|
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 10,000 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 10,000 kg), or it assumes that it has balanced out its negative actions, or it simply wants to promote itself as a pro-environment corporation. It is easy to calculate 'net zero' for energy. Consuming 10,000 kWh of electricity generated from burning coal can be improved by reducing that dirty power to 5,000 kWh and purchasing 5,000 kWh 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 10,000 kg is due completely to the 10,000 kWh from coal electricity, and it purchases 5,000 kWh from solar, its emissions would drop to 5,000 kg and the company could claim to be 'net zero'. All scenarios assume that maximum initial investments in conservation & efficiency have been made to reduce the need for any energy, good or bad. We call that the Rule of 3C. 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 as a non-profit association to promote full transparency of energy production & consumption, as well as the concommitant emission of carbon, so companies & individuals are encouraged to prove their claims of 'net zero' and (hopefully) aspire to the status of 'net zero PLUS'. A 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. Yes, it should be measured in metric but not enough people understand 'joule', and electrification of supply is the common trend, so let's speak in electric-ese. A 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 and emit 16% of the country's total carbon. Federal energy data (2023) estimate that 15.7 million households (all occupied dwellings) had 2.3 billion m2 of floorspace, with annual consumption of 26,000 kWh of each year, of which 21,745 kWh (81%) was for three thermal applications. Each household emitted 3,600 kg of carbon, of which 3,200 kg (87%) came from thermal end uses in the home. A ground source heat pump will produce that 22,000 kWh of dispatchable (no batteries) renewable energy, but will need 6,000 kWh to operate its electro-mechanical components which, combined with 5,000 kWh for lights & appliances, means the average household in Canada would PRODUCE 22,000 and CONSUME 11,000 ... and be classified as 'net zero PLUS'. |