustainability plan under the second phase of ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (APAEC) 2021-2025. Under this, ASEAN energy ministers agreed to set a target of 23% share of renewable energy in total primary energy supply in the region and 35% in ASEAN installed power capacity by 2025.”

 

Is that near enough for Singapore, for its region, or for the World? My dear readers, you decide. 

 

Never forget that if you can’t support Renewable Energy (RE) IN Singapore, you can support it FROM Singapore. 

 

Bonus 2: PROS and CONS of RECs

 

Time to make good on my earlier promise to provide the PROS and CONS of the REC ecosystem. Crazy as it may sound, the REC ecosystem is not without merits.

 

PROS of RECs

 

• A useful by-product of the REC issuance process is that RE producers can be verified by a third party (the REC authority) and that their electricity was produced via RE resources and not otherwise, to discourage foul play by energy producers.

 

• RE producers all around the world can earn additional income by selling their RECs and this naturally incentivises them to produce more energy that way. Why does it matter? Because not all countries are geographically lucky to have access to RE resources and it is important that RE production is supported wherever possible, as much as possible. Ideally, the additional income from RECs should be allocated for the expansion of RE production assets where it is geographically feasible. (But can’t this just be done the old way via responsible direct investments? Why the need to create a pandora’s box?)

 

• People living in Singapore can remotely support the growth of RE by purchasing and retiring RECs.

 

• Someone gets to collect “Best Marketer Award”! (just kidding…I’m actually crying)

 

CONS of RECs 

(feel free to prove me wrong, I would be relieved if I was.)

 

• Issuance of a REC only proves that 1 MWh of electricity is produced via RE resources. This process may be carbon neutral, but not carbon negative. So how the (bleep) does retiring a REC offset any carbon emissions in actuality?! In the end, the entire REC ecosystem will always be a net carbon emitter, and can never practically be net carbon neutral. What does this all mean at the end of the day? It means that if we allow RECs to take control of our energy market, we may end up with many entities claiming they are net zero but in actual fact no carbon was verifiably, additionally, and permanently removed from our atmosphere at all! It’s just a sidestep away from “Business As Usual”, and the additional costs are fully passed on to unassuming customers.

 

• Ideally, as I covered in my PROS section, the additional income from selling RECs should be channelled to the expansion of RE. But what if this is not so? I wonder who takes charge of keeping track of what the income from selling RECs is used for. Shouldn’t buyers of RECs be kept in the loop by default since not all RECs are issued by the same entity nor are they created the same?

 

• Risk of double counting or worse, if RECs are not retired/redeemed in good faith and there is abuse of the ecosystem. I must note that so-called high quality REC entities have been trying to combat this issue using blockchain technology, et. al. That said, I find it hard to empathise with their efforts. Why? Because double accounting was baked into RECs fresh out of the oven! Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

 

• Trace the transaction flows in my earlier REC Pandora’s Box diagram above and you may notice that it’s going to be just “Business As Usual” for some organisation(s). Take a guess which organization(s)? Clue: Which organisation(s) does not have to pay a cent more and yet continue to bring us ever closer to a climate change doomsday scenario?

 

Bonus 3: Zero Waste and Waste-to-Energy cannot coexist

 

Respectfully speaking, there needs to be reconsideration for Singapore’s Waste-to-Energy system, which by and large is a linear process that is incongruent with the longer term Circular Economy ambition, even with the recent addition of NEWSand which is meant to breathe new life to incinerator bottom ash.

 

Simply, how does one support both Zero Waste and Waste-to-Energy at the same time? Consider reading my article, “Waste Cannot Be Left To Thrive”.