|
The term 'net zero' is used to indicate a progressive stance on the climate crisis. A company will admit that its operations include some 'negative' actions which emit carbon, but it cites the term to indicate that it is taking 'positive' actions to cancel out that negative. For example, it may emit 1,000 kg of carbon from its combustion of fossil fuels for corporate operations, but it installs solar panels or purchases carbon credits to balance its 'bad' with a new 'good'. The major flaw in this claim is that the company rarely quantifies its 'bad' (competitors could derive a marketing advantage if they know the company emits 1,000 kg), or it assumes that it has balanced out its negative actions, or it simply wants to be seen as a pro-environment corporation. It is easy to calculate 'net zero' for energy. Consuming 5,000 kWh of electricity generated from burning coal can be improved by reducing that source of dirty power to 2,400 kWh and purchasing 2,600 kWh generated from clean energy technologies. This assumes that all solar, wind, hydro & nuclear output are 'clean' through all stages of development & operation. Most claims of 'net zero' refer to the emission of carbon, and the same formula can be applied to environmental claims. If the company can prove that its emission of 1,000 kg is due completely to the 5,000 kWh of coal electricity, and it purchases 2,500 kWh from solar, its emissions would drop to 500 kg and the company could claim to be 'net zero'. If it purchases all 5,000 kWh of solar, its emissions would drop to 0 kg and (if there are no other emissions from space heating) the company could claim to be 'net zero PLUS'. All scenarios assume that maximum initial investments in conservation & efficiency have been made to reduce the need for any energy which have emissions. The problem: unless the company provides transparent & verified data on its 'before' and 'after' scenarios, its claims cannot be substantiated. It can boast of being 'good-er' from its use of solar, but is that 1% better, 50% better, 99% better, or just blatant greenwashing? NetZeroPLUS Canada was incorporated to promote full transparency of energy production & consumption, as well as the concommitant emission of carbon, so companies & individuals can prove their claims of 'net zero' and (hopefully) aspire to the status of 'net zero PLUS'. The first step is to drop the use of arcane energy terms such as Btu, mtoe, bbl, calorie, m3, HP, etc, and quantify all output in kWh to allow comparison between the range of energy options. The second step is to ensure that ALL production and ALL consumption are included in ALL energy calculations, and are verified for accuracy to minimize the growing use of greenwashing claims of 'net zero'. Our focus is on the thermal applications of space heating, space cooling & water heating, which consume 21% of all secondary energy in Canada (87% of energy consumed in the residential sector) and emit 16% of the country's total carbon (87% of the residential sector). All practical measures should be taken to minimize thermal demand, after which a ground source heat pump will produce 22,000 kWh a year of dispatchable (no batteries required) renewable energy, but it will need 6,000 kWh to operate its components which, when combined with 5,000 kWh consumed for lights & appliances, means ... the average household will PRODUCE 22,000 and CONSUME 11,000 ... or 'net zero PLUS'. |
|
NetZeroPLUS Canada is preparing sites to explain the netzeroPLUS concept. They will be uploaded early in 2026 but here are some early drafts: |