Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SmashRadish t1_j1qgrad wrote

NY post is totally impartial. There’s no way they are banking on manufacturing dissent from electrification to make more money from fossil fuels.


Albedo100 t1_j1s0zxp wrote

So what? MTA literally started buying Hybrid buses in 1999

It seems like people forgot that they tried this whole transition away from fossil fuels 20 years ago and then gave up on it after 10 years and went back to diesel, leaving us with what we have now. Their track record at sticking to the environmentally friendly option is terrible.


SmashRadish t1_j1s19zr wrote

> So what? MTA literally started buying Hybrid buses in 1999

This is a great reason to ignore the naked shilling of the NY post


Albedo100 t1_j1s1ff7 wrote

They were phased out. MTA at one point had close to 2000 hybrid buses


Mammoth_Sprinkles705 t1_j1ro23r wrote

It's just the government pissing your money down the drain.

$1 billion dollars for electric buses that ultimatimaly get electricity from mostly fossil fuels. This is just a handout to their corporate donors

If these pice of shit politicians want to do something about climate do something about corporate pollution.


OhGoodOhMan t1_j1rux4g wrote

Not true, NY gets most of its power from nuclear and renewables.

Even still, burning natural gas for electricity to charge electric vehicles is far more energy efficient and less polluting than combustion engines.


CairnBarrow t1_j1s4d8t wrote

Naturally a paywalled article would be this misleading…

Page 136 shows the facts on 41 Gigawatts of NYISO generation assets available to meet the 24 GW peak winter demand forecast. Renewables including nuclear and hydro total to 12.2 GW. This includes a whopping 0.132% of peak for solar, bearing in mind that peak winter load comes at night in NYC.

Therefore NYS can only meet half of the peak winter load demand with its nuclear, hydro, wind and other renewable power assets. The remaining half needs to be met by expensive imports or fossil assets, and you can bet that most of the dual fuel burners will be running on fuel oil due to natural gas curtailment.

I would be interested in seeing some normal load and consumption data in addition to annual capacity factors for installed assets. This would likely paint a better kWh picture. The kW picture will be pretty bleak for years to come. Still, I remain confident that we can put a good dent in it during our lifetime if we all do our part by reducing consumption during peak demand periods and doing your own research when demand is low.


Platapos t1_j1ryomo wrote

Even if electricity is generated using fossil fuels, it’s still a far more efficient system than a combustion motor burning fossil fuels.


Iskald_ t1_j25dci9 wrote

Electric also produced no local pollution or noise pollution. This city is dirty and noisy as fuck, electric buses is such a nice change.


DelTeaz t1_j1qlkhl wrote

It’s a simple news article and not an op-ed so it’s pretty unbiased.


glazor t1_j1qmb1g wrote

Are you saying that only op-eds can be biased?


DelTeaz t1_j1qq4zc wrote

No just pointing out that it’s a simple article that’s just reporting facts and quotes. Just because the post is right leaning doesn’t mean it’s local news articles are biased.


hooplah t1_j1r4bfi wrote

a non-comprehensive list of where bias can exist in news stories:

  • what stories news organizations choose to report on
  • how much coverage they give each story
  • language in headlines
  • language in articles
  • sources they reference
  • people they quote
  • statistics they pull
  • photos they use

every part of a news article, from a single word to the article’s very existence, is an opportunity for bias. you’re naive if you think only op-eds have slant


DelTeaz t1_j1r4ofw wrote

I’m aware of all that. It’s still a fine article to read.