Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
If you're saying that the total amount of energy the system consumes is greater than the total amount of renewable energy the operators produce, then sure that mean they're lying. But if you're just talking about instantaneous consumption then I don't agree that that's a lie. That's just a baseless accusation rooted in a lack of understanding of how such systems works. It wouldn't be much different than if someone bought a hybrid electric car as their second vehicle under the promise that it will consume 1/3 less gas than their current non-hybrid and saying, "Well it uses less gas under acceleration, but right now when cruising on the highway, it's using about same amount". It's just nitpicking an irrelevant technicality as a gotcha which obviously a person is free to do if they want, but I'm not going to agree with that.  |
The only thing that needs to be understood here are that there are energy inputs and outputs with an electricity grid and natural gas system,. The renewable gets mixed together with the non renewable energy and the output has no ability to decide what it gets.
So Calgary or anywhere else saying they run something on 100% renewable power is a lie. Even if we pretend that they can pick the energy, there will be times, in Alberta at least, where there is not enough renewable energy even to power the trains if we could (like at night when it's not windy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker
It is a system that has cleaned up rivers, managed acid rain, driven down NOX and SOX emissions, and is the system for large emitter CO2 management across the world. It is not virtue signaling, nor a scam. It is a proven system for reducing emissions. Since CO2 is a world problem, the market can be a world solution. |
Pricing pollution works, absolutely. But that does not make a lie true, CTrains do not any more run on renewable electricity than my house does. Using some accounting trickery doesn't change that, it just makes the trains more expensive to run.
I barely trust our governments to regulate our companies well enough to properly keep track of emissions, I do not trust California let alone somewhere like Indonesia to be properly accounting for the carbon credits they get.
Trading emissions, even if accounted properly, can never be more than a tiny contribution to reducing them, unless someone starts carbon capture on an implausible scale. At some point, we are going to have to actually reduce emissions. Even if we quadruple count carbon offsets in every bogus rainforest plantation, there will never be enough to make up for the emissions we make in this province alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
Has Hamilton ever claimed to care about emissions neutrality?
That's the great thing about a carbon tax. There's a price on this stuff to help sort it all out. No need to invest in puffery. It's all on the balance sheet.
Personally, I was just wondering why they'd build a huge bus barn and not kit it out to run electric buses. After all, if you have buses that burn fuel, you need better ventilation. But I guess they just aren't ready to transition. Still, CNG is better than nothing. And every little bit counts.
|
This bus is 100% definitely not carbon negative, it produces lots of CO2. What is carbon negative (maybe) is the facility that turned organic matter into CH4. Although even that likely is not true, at best it will be carbon neutral and likely not even that due to various inefficiencies and leakages.
Agreed about the carbon tax. We already have the mechanism in place, no need to bugger up the system and make false claims. The federal government has made it easy for Hamilton - all they need to do is buy what is cheapest, taking into account likely future carbon prices.
Prev
Linear Mode
