It’s not even quite that - the article suggested they raised the commercial equivalent of the 12% through competitive auction. These allow the bidders a set price over 20 years.
So it’s cheaper than buying in fossil fuels, the suppliers get certainty, and they achieve close to complete decarbonisation using private investment.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
It’s not even quite that - the article suggested they raised the commercial equivalent of the 12% through competitive auction. These allow the bidders a set price over 20 years.
So it’s cheaper than buying in fossil fuels, the suppliers get certainty, and they achieve close to complete decarbonisation using private investment.
How good is that?
I think private investment is awful but I’m being dogmatic in that stance.
If we want to split hairs, the US power grid is also privately owned and allowed bidders to set the price forever.
But one is decarbonizing and the other is not.