Also, quite a bit of Costa Rica's rail is electrified:
http://www.ferrolatino.ch/en/reports/costarica/
And then there is 'off-grid' electricity, local installations of solar power. These are typically smaller but there are quite a few of them.
All of those railroads have been shut down for ages - there are no working railroads here, other than a revived diesel commuter railroad with a few cars that goes back and forth across the central valley.
Historically, yes, costa rica was one of the first countries to adopt electric power as a nation, including for railroads and stuff... but that time is over.
You can drive from the carribean to the pacific on highway in a few hours here.
That translates out to "What Costa Rica runs on is 100% renewable." It's likely pedantic to discuss it, but I will wager that no, the construction of that title was less than explicitly mindful. The ambiguity is reinforced multiple times throughout the article.
No it doesn't. You changed the meaning.
This is a subjective grammatical nitpick, but it would be foolish to say that it's not there at all. Further, the article text isn't mindful of the distinction either , so I'm happy that I raised the topic, with the resulting discussion around the share of total energy used for transport vs grid, and with my original wording of "as the title might suggest". (emphasis now on "might". YMMV. )