Thanks for responding to my post.
Please allow me to clarify that no “lingo” in this article is designed to “fool” anyone, average or not. This article is about a design for a high-profile solar power system. The language used simply reiterates the goals of the designers. At this point it is just a design, with most of the details given geared at the engineering of the waterfall and not the specifics regarding carbon neutrality.

If I had to guess I would say that they would like to build a solar power plant big enough to, as you speculated, offset the energy consumed during the running of the Olympic Games. In other words, they’ll likely say this is the amount of power (in kWh or MWh) we expect the Games to consume and this is the size power plant we need to produce an equal or greater amount of renewable energy.

I agree with you that true carbon neutrality is a complex equation, into which any number of factors can be added. We could talk about the energy consumption by ALL those attending the games – from leaving home to arriving and throughout the duration of their stay before returning home. We could factor in cab, bus or train rides, food and beverage transportation, and many more. None of which would be necessarily unreasonable additions. But at some point it must stop. The organizers of the Olympic Games cannot be responsible for all parties involved. Module manufacturers must be responsible for “greening” their processes as much as possible to reduce consumption and speed up energy payback.

Furthermore, it is not as if the solar panels/waterfall will turn off at the end of the Games. I imagine after 20 years that the solar panels installed in honor of the 2016 Olympic Games would produce enough energy to offset all or more of the carbon costs you speak of. And if, in the short term, they can produce enough solar power to offset the electricity used during the Games – effectually powering them – then more power to the designers and my hopes that the Olympic Board in Rio opts for this or some similarly renewable option.

Also, whether a meticulously scrutinized carbon neutrality can be claimed or not, aspiring to power the world’s most famous and ancient sporting event with renewable energy is unprecedented and not to be underestimated or under-appreciated.

In no way do I mean to belittle your dissension. I appreciate dissent and firmly believe that it is vital to our democratic way of life. However, in the realm of malicious foolery, we have more to worry about from corporate branding and greenwashing than from one design team’s aspirations to create a carbon neutral Olympic Games. A goal which, by the way, I believe is possible given the five to six years they have to do it in. Now whether it is likely?…

I love the seemingly simple, yet deceiving, lingo used in this article to fool the average person.

“Carbon neutral:” does this mean they simply intend to produce enough power to cover the expected power consumption incurred by the games?

Or will they look at the real picture of energy consumption. More specifically, anything that is in anyway shape or form related to and incurred by the games. This would be including the energy consumed in the manufacture of the very photovoltaic cells, and other “renewable” energy sources that will THEN begin to produce power?

I expect most people to be completely boggled by this question, asking themselves if it is worth rereading in attempt to understand or if they should just carry on with their merry, ignorant, ways.

Saying that the Olympic games will be carbon neutral and truly doing so (and providing solid evidence that the total environmental impact of any and all related pre-operations and operations is actually “carbon neutral”) is unlikely.

Feel free to respond to my email at ch1237@txstate.edu if you would like to make any response. I appreciate anything, even if it is to completely belittle my dissension.

The Belgrade High School Renewable Energy Club is competing for a grant to install a Solar Photovoltaic system and implement a number of renewable energy curricula on/in Belgrade High School, and the receipt of the grant is decided exclusively by popular, online vote. Thus, we’re rallying now for all the votes we can manage. Though voting is open until May 15th, it is imperative that we snatch and maintain a firm lead early on. Detailed below is the voting process– if you would firstly vote, and then forward this message to virtually everyone you know, it would be deeply appreciated.

To vote:

Go to brighterplanet.com, and sign up for an account.

Once signed up, select the “Project Fund” tab, select the “Belgrade High CARE Project”, and cast your three votes!

Simple as that.

The mass, grass-roots effort being put into this grant represents the larger, over-arching goal of “greening” Montana’s schools, and, as the only Montanan project in the running, we are working to form a communal base of support amongst as many schools, organizations, and individuals in Montana as possible.

It all starts with this round of voting, which is why every vote counts.

My thanks, and please spread the word,

Matt Powell-Palm
President,
Belgrade High School Renewable Energy Club
matt.the.funk.machine@gmail.com