Facebook Says It Aims To Power Itself With 100% Renewable Energy by 2020 (fastcompany.com) 110
Facebook says it is aiming to buy renewable energy to cover 100 percent of its electricity use by the end of 2020, joining companies such as Citigroup and Ikea in setting that deadline for achieving its goal. From a report: By 2020, Facebook plans to power its global operations with 100% renewable energy, and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 75%. It's the next step in ramping up the company's work to move to renewables over the last several years. "There's the expectation that we have as a company that we think this is good for communities and this is good for the world as a whole, but it's also good business sense," says Bobby Hollis, the company's head of global energy. "We really integrate this into our entire business planning process to make sure that we go into places where renewables make sense." In 2017, the company's carbon footprint was 979,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent -- roughly as much as the emissions from more than 100,000 homes, according to an EPA calculator. The company's data centers, which were supporting the data of 2.1 billion people a month by the end of 2017, account for nearly two-thirds of that footprint (other business activities, including construction and employee commutes and travel, account for 38%).
Meh (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be much more impressed if these companies/states just did it without having to press-release it all.
And even after they did it, why brag about? We will all just notice how much cooler our globe is and move on.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, California, now Facebook, what will be the next article published on /. ?
I suggest "Slashdot Aims To Power Itself With 100% Renewable Energy by 2020"...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that hydro storage is available even remotely close to all of the FB sites, let alone other companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is Facebook and we know what they produce more than anything else. So I was thinking they could say relocate to have more regionally focused data centres and well locate them next to those communities sewerage facilities, so methane digestors feeding into gas turbines and voila they are powered by what they produce, renewably, a whole lotta shit ;D (it's especially funny because you could actually do it upon a sound economic basis).
Re: (Score:1)
Just like everyone else, they'll get it from coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The difference is that they will buy "tariffs" to offset this use later.
In other words this is just an accounting trick like all the other tech companies that made similar announcements to buy "green energy". If these companies were serious about electricity that was green, cheap, and reliable, then they'd be investing in nuclear power. But there's a bunch of idiots out there, like in GreenPeace, that have a rabid hatred for any
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly there's no good reason we can't all start jumping onto 100% renewable energy, we need to reinvest in our infrastructure anyway so on-site generation makes more sense all the time. Utilities hate the idea, less $. Republican oil-trolls hate the idea, less $. Nuclear slashdot apologist morons hate the idea, less shilling contract $. The idea that there's no subscriber model required for power is a foreign and hostile concept to these shortsighted pricks.
Isn't it worthy of consideration that renewable energy is sort of an all inclusive club, over a long enough time line.
Isn't it theoretically plausible the earth (and her sun) has enough lifespan remaining to sequester the carbon necessary for a future oil & gas boom in the year 165,002,018?
Re: (Score:2)
Because of idiots like Greenpeace and the like who believe you need to press release about it, or they believe otherwise. Their "green" rankings of companies is based on publicly available information on how green they are. So if you're a company that runs completely on renewables, has a zero carbo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Caffinated Bacon/Crimson; why you lie so much? (Score:2)
"While every electron that's used won't be from renewable energy, we expect to be putting more renewable energy into the grid than we're taking other energy out of it," Professor Garnaut said.
Even they are agreeing that it can not be 100% renewable. You are a gutless troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Go fuck yourself Windy (Score:2)
You are still yet to show a single lie, yet you claim it all the time.
You like to also claim any random AC is me, it's probably you. You are dishonest enough to pull that shit.
I often point out your lies [slashdot.org] and lies [slashdot.org] more lies [slashdot.org] more lies [slashdot.org] even more lies [slashdot.org] lies [slashdot.org] and lies [slashdot.org]
When you aren't lying, you are just making shit up [slashdot.org] that is in no way believable, and lying.
Re: (Score:2)
BUT, I decided to keep my favorite lies of yours.
Only a paid Chinese would even try to convince others that CHina is NOT a communist country. [slashdot.org]
And what was it the limey said? Go suck on Xi's knob???? something like that.
If not, follow the rest of the ACs that tell you to take a hike.
Go fuck yourself some more Windy (Score:2)
I notice you've given up even trying to deny you are a massive liar.
What's sad is that you keep accusing me of lying but still can't show even a single one.
I just did a bit of Googling to find some of your lies, if I was keeping links there would be dozens of better ones to choose from. Some of the economics ones are your funniest.
It's easy [google.com]. Anyone can do it. Just add a topic as well if you like, and a date range.
More Porky/Red tide lies (Score:2)
As I asked before, show us a single nation that is 100% wind or solar.
NOT going to happen.
And yet porky/red tide, you will continue to lie.
Re: (Score:2)
You are still yet to show a single lie, yet you claim it all the time. You like to also claim any random AC is me, it's probably you. You are dishonest enough to pull that shit.
I often point out your lies [slashdot.org] and lies [slashdot.org] more lies [slashdot.org] more lies [slashdot.org] even more lies [slashdot.org] lies [slashdot.org] and lies [slashdot.org] When you aren't lying, you are just making shit up [slashdot.org] that is in no way believable, and lying.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be most impressed if Facebook took itself offline, which should save quite a bit of power.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be much more impressed if these companies/states just did it without having to press-release it all.
And even after they did it, why brag about? We will all just notice how much cooler our globe is and move on.
But they won't even do it. They'll be powered by the same grid mix as everyone around them. If they invest in renewable capacity additions, they are certainly entitled to take credit for that, but they are still depending on non-renewable power to operate.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll be powered by the same grid mix as everyone around them.
Sure, but THE MIX WILL CHANGE. Electricity is fungible. Pull a watt from the grid, and you can't say where it came from. But Facebook's dollars are going to a clean power company putting watts into the grid, and the amount of clean energy will go up as clean providers expand capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity is fungible and that is how these companies can "go green" so cheaply. They can buy hydro power from Tennessee, solar power from Arizona, and wind power from Oklahoma (where I hear the wind comes sweeping down the plain) only because large amounts of cheap electricity come from coal, natural gas, and nuclear. We can easily get to 10 % or 20% from wind and sun, but that next 10% will be more expensive and more difficult, and the next 10% more expensive still. Getting to 100% would be possible
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be much more impressed if these companies/states just did it without having to press-release it all.
And even after they did it, why brag about? We will all just notice how much cooler our globe is and move on.
As someone who works in the coal & gas industry, I appreciated the heads up. Coal has been a villain during my entire career, but actionable disdain has grown massively recently. The barrage of press releases over the past couple of years has shown me that there are people determined to live in a renewable world, regardless of the cost. I am starting my own (non-fossil fuel) business this year and won't have to worry about my livelihood anymore.
I am only able to shift my career because of my educ
Re: (Score:1)
shown me that there are people determined to live in a renewable world, regardless of the cost.
Or maybe it's that they've calculated the real cost of non-renewables and prefer the option that has lower real costs. Could that be it? If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that there aren't hidden, ignored, or even outright subsidized away costs to coal and oil that's your choice. Some of us will do what's smart and right regardless of the out-of-pocket costs.
Transitioning workers to renewables is easier said than done.
So what, we should even try? And some of the burden has to be on those workers to make a real good faith effort to be retrained.
Re: (Score:2)
I only hope that the people pushing these changes have some compassion for those less fortunate than myself.
Why should they? Coalminers may lose jobs, but solar panel and wind turbine manufacturers will create jobs. Why do the miners deserve more compassion?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do the miners deserve more compassion?
Because they live in swing states.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do the miners deserve more compassion?
Because they live in swing states.
Nope. The biggest coal mining states are:
1. Wyoming
2. West Virginia
3. Kentucky
All are solid Trump territory.
Pennsylvania is swing, but the coal there is metallurgical anthracite.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be much more impressed if these companies/states just did it without having to press-release it all.
A silent hidden rolemodel is as good as no role model at all. The power is in the press release. You should be happy that these happen as it gives you the power of examples to follow.
I find myself curious about CO2 emissions (Score:2)
So, 100% renewable energy.
But only 75% reduction in CO2 emissions? I'm curious as to which form of renewable energy emits ~25% of the CO2 of whatever the standard form of energy emits....
technically right is the best kind of right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're being very holistic in their approach to these numbers:
https://sustainability.fb.com/... [fb.com]
Their carbon footprint calculation includes corporate travel, employee commuting, and building construction.
Re: (Score:2)
All of those things use energy. If they're 100% renewable, they won't be using the stuff that produces CO2.
And yes, that includes concrete. And steel.
Re: (Score:2)
They only claim that they would be "powering our global operations with 100% renewable energy by the end of 2020."
Capital improvements aren't considered "operational" and neither is employee travel. Corporate travel may be a different matter, but this is more a matter of semantics. They didn't directly say they are solely using 100% renewable energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe 25% is already zero-emission.
Apple's already there! (Score:3, Funny)
Doesn't that even deserve a MENTION?
Boy, the anti-Apple bias on Slashdot is disgusting.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom... [apple.com]
Re: (Score:3)
And Google. Facebook is a little bit late to the party.
That said, like most of these stories, I'd expect it to be only true on paper, i.e. involving either buying renewable energy credits or playing games where they trade renewable energy that they produce during the day for non-renewable energy that they consume at night. Buying as much renewable energy as you consume is easy. Storing enough renewable energy to let you actually run exclusively on renewable energy is much less so.
Re: (Score:2)
playing games where they trade renewable energy that they produce during the day for non-renewable energy that they consume at night.
Since that results in real CO2 reduction, how is it "playing games"?
Storing enough renewable energy to let you actually run exclusively on renewable energy is much less so.
This is just plain stupid. Why in the world should they store energy in expensive batteries when there are people on the grid that can use it RIGHT NOW? Storing is wasteful of energy due to charge/discharge inefficiencies, and wasteful of money that could be spent on even more PV panels or turbines.
It is the amount of CO2 reduction that counts, not the "purity" of how it is done.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it doesn't scale.
Just because a solution won't work in 2060 doesn't mean it isn't a good solution today. We are a long long way from "too much clean energy".
Re: (Score:2)
California has a goal of reaching 100% renewable energy by 2045. This is not a 2060 problem. At this point, we can't usefully increase our hydroelectric power production (and because of methane emissions, it is arguably not so green anyway). So you're talking about making up the entire rest of the base load with wind within 27 years. It might be possible, but I wouldn't count on it.
And we've already reached the point where the California ISOs sometimes have to actually pay other states to take our exce
Re: (Score:2)
Because it only works for the first few companies that do it. If everybody did that, eventually, you would hit a point where the renewable power production during the day would greatly exceed demand, meaning that the renewable power wouldn't be reducing carbon emissions anymore but on paper, it still would
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, the anti-Apple bias on Slashdot is disgusting.
Slashdot isn't anti-Apple, it has a perfectly level playingfield for the entire technology sector. It just looks like anti-Apple because one specific fanboy sucks up so much positive Apple bias that the rest of Slashdot has maintain balance in the force.
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, the anti-Apple bias on Slashdot is disgusting.
Slashdot isn't anti-Apple, it has a perfectly level playingfield for the entire technology sector. It just looks like anti-Apple because one specific fanboy sucks up so much positive Apple bias that the rest of Slashdot has maintain balance in the force.
Riiiiight.
"Perfectly level playingfield..." (shakes head)
Tell me another story, Daddy...
Oh shit (Score:2)
2018-08-29, 16:45.
Facebook becomes self-aware and says it aims to power itself with 100% renewable energy by 2020.
100% Gullible Audience (Score:2)
This is the real power of Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not that hard to use 100% renewable energy.
Here is the idea. Power company produces 1 TWh of renewable and 10TWh of fossil power per year. Facebook needs 100GWh, GiveNoFuck Inc. needs 1TWh. In the end both companies use 10% renewable. Now Facebook, by paying a small premium, tells power company "I want full 100% renewable", so they assign 100GWh of their renewable production to Facebook and at the same time, GiveNoFuck Inc. now runs at 0% renewable, at maybe a slightly lower price. Not a single solar
Please accept these trinkets (Score:2)
Buying renewable power accomplishes nothing (Score:2)
Buying renewable power does nothing. All it does is take renewable power away from another customer.
Re: (Score:2)
And at this time, the only storage that is capable of providing enough energy is hydro storage.
Re: (Score:2)
And at this time, the only storage that is capable of providing enough energy is hydro storage.
And where [wikipedia.org] would we find any of that...
A noble goal... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and we can help them by using their website less!
Five reasons they do this (Score:2)
1. Carbon taxes exist worldwide, and in many states as well. By purchasing green energy, you lower your corporate taxes, and pay less when you sell or buy your products and/or services.
2. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. Yes, all fossil fuels. In some locations, there are artificial subsidies that distort the market to make it appear they are cheaper, but when you allocate all costs to the firms, including their employees and customers, renewables are still cheaper even after the artificial a
Re: (Score:2)
#3???? come again? Wind/Solar are indeterminate energy sources. In America, wind is around 32-37% capacity factor, with solar being around 25-30% capacity. OTOH, coal and nat gas are 50-60%, and near 100% availability(well, when enron is not involved). More importantly, American oil and nat gas is only now being exported. As such, 100% of our n
Re: (Score:2)
#2 is false. If you remove all subsidies from the prices then fossil fuels are still cheaper. At one point wind power was being subsidized by federal and state governments to the tune of over 50% of the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right... (Score:2)
maybe they'll have 10 subscribers left by then.
Re: (Score:2)
God what a waste of electrons. (Score:2)
Just sayin..