Zum Inhalt springen

Do you agree or disagree?

Residual Grid Mix Concept in LCA

Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the statements. I like to collect your opinion on a couple of statements I heard around the topic. Sure enought I will share the results.
1.The use of the Residual Grid Mix Concept in LCA is a helpful instrument to support and quantify the transition to more sustainable/renewable electricity use/generation.
2.The Residual Grid Mix is not necessarily a fossil based mix.
3.The Residual Grid Mix is only defined in the European context, and allows for inconsistent (national grid mix) data beyond Europe, which can be disadvantageous for European Producers (using the residual grid mix) and favorable for Non-European Producers (using national grid mixes).
4.If 100% of the Grid Mix is under “Guarantee of Origin” (GO) (like in some European countries) the Residual Grid Mix is consequently not existing (0%). The product systems of these countries have to be modelled with “zero” electricity, if the guides and quasi-Standards “insist” on the use of (a non-existing) Residual Grid Mix.
5.Preferring “GO” electricity can be “unfair” for producers in counties of already high renewable electricity share in the average grid mix (Norway, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Spain,…) because, these companies only outperform the national grid, if they purchase more electricity under “GO” than the national grid already has.
6.The resulting Residual Grid Mix is against the intention of the concept to support and quantify the transition to more sustainable/renewable electricity use/generation, if the (national) issuing bodies of “GOs” offer fossil GOs based on Nuclear and Coal.
7.The Residual Grid Mix Concept is a violation of LCA ISO standards and its fundamental physical-chemical relationships in LCA, because i.e. one may buy and calculate on “GO" Certificates from Iceland, but Iceland is physically disconnected from the European Network.
8.The definitions, terminology and wording around the Residual Grid Mix Concept is not unambiguous and may lead to intentional or unintentional misuse.