• Eheran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Things like bridges have other priorities. They should last 100 years or so, the CO2 footprint is simply irrelevant. The relevant parameters are safety, longevity and a reasonable price. Stop paying attention to green washing nonsense. Focus on the important parts.

    • zerakith@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think you misunderstand what a whole life CO2 assessment is. It factors in the carbon per longetivity. Often you will also be assessing other factors like cost per co2 too.

      Rail is a predominantly upfront CO2 cost in infrastructrue for much lower operational CO2 costs and as such these questions are quite important if your job is decarbonisation of Rail.

      • Eheran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        This is pure green washing, the guy wants to make money with his “alternative” product.

        Obviously transportation as a whole emits a lot of CO2. But not so much the infrastructure, since that lasts a long time, so even high initial emissions are quickly irrelevant compared to the emissions of using the infrastructure. Rails, being electric a lot and with low friction, are the best case(?) scenario “against” this. I would still assume that due to the decades of use that the initial upfront CO2 of making railways is somewhat irrelevant.