Slashdot Mirror
Renewable Energy Saves Fortune 100 Companies $1.1B Annually
Lucas123 writes: A new report authored by several environmental groups say data shows more than half of Fortune 100 companies collectively saved more than $1.1B annually by reducing carbon emissions and rolling out renewable energy projects. According to the report, 43% of Fortune 500 companies, or 215 in all, have also set targets in one of three categories: greenhouse gas reduction, energy efficiency and renewable energy. When narrowed to just the Fortune 100, 60% of the companies have set the same clean energy goals. Some of the companies leading the industry in annual clean energy savings include UPS ($200M), Cisco ($151M), PepsiCo ($121M) and United Continental ($104M).
How much of that "savings" is tax breaks/subsidies?
If you tell that to republicans there may be spontaneous mouth foaming.
These companies would not stay in business for long if it wasn't saving them more than it was costing them. Put the tinfoil hat away.
Jebus do you people not understand the word "save"? In your example you have spent $80K. Aside from that some very effective measures don't even need capital expenditure, for example, the giant multi-national I work for has saved millions by implementing simple things such as getting people to turn their desktop off before going home, teleconferencing in preference to flying, etc. When you have 180K employees these two simple measures alone will add up to millions in savings.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Most huge commercial operations are using fluorescent lighting in their facilities. Switching to LED en masse would entail a loss.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
A lot of companies are switching from old-school fluorescents (which aren't quite as efficient) to LEDs as the fixtures wear out. And yes, they do wear out, along with things like ballasts. There are a LOT of the old T12 fluorescents out there still, not to mention the newer (but still somewhat outdated) T8.
They also make LED tubes now - a line of LEDs in a package the same size as the old fluorescent tubes. They cost a lot, but over the long run, they're cheaper to run. Once you include lowering air conditioning costs and less manpower spent replacing tubes, they're often worth the money. All you need to do is bypass the ballast (which also saves money in the long run - those things wear out too).
A lot of factory floors used mercury vapor lights, and those are going away as they get old, replaced with clusters of LEDs.
wtf is wrong with you people?
its turns out that making modest cuts in energy consumption isn't that painful, saves some money,
and may have longer term benefits
maybe I can understand the 'saving the purple spotted toad is costing jobs damn liberals' attitude, but
you guys have to piss on this? turning off the lights at night?
god fucking forbid we didn't waste as much energy as possible. imagonna leave my truck running all night
just to show i'm a true patriot
assholes
Specious argument. When you break a $100 bill at the grocery store, and the change is less than $20, do you tell the cashier to keep it because in terms of your net salary per year it's "rounding error"?
Money is a limited resource, and no matter how much a company makes, I can almost guarantee you there was some one who didn't get the budget they wanted due to scarcity of resources.
Additionally, energy efficient lighting savings keep adding up. It's not like cisco will just save $151 mio. They'll save it year over year, which may turn out to be an additional few billion to their bottom line.