Slashdot Mirror


Walgreens To Build First Self-Powered Retail Store

MojoKid writes "We hear about green deployment practices all the time, but it's often surrounding facilities such as data centers rather than retail stores. However, Walgreens is determined to go as green as possible, and to that end, the company announced plans for the first net zero energy retail store. The store is slated to be built at the corner of Chicago Avenue and Keeney Street in Evanston, Illinois, where an existing Walgreens is currently being demolished. The technologies Walgreens is plotting to implement in this new super-green store will include solar panels and wind turbines to generate power; geothermal technology for heat; and efficient energy consumption with LED lighting, daylight harvesting, and 'ultra-high-efficiency' refrigeration."

186 comments

  1. But... by longbot · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...is it powered by the tears of employees?

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
    1. Re:But... by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think Walmart has that patented.

    2. Re:But... by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Epic comment.
      But lets be clear here, Walmart is doing everything to reduce costs so the family owners can scrape in more and give back less.
      If they could use employee tears to power their facility at a lower cost, you know they would.

    3. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's powered by Walgreens' survival instincts.

      You have to factor in everything from profits carried over from Prohibition era alcohol sales and other "Patent Medicines" and modern meds-gone-bad like OxyContin to the timely use of politically motivated subsidies for renewable energy.

      Employee's tears are a foregone conclusion in a system that rests primarily on Capitalist ideals.

    4. Re:But... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      OxyContin isn't meds gone bad, but legislation and politics gone worse. Home of the free, where you can get high as long as the "right" people get a cut and make their campaign donations on time. But the medicine itself has its uses as a pain killer, even in semi-sane countries where you can get your high legally.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's powered by all the energy and materials lost by demolishing the existing store?

    6. Re:But... by Grayhand · · Score: 1

      ...is it powered by the tears of employees?

      Walgreens not Walmart

    7. Re:But... by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Good catch.

      If it WERE Walmart, I'd have to insert (pithy-reference-to-Soylent-Green) here.

    8. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's entirely accurate as Walgreens.

      They're a terrible company to work for, for the girl working the register up through store managers. Beyond that (DM's and such) you're pretty much untouchable and make a fuckton of money.

      Oh, and the pharmacy techs, that make stupid money to basically bag groceries.

    9. Re:But... by plover · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, I was wondering about the energy break-even point of razing and rebuilding, too. Those bulldozers and steel foundries don't run on unicorn farts.

      --
      John
    10. Re:But... by hedwards · · Score: 2

      And ironically enough, that means higher taxes for everybody else as they purposefully fail to pay a living wage or provide any sort of benefits. And, undercut the local retailers leaving no jobs either before they move onto a new community to suck dry.

    11. Re:But... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      walmart owns walgreens

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    12. Re:But... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    13. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they did, the amount of energy resources needed per unicorn fart is very inefficient. It's pretty much the corn ethanol of imaginary animal farts.

    14. Re:But... by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Walmart is quite cheap. Far more people work there than shop there. It's a net win - just like factory automation reducing the number of factory workers is a net win. Also, Walmart really pisses off hipsters, so it's twice as good.

      Higher taxes for everyone else comes from voting for bigger government, not from Walmarts.

      And, undercut the local retailers leaving no jobs either before they move onto a new community to suck dry.

      Riiiight, just like the industrial revolution destroyed everyone's standard of living by putting all those local craftsmen out of work. Reducing the cost of products and services is called "technology" and it's a good thing, despite the workers it always displaces.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:But... by germansausage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know everybody loves to bash Walmart, but is really justified? At the risk of greatly oversimplifying, you can help poor people by 1. getting them more money, or 2. making the things they need to buy cost less. Walmart is working very hard at doing thing 2. Do you think Walmart's margins are higher or lower than the retail industry average?

    16. Re:But... by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is what the tribalists dont understand.

      When things are cheaper because of greater efficiencies, everyone involved wins.

      In truly free trade, everyone wins. Whenever I am better at A's than B's, and you are better at B's than A's, then trading is of benefit to both of us.

      Thats regardless of any other factors. For instance, I can also be better at B's than you are at B's, yet trade still benefits both of us because no matter how much better I am then you at B's, I am still better at A's than B's.

      The complaints about companies like walmart are cloud and mirrors around the idea that you may not be good enough at either A's or B's to make a reasonable living (= low wages.) But this really isn't an argument against walmart.. the problem is skills. Those attacking walmart and corporations like it won't improve anyones skills, but may end up costing people their low skill jobs.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    17. Re:But... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Walmart because I don't live in the US, but the objections to UK supermarkets are that they are impersonal and give bad service, combined with screwing suppliers. Farmers can't afford to produce milk ethically because their biggest customers demand factory farming level prices.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:But... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      People do seem to forget that before Walmart there was Sears. They not only filled the role of Walmart before Walmart existed, they also filled the roll of Amazon. Needed a hammer? Go to Sears. Needed a bathtub? Go to Sears. Heck, Needed a house? Go to Sears.

    19. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hasn't it been quite a few decades since Sears sold houses (and, they were "kits", not completed houses)?

    20. Re:But... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The whole thing gets even more complicated when you add in the fact that we are rapidly approaching (if not a good distance past) the point that there simply isn't enough work for everyone to do. It doesn't necessarily matter that you might be better at A and I am better at B. If you are better at A, good enough at B and automation has made it cheaper to have one person doing A and B, it may not matter if I am better at B.

      That still isn't a knock against Walmart. It is a knock against our collective inability to accept that at some point, we just don't have enough legitimate work for everyone.

    21. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, it seems to me, that consumers are getting exactly what they want -- prices are more important to the vast majority of them than service and "ethical" milk. Talk is cheap, but most people tend to be cheaper than their talk when picking among competing products.

      If there were really a significant demand for higher priced "ethical" milk, surely it would be available (of course at a higher price than the factory stuff). I live in the US in a fairly liberal/progressive area, and here you can select from a range of retailers. There's Whole Paycheck which has a lot of "organic" and some actual high end foods (such as meats) and there's Walmart who has fewer organic products and pretty much no high end foods (but, of course, charges lower prices). Both exist because some people prefer the price/quality/"coolness" balance of one over the other.

    22. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will never be at the point where there isn't enough work for people to do. We will only have moments where our system isn't effective enough to keep everyone working productively.

    23. Re:But... by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love impersonal places. I hate having smalltalk with a 85 year old grocery bagger. Just sell me my shit so I can leave, I don't need to see a friendly face and exchange ``how are you''s with people just to buy a loaf of bread.

    24. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walmart poorly pays it's employees and doesn't work them long enough for other full-time benefits. They use this 'advantage' to undercut nearby stores and drive them out of business. When no one is left, prices increases and the area ends up being worse off than before. That's why people hate Walmart. It's justified.

    25. Re:But... by hallkbrdz · · Score: 0

      So... it is Nuclear powered. But then all power, is nuclear.

    26. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry about that, but the higher taxes come from Walmart not paying a living wage, where you and I as taxpayers, pick up the health care costs that walmart will not chip into, or for the largess of our government of giving food to the underpaid, and unsubdized worker, by the shutting of the competition thru predatory pricing, low until the competition closes and then right up to what the local market will bear. Check with tow or three of the walmarts in your area, you weill not see the same price on anything, except for what is in the news ad. Go to your next town where there is competition, and check the prices at walmart, and then shop at a AG or other supplier that pays a living wage.

    27. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry man, but you work for the sears before K-mart took them over? My dad did, in the 50's and 60's best paying store in the country, highest customer recognition, retention, and fewest employee complaints. Then they were bought out, built the macormic place, in Chicago, made some bad investments that led to k-mart. But go look at the old catalogs, from the 1900 era, and you see sears even sent out trained carpenters to put the house together, put the barn together, and they didn't have to be ganged like the wards group.

    28. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just a complete load of bullshit. And I'm really curious what rationale there is for modding this crap up.

    29. Re:But... by kermidge · · Score: 1

      "Reducing the cost of products and services is called "technology" and it's a good thing"

      Reducing the cost of products and services is called saving money. Technology is applying scientific knowledge for practical purposes, or the devices that do so. Of course using tech can lead to savings but it's not automatic and there are other ways to reduce costs.

      Not if the products are inferior in design, suitability, durability, or industrial detritus; or the services provide less service in amount, kind, or outcome. This is not meant to apply in blanket fashion, but I've seen enough examples such that I'm not a rootin' tootin' Walmart fan. And yes, I have bought carefully selected things there, and I've been satisfied with those.

      Um, does Walmart truly employ more people than it sells to? Wow.

    30. Re:But... by div_2n · · Score: 2

      Just because things are cheaper does NOT mean everyone involved wins.

      Mathematically speaking, Wal-Mart is a huge vacuum sucking money out of communities. The profits they are making? It's money sucked out of communities.

    31. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is what he said in terms that everyone but you understood. Fuck off.

    32. Re:But... by thunderclap · · Score: 0

      Walmart is quite cheap. Far more people work there than shop there. It's a net win - just like factory automation reducing the number of factory workers is a net win. Also, Walmart really pisses off hipsters, so it's twice as good.

      This is why Taylor Swift loves Wal-mart. She hates hipsters with a passion.

    33. Re:But... by thunderclap · · Score: 0

      And the final thing with Sears was Kmart needed a partner to merge with so they wouldn't die. So they went to Sears.

    34. Re:But... by copponex · · Score: 1

      It's a net win - just like factory automation reducing the number of factory workers is a net win. Also, Walmart really pisses off hipsters, so it's twice as good

      Yeah, I fucking replaced ten people with one robot, and I was the last manufacturing business in town. It's a win-win! Well, if you count me twice. Which I do.

      Higher taxes for everyone else comes from voting for bigger government, not from Walmarts.

      Oh, Fuck. Off. When Walmart drives out all of the Mom and Pops where any slacker in the 90s could earn 9-12 dollars an hour can't make 7.50 an hour plus benefits because instead of the store being a little lax on inventory, or God Forbid you had to wait an entire week to get that thing you saw in the catalog, we decided to get everything fast and now and made like shit by child laborers in southeast asia. And we got to buy the Waltons a goddamn hawaiian island so they can drink themselves to death in front of a nice view.

      Gee, for me, there's a downside in that scenario. But as long as we get more efficient, everything's good for everyone equally, right?

    35. Re:But... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Walmart is quite cheap. Far more people work there than shop there.

      Now that's quite the business plan. Less patrons than customers.

      Also, Walmart really pisses off hipsters, so it's twice as good.

      Higher taxes for everyone else comes from voting for bigger government, not from Walmarts.

      You just got back from Palin's speech at CPAC didn't you?

      Reducing the cost of products and services is called "technology" and it's a good thing, despite the workers it always displaces.

      As long as it isn't a race to the bottom, on that we agree. This disruption is going to be pretty interesting. We're reaching the era where humans will be freed from any sort of manual labor.

      I was listening to a TED talk today on what the future might hold. One presenter pointed out that the industrial revolution came along and allowed humans to extend their physical strength and dexterity in the production of devices. So much that it made a mockery of everything that came before. Now we are in an information age, where what we can know via our connections to the world. You and I can can access the same info that a dullard woth a smartphone can. Ther success or failure will depend on whether a person uses this new power to actually do something, or if they are contented to tweet and contact bff's on Facebook.

      This will very likely make a severely striated two society system for some time. There will probably come a time when we try to figure out what people are going to do to earn their keep. I know that there aren't many professions now that cannot be performed by machinery. Beyond that, we'll settle down into a new world that will essentially make a mockery of the one we are in now.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    36. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thats been offshored.

      If you think I'm joking, you havent worked at walgreens beyond the position of a minion.

    37. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the argument against Walmart is that they push a lot of costs on to society because of the combination of the lack of benefits for workers and low wages. It's very much like corporations who offshore to countries with lower taxes, but take advantages of the services and benefits of countries with higher taxes where they make no direct contribution.

    38. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fallacious. The universe doesn't require we have work for stupid people that's high-paying enough to keep them alive. And unless you use drugs, it's usually not your fault you're stupid - usually it's genes or environment.

      Thinking otherwise, that The Economy Will Provide No Matter What is ideology - not science, not reason.

    39. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider two points:

      (1) a lot of the products are junk, requiring you to buy the same product more often, so there isn't much net savings

      (2) the business model of Wal-Mart is to squeeze suppliers so suppliers have to send work overseas, increasing poverty in general as jobs disappear

      Don't get me wrong, I personally love Wal-Mart, because they are the only store left that has full-size shredded cheese available instead of "finely shredded" cheese which is a bag of crumbs. But I'm not really the customer WM is going after.

    40. Re:But... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      WalMart owns Sams, Walmart owns Lowes.
      Not pwn Walgreens.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    41. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they don't own Lowe's either.

    42. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you calling for protection of unions?

    43. Re:But... by baffled · · Score: 1

      It's dependent on society as a whole. Together, we determine demand, minimum wages, the availability of spending cash, etc. So, he's right, but there are caveats - impediments, if you will. A logical focal point would be to analyze these impediments, unless the goal is to transform society away from the 'free market'.

      For instance, if there are no limits to the accumulation of wealth by the rich, then more of the circulating money is bound to be in their hands, as has been the trend for decades. This equates to less spenders, and less production. Perhaps if the distribution of wealth stabilized (not necessarily made equal) then more spending cash would be available to the lower classes (the masses, mostly). But that's only a possibility - odds are these people will continue to be stripped of wealth via planned obsolescence, usury, and generally taking advantage of ignorance/greed.

    44. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...is it powered by the tears of employees?

      I think Walmart has that patented.

      No, I think it was blood actually.

    45. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS on the "oppertune optimist" Your premisis is right, the action is wrong.
      Idea, we all win if the cheaper product wins, wroongo dragonbreath. Is our society advancing or declineing because of the cheaper product? Do you have more money in your product because of the cheaper product? Is there the probability of advancing to a second generation of the product? In a truely frre trade society, Do you always chose the "cheaper" product. Or do you go for the "artist" product? ie: two same products, one produced local, one imported, one you know is made to a standard, artist standard, one made to an unknown standard of "supposedly inferior parts", you buy the cheaper one? Or did one accept losses to create a cheaper product then the competition, drive them out of business, Even thou your product is inferior in quality, that you mark up after you did in the competition.
      You see the waltons did not have to buy from china to ship here. All they did was to choke out their base. Sooner or later, the general public, will realize that the unfair tax advantages given to walmart, over the small local business will some day backfire. Then the walton bunch will have to pay their dues. I just hpe the united states, is still around then, and we are not the alligned states of northern mexico where our current crop of pliticians want us to be.. Just hope the next time the mexican army comes across the border, the bushes, are caught in the sweep.

    46. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's entirely accurate as Walgreens.

      They're a terrible company to work for, for the girl working the register up through store managers. Beyond that (DM's and such) you're pretty much untouchable and make a fuckton of money.

      Oh, and the pharmacy techs, that make stupid money to basically bag groceries.

      Maybe in your state. In mine, a pharmacist has the (limited) ability to write prescriptions. And is generally the last line of defense against cases where different doctors write up conflicting prescriptions. And on top of that, often deals with the resolution of problems that come when a doctor prescribes something and the insurance company will only pay for second-best options. So there's just a little bit more than bagging involved.

    47. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Demonstrably higher. Check out the documentary film "The High Cost of Low Prices".

      Did you know that Walmart in Mexico only recently had to start actually paying their employees in money instead of store credit? Yea, seriously.

      Did you know they've had multiple class action lawsuits against them for everything for discrimination against women to telling employees to file for welfare/medicare as part of their training so they don't have to provide any health care?

      They're a ubiquitous evil on a scale the dwarfs a lot of COUNTRIES because people like you don't care and just buy the cheapest of whatever it is.

      I'm not a hipster, my family and I do not shop there because my wife's mother worked for them for 15 years and knows how much worse it is in on the inside.

      Every dollar is a vote. Never forget.

    48. Re:But... by WillAdams · · Score: 2

      Yep. Money spent w/ a local Mom-and-Pop store will turn over 5 times in a local community on average --- money spent at Wal-Mart immediately goes over-seas to the Chinese manufacturers, into the Walton family pockets, or into the brokerage accounts of people who own stock (minus what their broker pockets).

      It's not sustainable. Look at:

      http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_wal_sto_num_of_sup_percap-stores-number-supercenters-per-capita

      and compare it w/ how well local economies are doing. I know, correlation != causation, but at the least, it merits more thought.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    49. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Walmart owns Lowes"

      No they don't.

    50. Re:But... by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      That still isn't a knock against Walmart. It is a knock against our collective inability to accept that at some point, we just don't have enough legitimate work for everyone.

      While there are people working and collecting double-overtime and working 7-day work weeks, the "not enough legitimate work" statement doesn't hold up. It may be true, but while workplaces either hold worker hours down (to avoid paying additional benefits like health care) or up (to avoid paying benefits like health care on an additional body), it will be difficult to get a clear picture on actual available work.

    51. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walmart wishes they owned Walgreens... I have been in meetings, Walgreens is kicking their A@@. In fact, Walmart has come up with smaller formats to compete, neighborhood markets, etc...

    52. Re:But... by Rumeal · · Score: 2

      I know everybody loves to bash Walmart, but is really justified? At the risk of greatly oversimplifying, you can help poor people by 1. getting them more money, or 2. making the things they need to buy cost less. Walmart is working very hard at doing thing 2. Do you think Walmart's margins are higher or lower than the retail industry average?

      There are other sides to this, though, such as employment. It is taken as a given that Walmart's entry into a market places downward pressure on prices, and that there are benefits from this. However, their entry into a market also places downward pressure on wages. Making things cost less only helps if it isn't outweighed by reductions in pay. The price reductions from Walmart (generally a good thing) end up being distributed across the income scale, but the lower-income segments alone face the decrease in pay to low-paying jobs that accompany Walmart's entry into a market. Walmart is an income re-distribution machine, providing most of its benefit to people with higher incomes, and most of its downside to people with low incomes. See: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/research/walmart.shtml for (much) more on this. There may also be more of a wage-depressing effect than a price-depressing effect, which would make the bargain bad for the economy overall, let alone its redistributing effects. Let's also look at what Walmart's margins actually are, and whether or not they could be lower, as well as where they come from. This article examines those questions, and finds evidence that Walmart could both remain competitive and pay employees more: http://www.epi.org/publication/ib223/ .

    53. Re:But... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Walmart has also been very good about employing the elderly or otherwise unemployable (for whom part-time and few or no benefits is still better than being on welfare), and if an employee is left jobless by natural disaster, he is assured of a job at some other Walmart. They've also been leading the way in reducing their trash output (frex, outdated groceries are recycled as animal feed, not as landfill) and trying to generate their own power (some stores in windy areas now sport turbines in the parking lot).

      Yeah, Walmart is hard on the local businesses, because they can't compete with that kind of mass. And they're probably THE leader in made-in-China that's likewise made it hard for domestic producers to keep up. But that doesn't mean everything they do is evil.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    54. Re:But... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Not having enough legitimacy work for everyone and having those who are working doing overtime are not exclusive. You are right that the overtime issue does muddy the waters. I see the overtime is as the effect of not enough jobs supposed to the cause.

      Not having enough jobs leads to over apply of labor. Over supply of labor leads to a disproportionate amount of power in company hands. This disproportionate power leads to companies redefining 'salary' from 'pay to get the job done without counting hours' to 'work loss of overtime for free'.

    55. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is an ABUNDANCE of work for everyone.

      As long as there is a despoiled environment to clean up, and there are people living outdoors, with no homes, and people who are hungry, and litter on the streets, trees to be planted, people with spiritual troubles needing comfort, people living one paycheck or one medical emergency away from disaster, etc, there is WORK to do.

      What there is not an abundance of is JOBS for everyone.

      The fact that there is so much work to do, combined with so many people without jobs, seeking a job to pay their way, or having given up on finding work should be an indicator that there is something really wrong.

      It would be simple enough for every unemployed person to CREATE THEIR OWN JOBS and go out and pick up all of the litter in the streets, on the beaches of the Gulf Coast, and everywhere else. BUT in the meantime, in exchange for their unmonetized (a.k.a. volunteer) labor, they get nothing (or have to pay to travel and do the work) and starve and can't pay the rent. Or do they have to write a lengthy proposal to obtain sponsorship from some foundation, so that they can clean up the "externalities" of our present economic system? At the same time, potential benefactors/funds tend to only tap off a "manageable" portion of their total assets/income for these things, still tending toward gaining money in the overall.

      So, when there is an abundance of potential work to be done, and "not enough money" for jobs, what is wrong here? I say either somebody with large pockets is tight with the purse-strings, or is putting money into other parts of the economy (effectively teleporting large sums of money from one part of the world to another, creating a large sucking sound that is not working to empower the local communities.

  2. Geothermal heating? by ThomasBHardy · · Score: 2

    I confess that I'm not really familiar with the technology, but this one gives me pause. They are building a Walgreens on a street corner that will use geothermal energy for heat? Can someone with a bit of knowledge share some insight on exactly how they plan to do that in a corner store?

    --
    Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
    1. Re:Geothermal heating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't read the article, but does geothermal just mean a ground source heat pump?

    2. Re:Geothermal heating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They drill a deep hole (thin) and pump water through it. The deeper you go the warmer it is.

    3. Re:Geothermal heating? by Latentius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The ground can be used as a source or drain, depending on the season. In winter, it's warmer than the atmosphere, and in summer it's colder.

      But yes, essentially just a heat pump.

    4. Re:Geothermal heating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They plan to pipe it over from the Town of Perfect

    5. Re:Geothermal heating? by overshoot · · Score: 4, Informative

      The preferred term is "geoexchange" precisely to avoid this confusion.

      --
      Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    6. Re:Geothermal heating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Typically yes. Instead of doing heat exchange with the freezing outside air you are doing it with ~55F degree earth. The key here is the temperature differential. The colder the tempurature of the heat source (outside air or ground) is relative to the desired structure tempurature, the less efficient the process gets.

      I have an air exchange heat pump that works very efficiently when the air outside is in the lower to mid 50s. When the tempurature drops to near freezing, I can hear the thing run almost constantly thus the benefit of ground source heat exchange.

    7. Re:Geothermal heating? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      They will use a geothermal heat pump which is very different than geothermal heating or geothermal electricity.

    8. Re:Geothermal heating? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    9. Re:Geothermal heating? by plover · · Score: 2

      Actually, your heat pump is probably efficient all the way down to about 20 - 22F. Any colder than that, and it's more efficient to burn natural gas or propane.

      Even if it's running 24x7 at 30F, it's using less energy than burning fuel.

      --
      John
    10. Re:Geothermal heating? by InterGuru · · Score: 2

      There is lot of confusion, since the term "geothermal" is used for two different technologies. The first is digging deep to hot rocks and using water to extract the heat and doing something with it. This has been used for over a century, but has a lot of problems with it.

      The other is going a few feet down to use the ground as a heat source or sink for a heat pump/air conditioner. The latter is what is used now. The problem is that the cost of digging and laying the pipes sometimes cancels out the energy savings.

      For more see this comment

    11. Re:Geothermal heating? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yes... they are trying to overhype the fact that they are going to start using HVAC systems from the 70's.... The decades old Heat Pump.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Geothermal heating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the power coming from, electricity, generated by what?

    13. Re:Geothermal heating? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      There is lot of confusion, since the term "geothermal" is used for two different technologies. The first is digging deep to hot rocks and using water to extract the heat and doing something with it. This has been used for over a century, but has a lot of problems with it.

      The other is going a few feet down to use the ground as a heat source or sink for a heat pump/air conditioner. The latter is what is used now.

      Um, no. Geothermal heat means extracting heat from the ground, which may be done with *either* a deep well *or* a (relatively) shallow horizontal array. The transfer is usually accomplished via a heat pump, so the same system can also provide cooling.

      See the articles on Geothermal heat and Geothermal heat pumps on Wikipedia.

    14. Re:Geothermal heating? by plover · · Score: 1

      I believe you're asking "where is the power for the heat coming from?" The power for the heat pump comes from electricity, but the heat pump is just moving heat from one location to another; in this case, from outdoors to indoors. It's literally operating just like an air conditioner or a refrigerator, except instead of wanting to climb in with the food to keep cold, you want to stand by the exhaust coils and keep yourself warm.

      A pump pushes compressed refrigerant through tubing into an expansion valve located outside your house. When a pressurized refrigerant is expanded it evaporates into a vapor/liquid mix which abruptly cools it down, chilling the tubing colder than it was (note that it's just relatively colder than before, not a specific temperature.) The tubing has fins to improve heat transfer. A fan blows outside air across the fins on the chilly coiled tubing, making the outside air colder than it was before. The tubes take in heat from the surrounding air and warm up the refrigerant. The warmed vapor/liquid mix is pumped into the house through a tube. The pressure of the pump compresses the mix back into a liquid, causing it to superheat. The warmed compressed liquid refrigerant flows through a set of finned tubing that is installed in your forced air heating system. A fan blows the warmed air through your house, while the pump recirculates the cooled liquid back outside, and the cycle continues.

      Because it's just a refrigerator or AC operating in reverse, and the inside coils are the hot coils, the outside coils are even colder than they were before. If the outside temperature is 20 degrees, the coils may be as cold as 0 degrees. That difference is where the heat energy comes from.

      --
      John
  3. sweet, self powered store by Osgeld · · Score: 2

    that never has anything I want so I end up going to the CVS across the street. Never understood how places like kmart and walgreens stay in business, espectally wallgreens, which is a drug store, with less medical supplies in it than the grocery store.

    1. Re:sweet, self powered store by Latentius · · Score: 2

      It all depends on where you live. CVS isn't located everywhere, for one thing. The Walgreens near where I used to live was always fairly well-stocked, and there was almost always one of those much closer to people than going to a full grocery store.

      They serve a purpose, even if it's a limited one.

    2. Re:sweet, self powered store by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all depends on where you live. CVS isn't located everywhere, for one thing.

      Everywhere I am, there's a CVS across from a Walgreen's. And if there isn't, there's one being built.

    3. Re:sweet, self powered store by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      cvs, right aid, whatever .. and yea they are well stocked, just with never anything I need, they are great if I need as seen on tv crap, paper towels, garbage toys, film processing or want to play "theres only 2 people working here, neither are at the cash register", but when I need some breath right strips and a bottle of HBP cold medicine I can never find it in the whole 3 half isles that dont look like a dollar tree exploded.

    4. Re:sweet, self powered store by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Then you haven't been to very many Walgreens. They're pretty varied in size. Generally they're all going to be much smaller than Wal-mart or some other big box store, but many of the ones I've been to have been pretty well stocked, and at least as large as any CVS--a few a bit larger.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    5. Re:sweet, self powered store by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      yea the ones around here are pretty darn large, but CVS has over 1/3 the store dedicated to pharmacy stuff, wallgreens has the back corner and 3 half isles, in every single one I have been to, from here in the south to the Canadian border

      CVS has their share of crap too, but it consumes almost all of wallgreens. If I want 6$ box of trash bags, a dancing santa and a hair-dini wallgreens, if I want medicine anyfreakingwhere else BUT wallgreens

      wallgreens has 2 isles dedicated to as seen on tv crap, cvs 1 endcap of 1 or 2 isles, we have a as seen on tv store, I dont need one when I am sick, therefore I dont go to wallgreens.

    6. Re:sweet, self powered store by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Both CVS and Walgreens have their business model in "spend 30 minutes getting anything at the grocery store; spend 5 minutes getting it here [but pay more]."

      I can run into HEB (the local grocery store chain in the better parts of Texas (suck it, Dallas)) and grab some Gatorade in about twenty minutes after parking way in the back of the huge parking lot, running across the huge store to the sports drink aisle, coming back to the register, waiting behind a bunch of people buying at minimum 15 items, and then cross the parking lot again to get to my car (while dodging tons of foot traffic and waiting in the driving lanes for minutes while some lazy bastard waits for some person who hasn't even started his car yet to back out so he can get the parking space about 20 feet closer to the entrance to the store.

      Or I can go to Walgreens, pay $1 more for the drink, park right by the entrance, wait behind at most one or two people buying a mere couple items each, and walk out the door and there's my car. No one else is driving in the parking lot, so I'm in and out in five minutes.

      Sometimes it's worth the extra $1 spent.

      That is how Walgreens stays in business compared to the big grocery store. CVS is the same way down here.

      K-Mart isn't in business anywhere around here, though. Maybe for the very reason you mentioned. The last K-Mart I saw closed about ten years ago in my hometown. I have not seen a K-Mart since then.

    7. Re:sweet, self powered store by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all depends on where you live. CVS isn't located everywhere, for one thing.

      Everywhere I am, there's a CVS across from a Walgreen's. And if there isn't, there's one being built.

      Yep, just had that happen in my town. Been to it and found it to be essentially the same as the Walgreen. They both the same variety, brands, and food stocks (well, perhaps a little more at the new CVS, but I don't go grocery shopping at a pharmacy). I'm starting to think where you go is more dependent on your insurance (mine has deals with CVS and their online CVSCaremark) than the store.

  4. First? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    There have been plenty of net-zero retail stores over the last few millenia, and I'm sure that someone has some net-positive stores out there now. The net-negative trend is fairly recent.

  5. Meanwhile, in the Car Park... by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

    Those 20 or so cars pictured in TFA use up those 256,000KWh of saved energy per year. Hmmm...

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Meanwhile, in the Car Park... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those cars would have used that energy anyway... in total, it's still a reduction in consumption of produced energy

  6. Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by TheStonepedo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Daylight harvesting is a nasty misnomer - it really just means turning the artificial light down when natural light makes the space acceptably-bright. This is why Walmart stores built in the past two decades have skylights.
    The 2012 IECC requires daylight harvesting or separate switching for daylight zones; complying with new codes is hardly a newsworthy achievement.

    LED lighting for commercial spaces just recently reached a point where lumen output, specifically illuminance at the target work plane, can equal that of fluorescent for the same power input.
    With a cost roughly double that of fluorescent fixtures, LED fixtures' lamp life allows the owner to spend less on maintenance labor, with a payback on the order of 2-10 years. A company as big as Walgreens would be foolish to use anything other than LED unless they expect to go broke before reaching their ROI.

    I like what these guys are doing, but the PR spin is a bit much.

    --
    I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    1. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      Why did you fixate on only the lighting part of this story? Of course those two things you chose to comment on are widely used. What type of lighting would you think they'd use?

      What about power generation using not one, or two, but three different forms of renewable energy? These walmarts you speak of. Are they generating enough power to be a zero power use facility too?

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by Grayhand · · Score: 1

      It's a corporation so PR spin is a way of life. Doing it without spin would be like asking a crack addict to go cold turkey.

    3. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Power generation is only using 2 forms. The geothermal is only a heat pump for temperature regulation not power generation.

      They are still dependant on coal/gas/nuclear of course. Cloudy day + no wind doesn't mean that the store will be closed.

    4. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by TheStonepedo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I picked lighting because it was the most-obvious waste of words in the article for the sake of green spin.

      The "geothermal" mentioned in TFS (who reads articles, really?) is likely a ground source heat pump rather than a subterranean heat source/sink.
      I like the efficiency numbers of such heat pumps, but am concerned about diminishing returns over time in areas with unbalanced heating and cooling seasons.
      Evanston, IL is close to Chicago - 6450 HDD65, 750 CDD65 .
      Assuming the target temperature is 65F (although 70-75 is more realistic in the US) and ignoring heat generation within the space (minimized by using "green" electronics and lighting), the pump could be pulling heat from the ground about 8 times as often as it puts heat into the ground.
      This would tend to cool that ground over time, barring external influences.
      The well field in what should be a heat source will be warmer than the ambient air on cool days at first, then on cold days after a few cycles, then only on the coldest days.
      Once that has happened, they may as well have chosen an air-source heat pump (current models meet their design heat output to around 4F without significant efficiency loss) and foregone the cost of wells.

      "Ultra-high efficiency refrigeration" sounds pretty cool.
      I was under the impression that regulation of refrigerants to minimize ozone depletion (while in turn increasing global warming potential, but that's a different conversation) led to refrigerant cocktails operating at higher pressures so that their cycles would be useful in temperature ranges suitable for cooling food.
      Do they have air-source heat inverters with food coolers as a source and HVAC as a sink?
      I almost want to read TFA...

      --
      I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    5. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      "This is why Walmart stores built in the past two decades have skylights."

      And lowest bidder programmed light harvesting systems that dont have enough dwell time so they spend more money on partly cloudy days as the fluorescent lights turn on and off every 60-120 seconds. They have systems that are cool, but the companies they hire to install them dont have a competent programmer to set them up right.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      LED fixtures' lamp life allows the owner to spend less on maintenance labor, with a payback on the order of 2-10 years. A company as big as Walgreens would be foolish to use anything other than LED unless they expect to go broke before reaching their ROI.

      If you don't have significant cost in changing bulbs, LEDs are generally not cheapest. I've seen a few comparisons with LEDs, and they tend to find the result from the company that commissioned them. Every one I've seen favor LEDs does not take cost of capital into account. "If you have the cash to do either and would put it in a 0% account if you didn't spend it" isn't a realistic assumption for a company build. Florescent is often cheapest because the fixtures are so cheap. The main time LEDs are winning out over industrial use is street lights. Why? Because changing a bulb is more than $1000, even if the bulb was free. So the advantage goes to LED, not so much for electricity cost, but bulb life. LEDs have had sufficient lumen output for a long time. The problem is people demand that they be put in like regular bulbs. Getting links of the LED strips and laying them out side by side as dense as you can get them will give you sunlight-level brightness. But that's not how designers, architects, and builders think. They want LED bulbs, which are harder to manage, as you introduce heat and density problems when you ask an array of LEDs to exist in a point-source. The funny thing is they then put those point-sources as high up and spread out as possible to approximate a single illuminated surface. But they can't comprehend a single illuminated surface.

      Pack the ceiling with 50% brightness, and save even more. In the display cases, have strips of light illuminating the product from above. I've already seen LED spot lamps in jewelry cases, but the idea doesn't seem to have taken off. LEDs are more versatile and flexible, but less suited for approximating a close point-source of light, yet that's almost exclusively what they are asked to do. Even when it's to them move that point source as far away from the person, and project light in the opposite direction of the area to be lit, then reflect it down (putting a LED bulb in a ceiling fixture with reflector). If you want them concentrated, put them in the frosted dome-fixtures.

      LEDs suck, but mainly because the people designing them and using them don't use them well.

    7. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      Meh, why not let them spin it to their heart's content? I mean, seriously, where's the harm?

      It's not like this is an oil company that should be rightly scorned for PR spin covering up gross abuse.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    8. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by plover · · Score: 1

      Geothermal is indeed an energy extraction method, and the primary difference with wind generation is that it isn't turned into electricity between harvest and delivery. To say it's not "generation" is disingenuous.

      The only reason they remain "dependent" on fossil fuels is that it's inefficient and expensive to build a giant storage device to keep the excess power they generate. The grid is a 100% efficient ersatz battery, and the only cost is a meter that spins in both directions. "Net zero" does not necessarily mean "independent".

      --
      John
    9. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

      As an MEP guy I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
      Will I see you at next year's ASHRAE or LightFair conference?

      --
      I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    10. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, I'm a network designer/engineer for an ISP/telco. I just also happen to be a fan of cars, and spend 10-20 hours a week studying automotive engineering about the time LEDs started to see some use in cars. It was always frustrating. Do you remember the CMHSL (center mounted high stop lamp)? The studies that led to that proved it wouldn't work. The "best" solution for the problem would be body colored panels that lit up red. The human factors indicated that people ignored repeated input. If the guy's brakes came on 10 times a minute for the last 30 minutes in traffic, your ability to respond to that diminishes. But a "novel" light placement, like the CMHSL would break that expectation. The problem is if you put them on every car, you get the same result. But if you make brake lights a larger section that's 75% lit up, and change the pixels lit every time the brake is applied, then you will shock the person behind every time.

      But, apparently nobody in the auto industry (or government mandating the change) was interested in solving the human factors problem, and just wanted to look proactive, so CMHSL it is.

      But I went from near professional-level interest in automotive engineering to strong interest in human factors to passing interest in lighting, which apparently puts me way ahead of most in lighting. Well, that and the engineering degree so that I understand heat and head dissipation and such.

      But yes, many of the technically good ways of delivering LED lights look like bad sci-fi imitation. Like the back-lit frosted glass wall. And I hate sconces.

    11. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only reason they will remain open is if the sun wont shine, everyday, the wind won't blow every day at over the gentle breeze that will not operate their generator, they will depend on plain old fashion generated power. They will sell back or reduce the power needed by selling back the power generated for a large break, they will have the tax break for putting in unconventional power equipment, but will operate off the grid like you and I have to.

    12. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      I like the efficiency numbers of such heat pumps, but am concerned about diminishing returns over time in areas with unbalanced heating and cooling seasons.

      You seem to be blithely unaware of the fact that heat flows naturally, and that deep underground is much warmer than shallow. The 'unbalance over time' is a creation of your own mind.

    13. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's onto something here. What if we all used geothermal and sucked away all the heat energy of the entire earth. Well, no more volcanos but...the tectonic plates stopped moving.

      My god, the environmentalists must be stopped!

    14. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they are the wrong color, eye perception over a diamond, led isn't "pretty", throws a "white" light, not the multi-color light of a incadesent bulb. It's especially noticible on a TV set. Have a camara man walk onstage. Look at their skin tone verses the skin tone of the anchor people. No rose color, that faint pink you get off an incadesent light, same with the sun. Shows the blood under the skin. The new digital cameras that copy the light color are the worst for that. Some things they should have left a tube in.

    15. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      No need to bring a flashlight, they sell them there. Now, their plan is starting to make sense...

      More seriously, they will still have sufficient lighting in the stores, if for no other reason than so the security cameras can watch everyone.

      By 'they' I mean every store, not just Walgreens.

    16. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by plover · · Score: 1

      Using the grid as a storage device solves a very complicated problem in a very simple manner.

      Consider the nature of electricity: the fuel has to be consumed at the same time and rate as the demand for the power, or the power has to come from storage. Wind and solar obviously cannot be adjusted to meet the demand. Insufficient generation means the power has to either be retrieved from storage or bought from someone else. Excess generation can either be wasted or stored; since waste is undesirable, storage becomes a critical component of such a system. But storing hundreds of kWh of power is a huge engineering problem. Various kinds of power storage technologies have various problematic attributes: they're expensive, toxic, corrosive, flammable, hazardous, inefficient, and/or massive, and overall present an increased level of risk and cost. And by nature they have to be risky - they contain a tremendous amount of power.

      The grid, on the other hand, is already present, and represents a demand far greater than a store's rooftop solar cells can ever meet. There are plenty of consumers who will use that spare electricity when they need it and the store doesn't. By pumping the excess solar power into the grid, the people who burn coal to make electricity will burn less coal, because the demand for their product is lowered. The energy is stored by remaining in the unburned coal.

      And that turns into benefits for society as a whole. Less demand means less pollution, fewer power plants, fewer fossil fuels destroyed -- all those reduce our overall costs.

      And the only device they need to make it work? An electric meter that runs in both directions. Storage is accomplished with money instead of batteries.

      --
      John
    17. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I asked the manager at the Sam's Club about that when they put a hundred or so small wind turbines atop the parking lot lampposts. He said it amounted to around 5% of the store's energy needs -- which may not sound like much but is significant for a store that size.

      And no, there were never any dead birds or bats in the parking lot, so scratch that argument.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    18. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I got lost, is your rant about LEDs, or digital cameras?

    19. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      "Net zero" does not necessarily mean "independent".

      I was going to comment about this. I didn't RTFA, but "net zero" != self-powered, since it's still on the grid.

    20. Re:Lighting Choices Are Not Extraordinary by plover · · Score: 1

      If you'd read TFA, (which is really weak on every front and almost not worth reading at all,) you'd see their misleading headline also says "Self-Powered," but they quoted Walgreen's announcement with the words "net zero energy". Slashdotters are furiously inventing stupid technical explanations to slam them for remaining on the grid when the sun don't shine, when the entire problem is only a stupid reporter and an incompetent editor.

      --
      John
  7. Harvest energy from your customers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'The human body generates more bio-electricity than a 120-volt battery and over 25,000 B.T.U.'s of body heat. We are, as an energy source, easily renewable and completely recyclable.'

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Re:Harvest energy from your customers... by thunderclap · · Score: 0

      This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix Specifically the second paragraph of the Plot.
      "Morpheus tells Neo that humans are fighting against intelligent machines that were created in the 21st century and have since taken control of the Earth's surface. Humans polluted the sky to cut off the machines' solar power, but the machines adapted to using human bioelectricity as a power source."

  8. Go Cat's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    go cat's

    1. Re:Go Cat's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seriously go cats
      def a win

  9. Kilowatts? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    Engineering estimates suggest that the location will produce 256,000 kilowatts per year while using just 200,000.

    Shouldn't that be kilowatt hours? Even if it was kwhrs the numbers are suspect. 200,000/ 365 days per year / 18 hours (12 hours open 12 hours closed using half power) = 30 Kw used in any given hour the store is open. That is equivalent to 300 100 watt incandescent bulbs. I would think a building would require much more than that.

    1. Re:Kilowatts? by swalve · · Score: 1, Informative

      Kilowatt hours are a rate, kilowatts are an amount. A 1 kw/h device uses 24 kilowatts per day.

    2. Re:Kilowatts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, what? I think you have your units mixed up.
      1 W = 1 J/s.

    3. Re:Kilowatts? by Kufat · · Score: 4, Informative

      You've got it backward, I'm afraid. Watts are a measure of power, while watt-hours are a measure of energy (power times time.) A device that uses one kW of power while operating uses 24 kWh of energy per day of operation

    4. Re:Kilowatts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kilowatt hours are a rate, kilowatts are an amount. A 1 kw/h device uses 24 kilowatts per day.

      No. Kilowatts are a rate, kilowatt-hours are an amount. A watt is a joule per second, so energy per time. Energy per time multiplied by time is energy.

    5. Re:Kilowatts? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Wrong. a 1kw/h device uses approximately 24kw/h per day (leap-seconds, daylight savings, etc.)
      A kilowatt is an instantaneous measurement of 1000 watts. A device that uses an average of 1kW over a 1 hour period is said to be "1 kW/hr"

    6. Re:Kilowatts? by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

      A watt is calculated by volts (a measurement of electrical potential) time amps (a measurement of resistance). Notice that there is no time value in that calculation.

      To correct your calculation;
      a 1 kilowatt device used constantly for 24 hours uses 24 kilowatt hours. Notice watts time hours equals watt hours. The kilo is there just to reduce the number of zeros needed. for example a 1 watt device used for one thousand hours uses 1000 watt hours or 1 kilowatt hour.

    7. Re:Kilowatts? by germansausage · · Score: 1

      Amps are current, not resistance. But you knew that, right? The rest is correct.

    8. Re:Kilowatts? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      yeah I kinds screwed that up but I got the second part right.

    9. Re:Kilowatts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As mentioned, amps are current, but devices that uses or generates electricity are measured in amp-hours (the rate of current used) rather then pure amps which are used in batteries as a measure of total current stored.

      A lot of manufacturers shorten amp-hours to amps, however, hence the confusion of where the time(hour) in the conversion formula comes from.

      V * (A / Hour) = (V * A ) / Hour = Watt / Hour

    10. Re:Kilowatts? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      LED lighting needs only about 7-8% as much energy as incandescent, plus they are using natural light and you tend to need less with LEDs anyway.

      This is the point greenies have been trying to make. You get better illumination, less waste heat, lower electricity bills and pollute less. It's win-win for everyone except the electric company.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Kilowatts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wooooooooooooossssssh!

    12. Re:Kilowatts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's win-win for everyone except the electric company.

      Actually, it's often a win for the electric company too. Adding generating capacity is expensive and a pain; if they can reduce peak demand, the amount they save on construction etc far outweighs the marginal amount they could bill.

    13. Re:Kilowatts? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Lighting is only one small component. Here are a list of other electricity users;
      heat pumps;
      refrigerators;
      fans,
      cash registers,
      automatic doors,
      security cameras
      By the way, natural light does not work all that well at night.

  10. net zero power != net zero costs. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    I just hope their local utility discounts the electricity they have to buy to pay for the infrastructure to distribute power to and from the store and the generation capacity needed to cover if the store goes off line for some reason. Most utilities do this but possibly not to the level required.

    If one has a net zero cost for a power bill they better be putting in significantly more power that they are getting out.

  11. Who's paying the upfront? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet if I had all the resources that NYSE:WAG has I could build a net-zero energy store too. Build a store that is standalone profitable AND net-zero energy and I'll take notice.

  12. Somehow methinks that by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Just in case they will have the 100kW generator in the back...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Somehow methinks that by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      To do anything else would be stupid.

  13. local/state/federal incentives? by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    maybe the taxpayers are paying for this?

  14. Bad headline again. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    Walgreens To Build First Self-Powered Retail Store

    Notice there is no mention of electricity storage in the article. On a dark calm night the store will be drawing power from the grid and will not be self powered. Net zero power is not self power. To be self power they would have to be off the grid.

    1. Re:Bad headline again. by swalve · · Score: 1

      The grid is the energy storage. Every watt they pump out into the grid is a watt that doesn't need to get generated by a generator somewhere. The energy is "stored" in the fuel that isn't burnt.

    2. Re:Bad headline again. by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Yep! So the solar power, created by solar panel companies in China using all kinds of noxious crap that they dump into the stream, generate a tiny fraction of electricity, that replaces something else, that is generated here in the U.S. in a highly regulated, environmentally monitored kind of way.

      To a progressive environmentalist, this is called "forward progress toward saving the earth"

      To a marketer, these people are known as suckers who is eager to part with his money for high margin crap as long as it has the word "Green" on the box.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    3. Re:Bad headline again. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The point is that when the building is producing excess electricity it is powering the grid. When it is not producing electricity it is being powered by the grid. Even by your definition, the fuel where the energy is being stored is not part of the building therefore the building is relying on something other than itself for power some of the time. Self power is self contained and does not rely on a power plant hundreds of miles away to provide electricity.

    4. Re:Bad headline again. by hedwards · · Score: 2

      If you've got a problem with that, perhaps you should be looking at the conservatives that insist upon subsidizing oil, but refuse to subsidize solar, and the numerous free trade agreements that make it hard for US factories to compete with foreign ones.

      Solar is solar, and ultimately any progress made their is a step in the right direction, even if it isn't perfect.

    5. Re:Bad headline again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than the coal and the mountain top removal crap, natural gas and the fracking crap, nuclear and the waste crap, or oil and the spill crap. And it has to continue on and on.

      Solar isn't that bad and can be made cleanly. Especially compared with the other choices.

    6. Re:Bad headline again. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      To a marketer, these people are known as suckers who is eager to part with his money for high margin crap as long as it has the word "Green" on the box.

      Wait, so is China dumping solar panels at below cost, or are solar panels being sold with massive markups? I guess it just depends on which lie fits the situation best. That's the great thing about conflicting lies, when someone spends so much time and effort proving one false, their statements can be taken out of context to help support the other lie.

      The simple fact is, solar generates more power than it takes to make the devices to collect it. It is a net benefit. Nothing has ever disproved that simple statement.

    7. Re:Bad headline again. by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Responding to a statement by insinuating the other person is a liar is very weak. If you have to start insulting the person your'e arguing with, you are on shaky ground to start with.

      People who make things... do so to make a profit. Duh. People who loose money, and fail, often blame others for their mistakes. The story about the Chinese allegedly selling solar panels at a huge loss, comes from people who lost their ass in the solar business. It is the equivalent of the dog at my homework.

      Your last statement defies logic so completely I am surely wasting my time trying to explain this to you, but I will try:

      If I had a device that cost $1 to make, that generated $2 worth of energy, I would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice, and everyone on the planet would have these things. This would also be a device with incredible efficiency....

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    8. Re:Bad headline again. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If I had a device that cost $1 to make, that generated $2 worth of energy, I would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice, and everyone on the planet would have these things. This would also be a device with incredible efficiency....

      Those exist today. They are solar PV cells. But reality isn't working out the way you assert. So should I insinuate that reality is a liar, or you?

      The economic reality is that people pay for expediency. You pay $1 now, but get your $2 in 5 years. Screw waiting, I'm burrning puppies to stay warm. Apparently you assume purely rational people, or something like that.

    9. Re:Bad headline again. by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      I've analyzed grid tie systems every which way but Sunday for my property. I have the perfect setup - 2 acres of land, no restrictive covenants, and a sixty foot heavy duty tower I could put a wind turbine on (Was using it for ham radio). Lots of solar panels means less grass to mow, it's a win-win all around.

      The payback is closer to 20 years, and that is questionable -- as no one really knows how power output will degrade over time. This takes into account the government subsidies available last year when I went through this.

      Yes, you read all kinds of wild claims on the Internet. But when you do the math, and talk to the energy company, and the installers... it just doesn't add up.

      Yes there are few states where the subsidies are so generous there is a value proposition. But that really isn't a fair comparison, is it? Will the promise of never raising your rates actually be kept? Ask the people who live on Cyprus about what the government can choose to do.

      I have a good friend just like you, who was absolutely convinced with my 2 acres I could become a rich man selling electricity back to the energy companies. He'd learned all this reading claims online. He doesn't want to talk about it anymore. Not at all. Changes the subject he does.

      I am speaking from actual, real world experience. Tell us about your solar installation and how it works. Solar is "feel good" energy in my opinion. Just like premium gas, and "green" products... Wind, same thing.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    10. Re:Bad headline again. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      My solar installation works great. I have a solar hot water heater that makes hot water year round, even on the coldest cloudiest days. I also have outdoor lighting on solar. Plenty of LEDs lighting up the property at night, rechargable batteries, no grid connection. Still as bright at dawn as they were at dusk. I've priced grid-tie out, but I don't have a practical place to put them. If I did, I would. Too many trees, not a large enough plot of land. The only good place for solar is pretty small, and already used for solar power.

      Your "real world" experience is "I looked at it and it didn't look good, even though I have the land for it". But you scoff at others whose real world experience is "I looked at it and it looks good, though I don't have the land for it". Your excuse sounds like hypocricy. You haven't "tried" it, just by talking to a few people. Others have done the same and come to the opposite conclusion of you. Though one thing that makes a difference is the price for sell-back. In Alaska, they buy back at 1/10th sell price, so "grid storage" is impractical, so you require batteries to improve payback, eating up much of the savings. But where I live now, buyback is mandated to be at sale price. So grid storage is 100% efficient, you don't need batteries unless you want backup. So the installation isn't as expensive.

      The payback is closer to 20 years, and that is questionable -- as no one really knows how power output will degrade over time.

      I was playing with PV in the 1980s I didn't keep the cells, but PV is much older than 20 years. Claiming unknows around it is a little silly. Much like my 25 year old burned CDs that are still working fine, despite the people that assure me with 100% certainty that they aren't going to last longer than 10 years.

      I have a good friend just like you, who was absolutely convinced with my 2 acres I could become a rich man selling electricity back to the energy companies. He'd learned all this reading claims online. He doesn't want to talk about it anymore. Not at all. Changes the subject he does.

      Why so angry? Bring it up again. Offer your 2 acres on a $0 lease for 10 years, if he installs a solar setup. If he thinks he can make back his money in 10 years, he should go for it. After that, whether he's right or wrong, you'll have a solar farm with 3% rated output, since we know they degrade at 50% per year, or whatever it is you think. Hopefully that will generate enough cashflow to cover their removal.

    11. Re:Bad headline again. by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      I have plenty of solar lights.

      I talked to multiple professional installers, this is what I learned. Why would I lease my property for 0$? Makes no sense.

      There's no anger, that only comes when I read the web sites with absurd claims :-) Or people who think a 50 watt panel at 12 volts will power a 50 watt 110 volt light bulb.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    12. Re:Bad headline again. by catprog · · Score: 1

      When you take into account the inverter it would probably be a 60watt panel to power the light bulb.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    13. Re:Bad headline again. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why would I lease my property for 0$? Makes no sense.

      I answered that question already. You chose not to see reality because it conflicts with your incorrect opinion. You've shown that more than once. Lease for $0? Because it's a fixed-term 10 year lease, where the improvements stay yours. He gets as much money as he can make off solar in 10 years, and you get a solar install for free (10 years old). If he's right, he'll make money in 10 years. If you are right, then you'll still have the install to sell/use at the end of the 10 years. And, you won't need to cut the grass as often. And, if you are going to "pave" 2 acres with solar and kill the grass anyway, then you could also put in some water collection, and not have to worry about that utility either. But if you aren't using it for anything else, and it obviously doesn't have a use earmarked, as you considered doing the same thing anyway, the loss to you of the 10 acres is negligible. You likely assigned the use of it a $0 cost in your own calculations, right?

      Or people who think a 50 watt panel at 12 volts will power a 50 watt 110 volt light bulb.

      It comes within rounding error of doing so. AC bulbs work on DC, so you don't even need to have an inverter (unless you are using fluorescent or LEDs designed to work on AC, but why would you?). Step up the voltage to the required voltage, and zap - light. Sure, the conversion won't be 100%, but it'll light the bulb. The other nice thing is that LEDs are generally 12V for consumer lighting options, so your 50W 12V panel will make great light in an area, if you designed it to, or, in your case, you'd design it to fail, then point to it and say "see? I told you so."

      Trying to make it fail is easy. Making it work is harder.

    14. Re:Bad headline again. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      An inverter isn't required. AC bulbs work with DC (just make sure the voltage is right, AC is measured at RMS of half peak, so 110V AC is over 300V peak to peak voltage difference, and 110V DC is 110V peak to peak voltage difference). So I read somewhere that you should run higher voltage or buy higher wattage bulbs (a 100W bulb at reduced voltage will be as bright as a 50W at nominal).

      That, and you only need 10W 12V to get 50W AC incandescent performance, just use 12V DC LEDs. Brighter than incandescent at much lower wattages. You don't want to "light a bulb" with your electricity. The problem you want to solve is to light an area. So why have a voltage change and inverter in the mix when they don't add to solving the problem?

    15. Re:Bad headline again. by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      A 100 watt light bulb at 110 volts requires just a little over one ampere of current to produce a light output of 1,750 lumens.

      A 60 watt solar panel at full output produces 12 volts. That's 60 watts at 12 volts. Not 110 volts. 12 volts.

      A square wave inverter, sufficient to run said light bulb, is approximately 75% efficient, meaning 25% of the energy is lost in the process as heat.

      Do the math.

      What you have done, Mr. Catprog, is prove my whole point in such a spectacular way it is really quite impressive.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    16. Re:Bad headline again. by catprog · · Score: 1

      First it was a 50 watt bulb not a 100 watt bulb you were talking about.

      http://www.gsl.com.au/240v-inverters-pure-sine-wave.html has a 82% efficiency inverter.

      50/.82 is about 60 watts.

      50 watts at 12volts is the same amount of power as 50watts at 110V. The thing that changes when you change the voltage is the current.

      50 watts/12 volts = 5 amperes, 50watts/110V = 0.45 amperes

      100watts/110volts = 0.9 amperes. Just under 1.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    17. Re:Bad headline again. by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      You're right I went from 50 watts to 100 watts there. Sorry about that. You may be right about a 50 watt 12 volt panel being the same as a 50 watts at 110 volts but it doesn't sound right to me. I'm not an EE. I do know that power and energy are often confused, and that watt is a measurement that includes time. Wikipedia says: In terms of electromagnetism, one watt is the rate at which work is done when one ampere (A) of current flows through an electrical potential difference of one volt (V). The terms power and energy are frequently confused. Power is the rate at which energy is generated or consumed and hence is measured in units (eg. watts) that represent 'energy per unit time'.

      I do know a little about inverters. The inverter manufacturer doesn't give you a chart that says "You put 12v in at this many amps draw you can pull this many amps out at 240v A/C"

      Why is that?

      Inverters are not linear devices. You get 82% efficiency at the perfect combination of inputs and outputs. Marketing again. The 82% value means "under perfect conditions that favor the manufacturer.

      What I do know for certain is that professional grid tie installers quickly convinced me that most of what I was led to believe about the payback, and efficiency of solar and wind systems was mostly hype. I have no bias for, or against solar energy, or wind energy. To me, it's a non emotional, economic decision.

      I know that the cost per kilowatt hour of solar and wind, after you remove the government sponsorship (that I can't count on forever) is pretty high relative to other forms of generation. If this were not true, the proponents of solar/wind would not be going out of their way to artificially increase the prices of the other forms, and try to stop the building of plants. If solar/wind really was all that and then some, and economically viable, we would all be using it. Energy is commodity. I'm going to buy it at the cheapest price I can find. Again, it's not emotional for me. If it is for someone else, and they want to pay more for it, good for them.

      So what grates me is reading all these claims on solar energy web sites about how incredibly efficient and wonderful solar power is, and the ever present insinuation that there is some hidden conspiracy preventing it's widespread adoption, and yet when I call an expert to my house, show him my electric bill, and he figures the payoff for a $20,000 investment in solar technology is 20 years - and then cautions me that this does not factor in maintenance cost for the system, or degrading output over time.... If I invest that same $20,000 in a money market account at .5% interest I'll see a greater return than I will investing in solar/wind. The only reason I would make such a move is to make myself feel better.

      Right down the street from me is a "solar home" with all kinds of fancy solar systems in it. It's been for sale for years, and years. The owners will never see their investment paid back. I'm not saying this is "proof" but it is "actual reality".

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    18. Re:Bad headline again. by catprog · · Score: 1

      http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost
      Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed.

      so 9-12 million per 2MW (when you figure out a 33% usage) or 4.5 million - 6 million per MW

      ----

      http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2012/07/chile-suspends-endesas-planned-14-bn-thermal-power-project.html
      1.8 million per MW

      http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/LunChen.shtml
      Each ton of coal consumed at an electric power plant produces about 2000 kilowatt hours of electricity (or 2 megawatt hours)

      10*24*365/2=43800tons of coal in 10 years

      http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=60
      Seems to be $100 per ton of coal

      43800*$100 = 4.38 million

      Cost for a new coal power station(including the coal over 10 years) = 6.18 million per MW
      ----

      For solar

      http://www.lowenergydevelopments.com.au/index.php?route=product/product&path=69_75&product_id=138
      $10,000 for a 5KW system (assuming $1,000 to install)

      http://aussiervproducts.com.au/webcontent4.htm
      Using 4.5 hours

      5kw,10years,4.5 average,365 days
      5*10*4.5*365=82,125KWh generated
      12.17c/kwh($122/MWh)

      Yes it is more then the $50/MWh the generators are getting here but a lot less then >$250/MWh we pay retail.

      Using just 2KW locally with no money for the excess would cost you $307/MWh for the system.
      The other 3KW that you export (at the $50/MWh) would get you to $229/MWh which is less then the price we pay for grid power.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  15. The secret of self powers store revealed! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    In a shocking development, the NBC has learned that Walgreens is installing a "cushioning" carpet which is not just any simple cushiony carpet. It has tubes buried in it, and as the shoppers walk on it they squeeze these tubes and the air gets compressed and it turns a turbine that produces electricity. Mr Rube Goldberg, VP Energy Harvesting Division of Walgreens has conceded that the whole idea was his personal invention.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:The secret of self powers store revealed! by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      as the shoppers walk on it they squeeze these tubes and the air gets compressed and it turns a turbine that produces electricity.

      Unfortunately truth is stranger than fiction. This is the first linked I picked off google. The technology has been around for a while.
       
        Power-generating tiles to light Olympic walkway using footsteps

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:The secret of self powers store revealed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Piezoelectric flooring. Neat. Also, I wonder if Walgreens factored in that the average size of their customer is an order of magnitude above what a human should weigh. They seem to have with their aisle spacing. All that extra weight galumphing around should generate enough additional power to send Marty back to the future.

    3. Re:The secret of self powers store revealed! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And a while back I saw a proposal to do likewise with roadways -- get the traffic to generate power. Not really a bad idea if you can figure out how to maintain it in traffic like, say, Los Angeles has (wear and tear would be significant factors).

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  16. How does the stuff get into the shop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does the stuff get into the shop?

  17. Maybe it says something about the grid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Out of curiosity, I pondered about the quality of service in terms of grid power at that location. So I did a little bit of Google-fu...

    Evanston does make it to the first page on the list of Chicago suburbs with a lot of power outages. (And that's being sorted by total outages.) So maybe it says something about how well ComEd is doing in Evanston? (Or at least that particular neighborhood where that Walgreens is located.)

    Considering that many expensive drugs have to be refrigerated, cash registers go down, etc. I could imagine there would be problems if they had to close up a busy high-volume store during prime hours on a random basis every other week because of unreliable power. In which case there would be much more incentive to go off-grid than "being green".

  18. One step at a time plz by tepples · · Score: 1

    One step at a time please. The story about a self-powered supply chain may come later.

    1. Re:One step at a time plz by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      If you can't solve everything, you shouldn't try to solve anything.

  19. Proof that we are all getting dumber by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    This is proof positive that marketing has reached new pinnacles of preying on idiots.

    A "green" store - filled with plastic products, synthetic cosmetics, crap from china, etc. will bring in idiots who so desperately need to feel good about themselves they will actually think they are doing the planet a favor by buying whatever. Really, have you seem most of the crap for sale in drugstore? How can any of this junk be considered good for the environment in any way?

    The guys in the boardroom, marking up the same old crap 100% by slapping a "green" label on the box, are laughing their asses off while going home to their Scrooge McDuck money piles.

    Pathetic beyond pathetic.

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
    1. Re:Proof that we are all getting dumber by hedwards · · Score: 1

      So, the fact that they're working to reduce their emission is somehow offset by the consumers' lack of interest in locally made items produced in a more green manner?

      Because obviously, if they don't solve all their problems all at once, they're just greedy bastards.

    2. Re:Proof that we are all getting dumber by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So progress is bad, unless it proceeds on your preferred schedule. Tell me, what would you do? As the store owner, the store itself is one thing you have 100% under your control. But no, we'll ignore that and instead worry about a few ingredients in a few products. How is that better? Or was your whole post just an excuse for a China bash?

    3. Re:Proof that we are all getting dumber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You gotta start somewhere, smart guy.

    4. Re:Proof that we are all getting dumber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or was your whole post just an excuse for a China bash?

      I think someone peed in his Coke this morning.

    5. Re:Proof that we are all getting dumber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....while going home to their Scrooge McDuck money piles.

      Now, be nice to those poor guys -- they're just trying to go green as well!

    6. Re:Proof that we are all getting dumber by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Years ago I worked in and around agriculture. We were at a grain elevator one day, an the owner explained to me that they sold two types of grain, "Organic" and "Regular". I asked what the difference was. He explained that the profit on Oganic was double what the regular was, and so they filled that storage bin first, then they filled the regular bin. Being young, foolish, and passionate I pressed the point.

      Turned out all the grain came from the same farmers using the same methods. But there were fools in the city who would pay more for the same thing if they labeled it "Organic"

      This is no different, son. Remember, nobody ever got rich claiming everything would probably work itself out over time. People get rich claiming that the end is coming, soon, and unless you act now... and send money today... Or by fooling you into thinking that by spending money with them will have some feel good impact on all of society. It's called "cause based marketing" and it works better every year, because it is easier and easier to sucker people into to these things.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    7. Re:Proof that we are all getting dumber by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They actually built a store to be better, and you are faulting them because somewhere else, some lying farmer is claiming "green" when it obviously isn't. I don't follow. How does a fraudster farmer relate? Where is Walgreens asking for more money?

  20. It's cool that they're trying but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd be a bit more impressed if they weren't tearing down an existing Walgreens to do it, as reuse would probably saved a good deal of energy itself and they're building new locations in the Chicago area anyway (none with this kind of net zero energy use, but some with better exterior design or the reuse of beautiful buildings). Moving the store up to the street to encourage customers arriving by foot or bike or transit would be nice too; parking lots and drive throughs aren't exactly what I'd call green.

    1. Re:It's cool that they're trying but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      god help a tree hugger that has to walk a little more while on their walk

      idiocy

    2. Re:It's cool that they're trying but... by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      The structure of the old building may have been in poor shape. It's usually cheaper to refit the building, and they would get more LEED points, so I'm sure they would have if they could.
      If you're concerned about the energy used for construction, I would first look at the amount of embedded energy in that huge field of solar panels on top of the building. I'm surprised that much is necessary. And coupled with the low slope of the roof, I don't think they'll be very effective when it snows.

  21. Pretty Danged Neat by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    I'll be curious at the cost-per-foot for the construction and their solution for handling the geothermal pumps. I had a hard time designing a geothermal that my solar could drive.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  22. This might be good for business by gstrickler · · Score: 2

    I mean, Wind Turbine Syndrome can make their customers ill while they shop, creating even more business. Of course, health insurance rates might rise. /sarcasm

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  23. Air conditioning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do they plan to run the air conditioning during a hot summer day? On a windless + cloudy day, 30kW won't come out of thin air.

    1. Re:Air conditioning? by ChrisSlicks · · Score: 2

      Geothermal systems can be used for cooling as well as heating. Depending on the design capacity of the system a traditional A/C system may not be needed or may only kick in on the hottest days. Also the plan is for net zero, not zero every day.

    2. Re:Air conditioning? by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      They're not off the grid. When they need grid power, they'll use it. When/if they generate more than they use, it goes back into the grid. The goal of net zero energy buildings is that over a year they'll put back as much energy as they take.

  24. Generally no, not justified at all .... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Honestly, I've shopped at Wal-Mart for many years now, because I've always lived conveniently close to one, and it was open late at night when I had time to shop for things.

    To a large extent, I think the chain is currently a victim of the "I'm too cool to set foot in there!" attitude. Web sites like "People of Wal-Mart" do their best to poke fun at the type of shoppers found there, while conveniently ignoring the fact that all those people don't just vanish into thin air as soon as they're done with their Wal-Mart shopping trips. I could do a "People of..." site for any of my local movie theaters, or the baseball stadium, or you name it, and find just as many overweight characters with poor taste in clothing or weird hairstyles.

    One of the other reasons many people are down on Wal-Mart and their "business practices" is their well known hard-bargaining tactics with the companies they purchase inventory from. Essentially, they offer to buy a massive quantity of a product for what's a fair (even tempting) price per unit when they first want to carry something. In many cases, the manufacturer is ill-equipped to produce that large a quantity, but the owner(s) see dollar-signs and don't want to miss their chance to "hit it big" with a Wal-Mart deal. So they take out a big business loan to put more factories online, hire more employees to assemble the product, etc. and make the first year deal with Wal-Mart. Problem is, Wal-Mart comes back annually, demanding a little bit lower price for the product than they paid the year before. Before long, the company can't even break even selling at the top price Wal-Mart will pay, so they have to cancel their deal -- and now they're left with excess capacity and loans not paid off yet. It often makes them go under, soon afterwards.

    IMO though, this really isn't Wal-Mart's problem. They're just being shrewd buyers. Businesses should be aware, by now, of this pitfall when dealing with Wal-Mart and take it into consideration before signing any deals with them. Heck -- if your product is really THAT good? You should be able to sell it elsewhere like Amazon and put the hurt on Wal-Mart because they can't get ahold of it from you to compete.

    A lot of the other complaints I hear about unfair labor practices sound to me like issues with individual stores and store managers. Yes, a lot of it is unethical and plain wrong -- but it happens everywhere with big box retailers. It's not like a lot of that really has anything specific to do with Wal-Mart corporate. Bad management is all over the place, and especially prevalent in retail (or food service) - where you don't need lots of education to rise up the ranks to "manager".

  25. CVS? by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    I used to live in the midwest where we rarely saw a CVS but had Walgreens on practically every corner, so I'm very familiar with them. Now I live in Maryland where it's all about CVS (with a random Rite-Aid store here or there), and Walgreens is practically non-existant.

    I was never that fond of Walgreens, especially when they made the HUGE mistake of trying to play hardball with Anthem insurance and refused to accept their policies for prescriptions. I watched their stores look like they were on the set of old West ghost-towns right after that happened. They did eventually come around on that ... but their prices were still always too high unless you used a coupon, and customer service was spotty at best.

    But man --- I really can't say CVS is any better. I tried to use their fancy iOS app a few weeks ago to refill a prescription, and later that day, got a phone call from the local store. They were all confused because they received a partial fax page from corporate asking them to fill a prescription for me, but it was cut off so they didn't actually know what I needed. Seriously?? They offer a smartphone app to easily do a refill and all it does on the back end is FAX the thing over??

    And CVS prices are WAY high, as in complete robbery, if you don't use their membership card. Even then, you only rarely get an actual "good buy" on something with it. And meanwhile, they get to track your buying habits and probably resell your info too.

    1. Re:CVS? by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      I never saw CVS until I visited the East Coast long ago, and got the impression it specifically targeted the people without the ability, will or knowledge needed to go somewhere more affordable or better-run. Unfortunately, it bought out the popular West Coast drugstore chain Long's Drugs a few years ago, and transformed it to target the same population.

      Doubly unfortunately, I have to pick my mother's medications up for her there, so I can't just use the grocery store nearby for everything... I haven't dealt with the CVS iOS app, but the pharmacy section of their website is a useless clusterfuck and the pharmacy's own computer system isn't much better most of the time.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
  26. Transport by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    The big chunk of retail energy footprint is transport. It would be nice to see something done there too.

  27. Quick - we need to tax it!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No utility bills or lower utility costs means less tax revenue - we need to replace that revenue! Maybe a per year per solar cell tax or a per turbine revolution tax?

  28. Whoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live right around the corner from this place. Seriously, I go to the Chinese take out place over there all the time and used to go to the Video Adventure that just closed down.

    How did I not know they were doing this?

  29. WALGREENS != WALMART by Thrill+Science · · Score: 0

    Walgreens is not Walmart They are two distinct companies not related in any way. But SIMPLE FACTS never got in the way of a slashdotters agrument!

  30. Concrete? Steel? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

    OK, call me cynical. How much energy will forging the steel, making the glass, and making the cement for the concrete burn? How much energy will transporting all these new materials to site, and transporting away the demolition rubble, burn? For how many additional years could you have run the old store for the environmental cost of building the new one?

    Car analogy, since we like car analogies round here. Your new Prius may be wonderfully energy efficient, but creating it burned so much energy that keeping your twenty-five year old V8 on the road for three years longer is better for the environment.

    Making a Prius consumes 113 million BTUs, according to sustainability engineer Pablo Päster. A single gallon of gas contains about 113,000 Btus, so Toyota's green wonder guzzles the equivalent of 1,000 gallons before it clocks its first mile.

    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    1. Re:Concrete? Steel? by catprog · · Score: 1

      OK, call me cynical. How much energy will forging the steel, making the glass, and making the cement for the concrete burn? How much energy will transporting all these new materials to site, and transporting away the demolition rubble, burn? For how many additional years could you have run the old store for the environmental cost of building the new one?

      Car analogy, since we like car analogies round here. Your new Prius may be wonderfully energy efficient, but creating it burned so much energy that keeping your twenty-five year old V8 on the road for three years longer is better for the environment.

      Making a Prius consumes 113 million BTUs, according to sustainability engineer Pablo Päster. A single gallon of gas contains about 113,000 Btus, so Toyota's green wonder guzzles the equivalent of 1,000 gallons before it clocks its first mile.

      How many gallons does a normal car guzzles during it's production?

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  31. No bike racks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bleh.

  32. Cheap but dangerous by phorm · · Score: 1

    Except for the amount of products that are recalled because they contain lead paint or heavy metals, because quality control suffers when you're just trying to do things on the cheap.
    You know, things like stuff your children would play with or put in their mouths.

    We were making inroads into product safety, but apparently that made things too expensive. Now we'll just source it out to China where it's cheap and full of dangerous chemicals. Don't worry though, after a bunch of kids get sick it'll be recalled!

  33. STOP MAKING SOLAR PANELS, WE NEED FOSSIL FUELS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much energy went into creating the solar panels that this store will use? Solar panels take more energy to manufacture than they will ever produce in their lifetime. In other words, if you had a desert island filled with solar panel factories producing solar panels, each year you would produce less solar panels until finally you have none left.

    THE MORE SOLAR PANELS WE MAKE THE LESS FOSSIL FUELS WE HAVE. STOP MAKING AND USING THEM FOR STUPID APPLICATIONS. Solar panels are only useful for very specific scenarios when other methods of power generation is impossible. The only thing I can really think of is spacecraft...

  34. way to go walmart??? by flying_fortress · · Score: 1

    Words I never thought I'd think lol

  35. Not in the pharmacy dept. by Dareth · · Score: 1

    They never have enough employees working in the pharmacy. Any tears from them are long dried up after telling people their prescriptions are not really ready despite what the automated system told them.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling