Talk:Green certificate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Discussion

Are Green Certificates used by member states to proof to the EU, they have x% of their electricity production from renewable resources? How do the other member states proof that ? --SvenAERTS (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can there be agreements between memberstates so traders can export Green Certificates? Or between a memberstate and a CDM -country? I can imagine certain installations in CDM countries that are not eligible for CER's because of the additionality principle, could comply under a certain countries'Green Certificate or REC-regime/legislation/specifications. I do not know how double counting could be avoided: e.g. how to make sure the same project is not issueing VER's, Cer's tothe USA and Green Certificates to some Europeans?--SvenAERTS (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What jurisdictions issue/use green certificates? -- Whpq 17:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to a recent Communication from the European Commission, the green certificate system is in use in following EU Member States: Belgium, Italy, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom. More information can be found in the Communication 'The support of electricity from renewable energy sources', COM(2005) 627 final (EEA)

Are these European Green certificates tradeable within the EU-countries for companies to comply? A Green Certificate in Romania, Belgium, Italy should mean the same and be exchangeable no? But as the prices per country are different... and if you could trade them, they would all be sold to the most offering country... Because there is free transport of goods and services in the EU... isn't that illegal?--SvenAERTS (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tags vs. certificates

Hey Whpq,

In Europe, nobody knows about green tags; certificate is the word. Check e.g. www.recs.org or www.aib-net.org. Also issuing processes and rules differ from what is described under Green Tags. Let's have separate spaces for and keep them linked to each other.

Regards,

M

I confirm and agree --SvenAERTS (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

origin

In many trade language the word certificate relates to the origin. Sometimes the words combine. In the essential effort to bring green energy, or renewable energy to consumers, who want to distinguish in what they get in a free market, it does not matter what the name is. As long as the supply of the energy is just well accounted and securely booked to their - utility meter - related account. Bouwhuise (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. Not merged.
D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Support merge as both articles in general talks about the same thing implemented in different regions. Merging these articles will help to create a comprehensive overview of these certificates. Beagel (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Define "both" articles. I count at least four which overlap this topic:
It's not clear that merging into just one article would improve them. The resulting article would be long and would need multiple sections to cover different geographic areas, and the sections could get long as these types of offsetting schemes are diverse even within a single country. Since the schemes developed independently, each section would need its own history subsection and so on. It's also not clear what the title of the merged article should be. What is to be the canonical name of this type of offsetting scheme? Perhaps you could make a userspace draft of the merged article you have in mind, so others can judge whether it helps. Another option is to write a
summary article while keeping the region-specific articles. --Teratornis (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Renewable Energy Certificates and Green certificate per merger tag since December 2009 (not tagged by me, I just started discussion at the talk page).Beagel (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The concept underlying these articles seems to show up in a lot of other articles. There might already be some over-arching article(s) that provide(s) the generic description the merger request seems to be aiming for (maybe:
hatnote
links to the existing parent article from the existing articles might be better than merging them. I will look around at these articles and try to grasp the structure of our existing coverage. That could take a while as we have a lot of material already. See:
Another possibility is to create a
navigation template for articles relating to emissions trading or support mechanisms for renewable energy. --Teratornis (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
summary article) may already exist. --Teratornis (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Against merge as the Renewable Energy Certificates article provides a lot of good information specific to the US implementation of the RECs concept.

However, the Renewable Energy Certificates article needs to be renamed to reflect how specific the information contained within is to the US. I would propose something like "Renewable Energy Certificates (USA)", which would allow it to remain as a stand-alone article, whilst allowing new articles to be created relating to RECs in other countries, such as "Renewable Energy Certificates (Australia)". --61.69.26.118 (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green certificate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 05:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_certificate&oldid=1199351408"