Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GM Commits To 100% Renewable Energy By 2050 (cleantechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the better-late-than-never dept.

We've seen a number of entities announce plans to operate with 100% renewable energy over the years. Costa Rica, for example, has gone 76 straight days using 100% renewable electricity. General Motors is the latest company to release a roadmap to achieving 100% renewable energy. The catch? It won't be until 2050. CleanTechnica reports: American multinational General Motors, or GM, has committed to generating or sourcing 100% of the electricity for its operations across 59 countries from 100% renewable energy by 2050. GM made the announcement on Wednesday, revealing that it planned to generate or source all its electrical power needs for its 350 operations in 59 countries with 100% renewable energy such as wind, solar, and landfill gas, by 2050. In turn, the company has joined the 100% renewable energy campaign RE100, lending its considerable global business weight to an already important and successful campaign. "Establishing a 100% renewable energy goal helps us better serve society by reducing environmental impact," said Mary Barra, GM Chairman and CEO. "This pursuit of renewable energy benefits our customers and communities through cleaner air while strengthening our business through lower and more stable energy costs."

114 comments

  1. They are pledging to something in 30+ years by SensitiveMale · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This does a few things.

    1) It's zero risk. No one will remember this in 30+ years.
    2) It'll get them a lot press now because people will actually believe them.
    3) Eventually all energy will be renewables. That's how progress works.

    P.T. Barnum should have put out this press release.

    1. Re:They are pledging to something in 30+ years by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Worse, this has nothing to do with the vehicles that they sell - it's just using renewables to power their plants, which is a no-brainer because the cost of renewable energy is dropping year-over-year.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:They are pledging to something in 30+ years by AJWM · · Score: 1

      So, about the time fusion power becomes commercially viable then?

      --
      -- Alastair
    3. Re:They are pledging to something in 30+ years by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Well, a good excuse to basically say to every consumer that "they should buy a brand new car because their old car is literally evil and killing the planet" is an excuse i don't think they will let it pass.
      They're just waiting it gets tempting enough so people "fall" for it.

    4. Re:They are pledging to something in 30+ years by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Way to aim low GM. Honda will have self powered cars by then.

      Subaru's plant in Indiana has been Zero Landfill for sometime.

    5. Re:They are pledging to something in 30+ years by William+Robinson · · Score: 2

      I worked with Intel. I learnt there that their energy requirement is almost fulfilled through green energy. Intel manufactures solar cells for their own need, using waste material.

      --
      hilarious
    6. Re:They are pledging to something in 30+ years by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention no consequences whatsoever even if someone does remember in 30 years. They pledge to do something, but commit to nothing if they fail. I pledge I will colonize Mars by 2050, personally, with no help from anyone else. And if I don't, oh well, I pledge it now so until 2050 you gotta give me credit for it.

    7. Re:They are pledging to something in 30+ years by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Fusion has always been twenty years away - mostly because nowhere near enough funding has been applied to make progress so we've been stuck near the same point for decades.

    8. Re:They are pledging to something in 30+ years by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      More because "20 years away" is researchese for "it sounds plausible but we have no idea how to make it work."

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    9. Re:They are pledging to something in 30+ years by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      GM can haul that into existence at will. These things are not profitable. What is profitable are large cars.

      Ironically, with renewable, clean energy, large cars will come roaring back. We exist in a confused, overlapped time where efficiency is considered useful for the environment and conservation of fossil fuels, though the latter concern is more innumeracy than reality.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    10. Re:They are pledging to something in 30+ years by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I thought all cars were self-powered? The last time I pushed a car was about twenty years ago. And only to get it somewhere where it could be fixed.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:They are pledging to something in 30+ years by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Even when fusion becomes commercially viable, it will still cost an effing fortune to build and maintain the staggeringly complex generating plants.
      On the other hand, solar + storage is dropping in cost exponentially.

    12. Re:They are pledging to something in 30+ years by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Solar is fusion power though!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Including its cars? by PvtVoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Doesn't mean much if they keep making gas-guzzling SUVs. Their current #1 selling vehicle is the Silverado pickup, #2 is the Equinox SUV, which, despite being billed as "fuel efficient", is still only rated for 21 MPG in city driving.

    1. Re:Including its cars? by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Funny

      This article can pretty much begin and end with this point.

      GM saying their factories will be 100% renewable is about like RJ Reynolds saying their factories will be 100% smoke free.

    2. Re:Including its cars? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      For an ICE SUV that's pretty good city mileage. But I'd like to see many more hybrids with at least 40 miles all-electric range.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    3. Re:Including its cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wind will cost a lot more as it expands. Even in renewable loving Vermont its become a problem, and we are only getting started.

      http://watchdog.org/275420/scott-takes-stand-against-industrial-wind-energy/

    4. Re:Including its cars? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Who said wind was the big solution? Wind in the end is just the aftereffects of solar. Solar + batteries are the only way we will survive as a species at this point.

    5. Re:Including its cars? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      A mix is the answer.
      Anyone who says otherwise is selling something or has been conned by salesfolk.

    6. Re:Including its cars? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Ehhhhhh, energy costs for making a car are not trivial. There is a lot of chemistry and whatnot. Remember all the studies on the net losing nature of electric cars once you include maufacturing and eventual disposal of the batteries.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:Including its cars? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      A mix is the answer.
      Anyone who says otherwise is selling something or has been conned by salesfolk.

      We don't want a mix, or else scorching the skies to defeat the machines is a non-starter. Think, dude!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re:Including its cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, the only major company selling in the US that DOESN'T make gas guzzling SUVs is Tesla and Subaru. And Subaru really only gets that crown because they have a small focused lineup rather than particularly good fuel efficiency.

      Toyota and Honda seem to stick in people's heads as "green" because of the hybrids but their gas guzzling SUVs guzzle more gas than GMs. Really, GM seems to get penalized because their gas guzzlers are more popular than their competitors gas guzzlers, not because their competitors aren't trying to sell them.

      And GM is pushing electric cars harder than anyone except Tesla.

    9. Re:Including its cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised Silverado sells as well as it does, when they advertise it as the 3rd best pickup truck, and name the two better ones in the same ad.

    10. Re:Including its cars? by blindseer · · Score: 0

      Have you done the math on how much dirt we'd have to mine to get enough mineral to make solar and batteries provide all out energy needs? Then how much land we'd have to cover to collect that energy?

      I've seen the math and as I recall the level of resources needed is ten time that of coal, nuclear, or natural gas. If we rule out coal and gas because of greenhouse emissions then we are left with nuclear. I'm not saying we should be pro-nuclear, just pro-math.

      I'm fine with the continued burning of coal and gas but only so long as stopping the use of those resources for energy does not result in a larger environmental disaster. Solar and batteries would be an environmental disaster. The cost of that energy would be an economic disaster to the point people would starve. I thought the goal was to save humans, no? Then again some of these enviro-nuts believe the world would be better off if humans chose extinction. Well, solar power is not likely to end the human race but it'd be suicidal for a large portion of it.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    11. Re: Including its cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol subarus do not get great mileage. Somehow they get a pass because reasons. Oh yeah - you like skiing and want to pretend you care.

    12. Re:Including its cars? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Obviously. But almost ONE HALF of all oil usage in the US is for gasoline. Are you an engineer? If you were, you'd should know that you don't solve a problem by optimizing the 1% first.

      Oh, and "all the studies" was a couple of studies, and they were seriously flawed/biased in many ways. The main one was using a some worst-case assumptions about the source of electricity used to *power* the cars (which, still has by FAR the greatest impact on the "CO2 footprint" of an electric car, of course). In countries with a mostly renewable grid, it was up to 5x less CO2 emissions from all sources (manufacturing, electricity generation, etc) over the lifetime of the car as those that used significant coal or gas power.

      But anyway, the OP point still stands - once gas dropped below $3 a barrel GM started pushing their big trucks (big as in size, gas usage, and profit margin) once again. Doubling the fuel economy of cars on the road in the US would absolutely DWARF any gains from the energy used to build them.

    13. Re:Including its cars? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      You keep saying, "math", but then you say "the level of resources needed is ten time that of coal, nuclear, or natural gas". Math is a precise science; that quote was utterly vague. The "level of resources needed" for what? Which "resources" in the first place?

      Solar and batteries would be an environmental disaster.

      With today's technology, maybe (though I don't think that's well established anyway). But obviously this "math" was based on some current assumptions.

      The POINT is to keep investing in research. You mentioned nuclear as well - where would that be without the many many billions invested into nuclear research? I bet in 1920 the average person was skeptical towards scientists thinking radiation/nuclear power could replace coal, but 30 years later research proved it was entirely possible.

      It may not be today's solar panels and batteries that solve the problem, but it doesn't take "doing the math" to realize that SOME FORM of solar - or, yes, somewhat, derivative solar like wind - plus STORAGE (batteries are just one example) will be the only was the human race survives ourselves...

    14. Re:Including its cars? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Ehhhhhh, energy costs for making a car are not trivial. There is a lot of chemistry and whatnot. Remember all the studies on the net losing nature of electric cars once you include maufacturing and eventual disposal of the batteries.

      For a typical car, less than one third of its lifetime energy consumption is produced at the time of its consumption. That figure is based on the assumption that you will keep your car about eight or nine years, like we used to so it's actually even less than that since (in the USA) we're keeping them for over eleven years now (an all-time record for us.) For a hybrid, it might be half. But if it uses substantially less energy over its lifetime, then there might be a net benefit.

      The best deal in cars when it comes to lifetime energy expenditure is the small diesel. With urea injection they have very low emissions, and the vehicle comes out much lighter than a hybrid meaning that it takes much less energy to move it around. But the driving experience is not as good in most ways; it might be a more nimble vehicle due to the lesser weight, but it's also going to be a less powerful vehicle and it will have trouble doing things like passing. They are however much less expensive than a hybrid, and it takes less energy to refine their fuel. On the other hand, automakers and governments alike are asking the refiners to produce yet higher grades of diesel fuel than the ULSD stuff we've got now, which will raise the price of diesel if it comes to pass. And then yet again, they're also asking for higher-octane gasoline in order to support higher compression ratios, which improve efficiency and thus emissions, which means that the price of gasoline will also go up — so that's something of a wash.

      The increasing age of the U.S. fleet means that hybrids are a better environmental proposition than ever before.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Including its cars? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      With today's technology, maybe (though I don't think that's well established anyway). But obviously this "math" was based on some current assumptions.

      All we have now is today's technology. Assuming that we can get solar power that is "better" (depending on how you define it) than today's technology is never a safe assumption. Waiting for solar power to be able to beat out nuclear is waiting for a boat that might never come to port. What do you propose we do until then? Keep burning coal?

      Nuclear power is a technology that exists today. It is cheaper than solar and wind, and competitive with coal. Nuclear is the safest energy source we have, by a HUGE margin, when comparing lives lost to MWh produced. The only energy source with a lower carbon footprint than nuclear is hydro and we are running out of rivers to dam.

      It may not be today's solar panels and batteries that solve the problem, but it doesn't take "doing the math" to realize that SOME FORM of solar - or, yes, somewhat, derivative solar like wind - plus STORAGE (batteries are just one example) will be the only was the human race survives ourselves...

      I believe you assume too much.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    16. Re:Including its cars? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Actually I think nuclear is a good idea in the medium term. Much better than coal or gas - as long as we make sure corners are not cut, of course.

      I believe you assume too much.

      And I believe you are WAY too pessimistic.

      If you asked ANYONE in the car industry 10 years ago if there would be a car that could seat 7, go almost 300 miles on a charge, hit 60mph in 3 seconds, and cost ~100K they would have have laughed at you and called you completely ignorant.

      In 10 years you WILL be able to buy a solar installation and battery that will take your home COMPLETELY off grid in a relatively sunny state like CA for ~$15-20k (whole cost). You can do almost the same TODAY with a Tesla Powerwall battery and solar installation for ~$25-30K (with subsidies). Combine that with an electric car and it's entirely possible to live mostly off the grid TODAY (obviously you'd be using some utilities and products that aren't there yet, but your footprint would be down by a huge amount).

      We are way beyond the point that solar is a "hopeful pipedream". We are at the point that it's "viable, but too expensive". Note that is where Tesla was 10 years ago with the Roadster, and Elon Musk clearly stated his goals back then: build an electric sports car to pay for development of an electric luxury car, and a luxury car to pay for the development of a mass market electric car. Once the Model 3 comes out next year, he's proven his car model and will be focusing on Solar...

    17. Re:Including its cars? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Actually I think nuclear is a good idea in the medium term. Much better than coal or gas - as long as we make sure corners are not cut, of course.

      That's close enough to what I needed from you to say I'm done here.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    18. Re:Including its cars? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Good science and environmentalism don't have to be mutually exclusive! Any "environmentalist" who isn't advocating next-gen nuclear power as one of the key steps to prevent global warming in the medium term is doing more harm than good.

      Of course, that's not even getting into fusion reactors, but that's still likely many decades from any useful application...

  3. How about 2020? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grow a pair. It's not like you wouldn't get bailed out again if it went south.

    1. Re:How about 2020? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

      Grow a pair. It's not like you wouldn't get bailed out again if it went south.

      It's going south anyway - Mexico, for the cheap labor.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:How about 2020? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      President Drumpf will put a stop to that. Of course.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  4. Dude by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Dude, how do you make sure the electrons are only from renewable power? Are they a different color or shape or something?

    1. Re:Dude by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Funny

      In this universe, electrons are for all practical purposes, immortal. No need to worry about running out of them.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re: Dude by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      By paying money to companies producing renewable energy for the electricity they produce, then draw from whatever source is willing to do the exchanges necessary so that GM gets exactly that amount. It all works out the same.

  5. and their parts providers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they don't include the manufacturing of the car parts then this is meaningless

  6. GM gone by 2050 by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    commit to anything

  7. LOL "Commits To" in a non-binding way by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    So what happens if they just like don't do it? Nothing?

    By 2050, I'm going to elected The Most Awesome Super Stud in USA. Wadda think about that? Who wants to do a press release for me?

    --
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
  8. GM might find that very difficult, by Snufu · · Score: 1

    When the rest of the world becomes mandatory 100% renewable 20 years before that.

    1. Re:GM might find that very difficult, by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      And where are you going to get the power? Green energy isn't going to fit the bill. Environmentalists whine on anything from natural gas to nuclear. If you go the nuclear route, those plants still won't be online in 20 years(it takes on average 20-25 years to build a nuke plant) due to the environmental laws. Hell it takes upwards of 15 years just to build a NG plant in most of the western world.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:GM might find that very difficult, by prof_robinson · · Score: 2

      "mandatory"...?! You see, that's problem with the Left...they ignore math, facts, and logic and rely on their power to "mandate things". Even if their ideas are unworkable, unfeasible, counterproductive, or even just plain stupid. Here's an example: there are two types of wind generation that are superior to windmills. One is a quadcopter kind of thing with a transmission cable that flies up and finds the jetstream, then turns its rotors to "passive", and just sits there, generating electricity. 24hrs a day, with almost zero footprint, and no ghastly windmills blighting the landscape. The other is a robot that can fly kites. It has two arms, two kites, one cable, and a flywheel between them on the ground. It can fly kites for years, in a figure eight pattern, 24/7 in the jetsream, generating power. A 1 acre installation can fly hundreds of kites, and there's no blight on the landscape. But are we pursuing those technologies? No. Because govt is in the subsidy business and all the crony socialist enterprises are already locked into the govt contracts for dumbass windmills - which are "mandatory". So we're going to be stuck on stupid for some time.

    3. Re:GM might find that very difficult, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20+ years to build a nuke is intentionally misleading. That includes plants that were purposely stopped construction for many years. China is building nukes in 6 years. First of a kind models will have their delays, but once you build a few of the same kind there is no reason they can't be built in less than what China is doing.

    4. Re:GM might find that very difficult, by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Too bad these "superior to windmills" systems are nothing but pipe dreams.

  9. Sell GM stock now by zapadnik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Google couldn't get solar work how are GM going to ? oh, I know, taxpayer subsidies - where wealth is transferred from the poor to the rich in the form of high-tech boondoggles.

    1. Re:Sell GM stock now by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are planning to follow Tesla. Batteries will be big business as vehicles move to electric drive, and large consumers of batteries the car manufacturers will have a big stake in their production and recycling.

      They will be able to make their factory 100% renewable just with the reject packs and used cells that come back, if they go that route.

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

      I'd rather my taxes went to solar cells than a half-trillion-dollar F-35. Even if the solar cells aren't making somebody a fortune, they still don't pollute the air.

    3. Re:Sell GM stock now by zapadnik · · Score: 1

      The is MASSIVE pollution when the solar cells are created and disposed of. Did you not think of this ? internal and external security is a function of government, Solar boondoggles are not (where the wealth is transferred from the poor taxpayer to the rich). Be and think an indoctrinated slave if you want to, just get out of the way of us that don't.

    4. Re:Sell GM stock now by zapadnik · · Score: 1

      This is a Ponzi scheme. But choice is good, so you have your electric tincan and I'll stick to a vehicle powered by sunlight concentrated into high-density liquid form.

    5. Re:Sell GM stock now by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Sugar?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  10. Shell Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They might just be the very last ones to do so, but it's probably just like the phony balanced budget Newt and Bill claimed. They won't count the roads their cars roll on or the energy costs of the workers and their families who build them. Or even the cost of the money that their buyers need to buy them. I'll be there is a lot of energy used to produce the income to buy the damn things.

  11. green fantasies by prof_robinson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is getting a little out of hand. Yes, Costa Rica is running on "renewable" energy...but they have access to large amounts of geothermal many countries don't, plentiful hydroelectric energy which environmentalists are busy tearing down here, and a population only slightly larger than half of NYC. Plus, their grid capacity is only 2.7 mgw, which is approx 3/100th of ours. I personally don't care what color our energy is, I just want *better* energy...and the fact is, the only type of clean energy that can handle our demands would be nuclear; and since that's also off limits because of the environmental lobby, I don't see "green energy" meeting any of our demands any time soon. At the risk of destroying my karma further...these stories serve no purpose except to glorify things that can't work and coax us into implementing technologies that will never keep up, and will only raise our costs. It basically amounts to green propaganda. As for GM...the fact that they receive enormous subsidies from the Obama admin which bailed out their company and appointed their CEO (in true fascist fashion) - this is hardly a surprise. They know who their masters are.

    1. Re:green fantasies by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 0

      The thing is you need to look at the big picture in energy production and that includes energy consumption.

      How much energy generation would you need if houses were hyper efficient like the new German ones are? How much energy would the southwest need if you could scale the Einstein refrigerator? You don't just go renewable, you also go renewable, reduce consumption and work with the environment you have.

      The Nordic states and Germany seem to be off to a good start and they're at latitudes on par with Canada.

    2. Re:green fantasies by prof_robinson · · Score: 3, Informative

      Increased efficiency is fine, but will never make up for decreased capacity, and will ultimately only stall any future growth. Nordic states - like Iceland, for example - are in the same boat as costa rica: they are relying on geothermal and hyrdroelectric. (Which I like, by the way, but it's just not practical here.) Germany's green energy is turning out to be a myth. There are plenty of articles about how it is failing, once you get outside the green press. Like this, for example: http://www.forbes.com/sites/re... That's an article from 2013, and it's gotten even worse since they've shut down their nuclear. Look, I get it: you feel the dream. You believe in a green friendly utopia with windmills and solar panels and shiny happy people holding hands. But I'm a firm believer in math - aka reality - and to replace our grid capacity with solar and wind would require paving over most of the southwest, and limit any growth to current levels. What we need is nuclear - fusion or fission, I don't care which. A tiny nuclear fission reactor like on our aircraft carriers could power a small city cleanly and safely for decades, for relatively low cost. The technology is here, it is well-understood, and could be implemented quickly. But as long as the green movement says no, we are on a trajectory to the stone age. I know this isn't a popular opinion round here, and it always costs me karma, but I'm just being a realist.

    3. Re:green fantasies by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      the only type of clean energy that can handle our demands would be nuclear

      Wind power is already cheaper than nuclear, and if current trends continue, solar will be cheaper in less than a decade ... which is far less than the lead time to build a nuclear plant.

      and since that's also off limits because of the environmental lobby

      No. Nuclear is off the table because of economics.

      At the risk of destroying my karma further...

      Oh come off it. Nobody on Slashdot gets modded down for being pro-nuke.

    4. Re: green fantasies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we need is nuclear - fusion or fission, I don't care which. A tiny nuclear fission reactor like on our aircraft carriers could power a small city cleanly and safely for decades, for relatively low cost. The technology is here, it is well-understood, and could be implemented quickly. But as long as the green movement says no, we are on a trajectory to the stone age. I know this isn't a popular opinion round here, and it always costs me karma, but I'm just being a realist.

      You want us to believe that you are a realist, and your go-to example is the reactors on aircraft carriers? Those would be a terrible model to try to scale out, and their design constraints are actually focused in ways that are counterproductive.

      But unfortunately for you, the real world is not full of success in the nuclear field. Since GWB's push, TVA finished a reactor they started decades ago, while Vogtle and Summer piddle around. And the construction of similar plants was also delayed in China, so blaming it on greens is a bit tough.

      Maybe the problem is that the nuclear industry can't deliver on their promises, and demand is tapering off anyway? Or you can keep blaming the greens, the dastardly bastards!

      And you being a self-proclaimed realist, who are we to argue?

    5. Re:green fantasies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wind is cheaper (in optimal cases) where you don't consider the cost of indetermittancy and reserves. But actual cost of wind in most real world large projects, even the most recent, it higher than nuclear. You just oversimplify things by using capacity cost rather than cost per MWH.

    6. Re: green fantasies by prof_robinson · · Score: 1

      And you're an anonymous coward, so what's the point? Nuclear is VERY cost-efficient, and compact in terms of footprint. The reasons that it doesn't appear so at the moment have nothing to do with the technology, but the efforts of environmental groups to stop them. Years of red tape, study after study, injunction after injunction raise the costs and time for construction considerably. Do you honestly think it takes decades to build a reactor because of the technology? Seriously? They aren't "piddling around", they're being interfered with, obstructed, and delayed. http://www.fool.com/investing/... I am a realist. Mini-nukes - the kind on aircraft carriers and submarine are very cost-effective, incredibly safe, and the military literally has decades of data on their output and function. I had a brother who was in the navy, and they used to sleep on top of them. And it will scale fine...you're still thinking about large-scale plants like three mile island. I'm talking about reactors the size of refrigerators that arrive fully-fueled and automated. You never have to do maintenance, you never have to adjust them...and when they're out of fuel, the entire unit becomes a disposal container. They don't have to be large enough to power entire states, just small towns and cities. And before you whip out your Bush Derangement Syndrome, it's Obama (and GE) that are building and deploying them NOW. http://news.nationalgeographic...

    7. Re:green fantasies by prof_robinson · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wind and solar are only less expensive because of subsidies - which is cheating. They are actually the most expensive forms of energy out there, not only in terms of kw output, but the overall footprint required. http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au... Solar, for example, is 30-40% more expensive without subsidies http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... As for my karma, how can I possibly prove to you what I have seen with my own eyes? This is not my first time down this road on slashdot. It's not so much that I'm "pro-nuke", but that I'm "anti-green". The reality is, I'm just "pro-better".

    8. Re:green fantasies by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Plus, their grid capacity is only 2.7 mgw, which is approx 3/100th of ours

      However with a HUUUGE grid, especially one that runs east to west so has peaks spread a great deal over time, makes a vast range of options possible that Costa Rica couldn't implement. We can do better and most likely will some day.

      There are a lot of long range HVDC links going in which means line losses from California to Florida are going to be ignorable. What was previously niches with little economic return like for example geothermal from near Yellowstone, or dozens of other ignored energy sources due to remoteness, are now becoming viable. By the time Atlanta goes to bed the sun is still shining bright in California.

      the only type of clean energy that can handle our demands would be nuclear

      Who told you THAT?
      Nuclear is fixed capacity so you need something to fill in the gaps. Demand is not constant so it can't match it. It definitely doesn't fit your claim. It's useful for what it does without making shit up to pretend it's the "one true energy". There is no "one true energy" - anyone trying to convince you otherwise is trying to trick you to sell you something.

    9. Re:green fantasies by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you should link something other than Forbes if you would prefer it if people do not laugh at you.

      but I'm just being a realist

      Then stop reading those fucking business fantasy magazines!

    10. Re:green fantasies by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Sorry to reply a lot to your posts but I've just seen them all at once so that's the way it is.

      Wind and solar are cheaper in some situations because sometimes you only need a few MW and nukes become economically viable at a GW scale. There is a crossover point in the cost curve - simple as that. It's the nature of thermal power having to start big and then scaling up better than some other things.

    11. Re:green fantasies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...]
      There are plenty of articles about how it is failing, once you get outside the green press. Like this, for example: http://www.forbes.com/sites/re... That's an article from 2013, and it's gotten even worse since they've shut down their nuclear[...]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany#Statistics

      installed capacity and consumption of renewable energy increases in germany on yearly basis... so how it is getting worse exactly?

    12. Re:green fantasies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wind and solar are only less expensive because of subsidies - which is cheating. They are actually the most expensive forms of energy out there, not only in terms of kw output, but the overall footprint required. http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au... Solar, for example, is 30-40% more expensive without subsidies http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... As for my karma, how can I possibly prove to you what I have seen with my own eyes? This is not my first time down this road on slashdot. It's not so much that I'm "pro-nuke", but that I'm "anti-green". The reality is, I'm just "pro-better".

      The paper from University Of Sydney is from 2006! You are wrong to be relying on it. It's analysis is way, way out of date.

    13. Re: green fantasies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're an anonymous coward, so what's the point?

      I already made it, and with reference to the claim you made about yourself. You want to believe that's true, or maybe you're cynical enough you just want to portray it while knowing it is fake, I don't know, but whatever it is in your own mind, it's not being demonstrated by conduct.

      Nuclear is VERY cost-efficient, and compact in terms of footprint.

      It's not been cost-effective though, and compact footprint is not a terrible concern, we're not on Gideon after all.

      The reasons that it doesn't appear so at the moment have nothing to do with the technology, but the efforts of environmental groups to stop them. Years of red tape, study after study, injunction after injunction raise the costs and time for construction considerably. Do you honestly think it takes decades to build a reactor because of the technology? Seriously? They aren't "piddling around", they're being interfered with, obstructed, and delayed.

      That's what you want to believe. You want to seriously believe they're somehow so hampered that they just can't do their jobs, and if only those "terrible" greens get out of the way, it'd all be fine.

      What if it's actually not the enviromental groups? They got blamed for California's energy crisis. They weren't responsible. What if it's the industry itself?

      I am a realist. Mini-nukes - the kind on aircraft carriers and submarine are very cost-effective, incredibly safe, and the military literally has decades of data on their output and function. I had a brother who was in the navy, and they used to sleep on top of them. And it will scale fine...you're still thinking about large-scale plants like three mile island. I'm talking about reactors the size of refrigerators that arrive fully-fueled and automated. You never have to do maintenance, you never have to adjust them...and when they're out of fuel, the entire unit becomes a disposal container. They don't have to be large enough to power entire states, just small towns and cities.

      This is where you're lacking again, you think because your brother slept in the same facility as a nuclear reactor, that means squat? Did you even see me complain about safety? I said they were a terrible model to scale out, and their design constraints are counter-productive. I didn't give some song and dance about safety, not that I consider the military a good model for taking care for its own, let alone of its own, but that's another problem. Nuclear-wise, their reactors are not that great in terms of suitability for what you want to do. Even the newest ones are ill-suited for it.

      Which is not conceding that it is a good idea, but if it were, you wouldn't pick their designs for it.

      And before you whip out your Bush Derangement Syndrome, it's Obama (and GE) that are building and deploying them NOW.

      Now you're fucking over with politics, when the reality is...those reactors are not being deployed, Clinch River is not operational, and the company behind it is frittering away with it.

      Get real, your "OMG, you hate Bush" handwringing only convinces me you need a sharp dose of it.

    14. Re:green fantasies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'wind is always blowing somewhere' pitch isn't really workable. Its simple to say install tons of HDVC lines, but once you consider the huge cost of doing that on top of the still remaining intermittency it becomes unworkable. Even across the entire country of Germany there are days with almost no wind output. Unfortunately when you scale up to the entire US you don't really get that much better.

      Its a prohibitively expensive approach.

    15. Re:green fantasies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wind advocates always use the optimal, best case wind cost as a reference, not the real world costs on most projects. And it will likely get more expensive as NIMBY fights emerge, which will be prevalent in a scenario where we build out huge wind capacity. Legal costs and land battles haven't yet taken their toll as wind has moved into the low hanging fruit areas. That won't hold.

      It's already happening in Vermont, a place where the populous is very green conscious;

      http://watchdog.org/275420/scott-takes-stand-against-industrial-wind-energy/

    16. Re:green fantasies by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1

      Wind is cheaper (in optimal cases) where you don't consider the cost of indetermittancy and reserves. But actual cost of wind in most real world large projects, even the most recent, it higher than nuclear. You just oversimplify things by using capacity cost rather than cost per MWH.

      First, wind is only one part of a diversified energy portfolio. And secondly, no-one so far has solved the nuclear waste disposal problem, and hence no-one knows what it will cost. But we do know that it will be very expensive indeed. Current nuclear technology is a child of both cold war military subsidies and plenty of civilian subsidies, so complaining about subsidies for renewables now is a bit hypocritical.

      --

      Stephan

    17. Re:green fantasies by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I think it might work by 2050. It's at least somewhat of a realistic goal. Technology marches on.

    18. Re:green fantasies by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Wind and solar are only less expensive because of subsidies - which is cheating.

      Investments are cheating? The first transistors and especially integrated circuits were also subsidized...by the military (that is, purchased by military for special applications at prices exceeding the vacuum tube prices).

      You'll never achieve any progress with this mindset because anything meaningfully new will be too expensive compared to the old thing.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    19. Re:green fantasies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not mention subsidies at all, you brought it up. But since you did, solar and wind get much more subsidy per KWH than any power source we've ever used, and its not even close.

      And if you want to bring up early technological development, solar PV got heavy development funding via the space programs.

      Regardless, what matter is cost going forward.

    20. Re:green fantasies by prof_robinson · · Score: 1

      Yes, "investments" - what a quaint socialist term - are cheating. If you buy a $30,000 car, but you get $20,000 from the govt, you then cannot claim that it was a deal at $10,000.

    21. Re:green fantasies by prof_robinson · · Score: 1

      It hasn't gotten any better. Wind and solar are not any more efficient than they were in 2006. Solar has had some minor improvements in the lab, but not in the field. The tech deployed thus far is not any more advanced. Most wind and solar projects currently are providing only about 30% of the expected output.

    22. Re:green fantasies by prof_robinson · · Score: 1

      The big problem is you are using lab specs under pristine conditions to do your analysis. Solar and wind are greatly underperforming in the field.

    23. Re: green fantasies by prof_robinson · · Score: 1

      I can't believe the level of idiocy here. You actually think that we were able to go from nothing to landing on the moon in 10 years...but it takes 20-30 years to build a nuke from already available plans, because of...technology? You actually think that an energy company will drop half a billion on a project and just "fritter away" and waste time for decades? Sorry, that's just ridiculous on so many levels. You probably think we can't build the keystone pipeline in 15 years because we can't figure out how to "make the pipe work".

    24. Re:green fantasies by prof_robinson · · Score: 1

      "business fantasy"? Sorry, that's just sad. You can't refute the conclusions with data, so you just attack the source. Why would I not trust a "business magazine" that deals in data and economics and has no stake in the outcome? You'd rather I read Mother Earth, I suppose, or Greenpeace monthly.

    25. Re:green fantasies by dbIII · · Score: 1

      With respect I think your information is slightly more than one decade out of date. The large scale field tests were done and results found at around the time this site started. Anybody getting a shock about results now is just not trying.

    26. Re:green fantasies by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The source is crap for anything related to science and engineering and you can do better almost anywhere else - including even the extreme stuff you put in to mock - that's how bad it is.
      Worse than a joke is pretty fucking bad isn't it?

    27. Re:green fantasies by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Its simple to say install tons of HDVC lines

      It's easier to say - "here are the ones already in use and here are the ones getting built soon".

      Its a prohibitively expensive approach

      It is already happening.

    28. Re:green fantasies by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Jelly much? First quantify the health costs of all those exhausts, then we can talk about how much it is worth. (I still have breathing problems from the operation of our local coal plants back in the 1980s.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    29. Re:green fantasies by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      They weren't even 100% renewable energy but 100% renewable electricity. They aren't counting the coal used in the concrete plants, and anything else that is thermal energy, just electricity production.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    30. Re:green fantasies by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with your premise, but no, we would not need to pave over the southwest:

      http://www.techinsider.io/map-...

      The area needed to power all of Europe, Africa and the Middle East could easily come from the Sahara, North America could be powered by covering some of the deserts, and South America by using their deserts. It is possible to do, but the storage is an absolute non starter. We have no way to store the kind of power we would need to store with all solar, and it is a pipe dream right now to do it without nuclear.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    31. Re:green fantasies by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The nuclear waste disposal issue is politics, not science. France has no issue reprocessing their waste, and what is left over can be buried like in Yucca Mountain.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    32. Re:green fantasies by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Seriously?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Yes, efficiency has been climbing. Since 2006 multijunction panels (the highest efficiency) went from 36% to 46%. Other forms moved up as well.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  12. Anyone reminded of 'The Producers' ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like we have a pile of companies (and individuals) paying the extra fee to the power companies to get the "green" power out of the grid. Might be time for an audit to see how many times that windmill's power has been sold now. Could be tough with all the cross state lines power sharing though.

  13. Renewable *and* Grenade-Like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But "something will go very wrong in their processes in some instance, and terrible things will happen".

  14. Hidden Externalities = Renewable by mentil · · Score: 1

    A whipping robot powered by a dynamo turned by the human slaves it whips = renewable energy? The actual automotives run on biodiesel created from carcasses of the fallen slaves. The AI CEO of Uber zips self-driving autos all over the place for menial tasks to maximize the productivity metrics, now bearing sensors sophisticated enough to avoid the heaps of corpses littering the streets. Extraterrestrials detect the signs of an advanced functioning civilization, only to find robo-maids dusting off our depleted husks.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  15. Will GM still exist in 2050? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only if taxpayers keep bailing them out.

  16. GM in 2050? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What makes General Motors think they will still exist in 2050?

  17. a little presumptuous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems a little bit presumptuous to assume modern civilisation will still be around then.... well good luck

  18. China nuclear? No delays there, full steam ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/84367445/china-to-build-at-least-60-nuclear-plants-in-coming-decade--industry-official

  19. This is empty promise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless one builds separate grid that is run only by renewables this is impossible to prove. The grid does not distinguish between sources of energy. Theoretically they could get in to the business of generating renewable electricity and sell to the grid the same amount they got from fossil or nuclear. However I seriously doubt automaker want to get into power generation business on the large scale. If it would be GE maybe more realistic.

  20. Why? How? by blindseer · · Score: 1

    GM made the announcement on Wednesday, revealing that it planned to generate or source all its electrical power needs for its 350 operations in 59 countries with 100% renewable energy such as wind, solar, and landfill gas, by 2050.

    Why do this? Seems like a noble goal but with the goal so far out it would seem that no one working for the company toady will still be working for the company when this goal is due. What they are promising is that their successors will meet this goal. This is a goal far enough out it could conceivably be their grandchildren being responsible for this. This is just marketing, pure and simple, they cannot conceivably be held responsible if they fail or meet this goal.

    GM is likely getting enviro-nuts on their case from all angles right now, since their products are considered a major consumer of those "evil" fossil fuels. They had to do something about it, right? But they needed to have shareholders buy in, and right now renewable energy is expensive. So, they put the goal out in the future far enough to not affect the stock price now.

    Then we get to how this could even be achievable. Wind and solar are too unreliable to run a business. Landfill gas is such a rare commodity that it is even laughable to consider this as an energy source to run a factory. I suppose it is possible to for GM to own enough wind and solar power that, with some creative accounting, they can claim all the energy they consume was equivalent to the solar and wind energy they produced. This requires a market for their excess energy when it is available and someone to produce it for them when it is not. Where is this energy going to come from?

    This energy will come from coal, of course. That is unless we have some huge leap in technology in how wind and solar energy is collected and converted. Even with a goal as far out as 2050 I don't see this as possible. We've made great gains in wind and solar energy but we passed the point of diminishing returns a long time ago.

    The only possibility that I see for GM to have "green" energy, at a price that won't kill their stock value, and not require clever accounting, is with nuclear power. But nuclear power doesn't make many of these enviro-nuts happy. These enviro-nuts that think we can live in a world powered by wind and solar are insane or ignorant, possibly both. The resources in land, steel, aluminum, concrete, and so on for wind and solar is ten times that for coal, gas, or nuclear. There's your environmental disaster, many many square kilometers of land paved over for windmills and solar panels.

    In short this press release is a lie. They are lying in that this goal is even achievable or they are lying by omission by not mentioning that nuclear power is part of the plan. It appears no one has bothered to challenge them on how they plan to meet their goal. This is only possible because the enviro-nuts are too insane to be bothered with the math, or too ignorant to understand the math. I'm not necessarily pro-nuclear but I am pro-math. I've seen the math and the only way this adds up is with nuclear power or some technology that does not exist yet. Anyone that thinks we'll have some new technology that can beat nuclear by 2050 is insane, ignorant, or both.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Why? How? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      "blind" yes,
      "seer" no.

    2. Re:Why? How? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Rather than simply playing on my username and imply that I am wrong, ignorant, or otherwise lacking in making my argument perhaps you could enlighten me? I love a good debate but I try to avoid wrestling with pigs.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Why? How? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The resources in land, steel, aluminum, concrete, and so on for wind and solar is ten times that for coal, gas, or nuclear. There's your environmental disaster, many many square kilometers of land paved over for windmills and solar panels.

      You do know that the amount of land paved over for a big-ass windmill is like 100 square feet, right? OK, OK, I exaggerate. It might be 200.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Why? How? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      That one wind turbine would produce something like 3 MW with optimum winds. In the best locations it will do so with an expected capacity factor of 35%, a capacity factor of 20% is more typical. Compare that to a nuclear power plant, that produces something like 1 GW at a capacity factor of about 90%. Tell me, because I'm too lazy to do the math right now, which one takes up less land area per MWh produced?

      Not that it matters a whole lot. Nuclear power uses less concrete and steel, produces power at lower cost, and does so with less carbon output per MWh no matter how the wind blows. All of that counting against wind power and you want to "correct" me on the land area used?

      Unless you can show me otherwise I will maintain that more land is paved over with wind power than nuclear power. Again, not that it matters much since wind power [ahem] blows on every other metric compared to nuclear. Normally I'd just let this go and concede the point just to move on but if you want to pick nits on this, of all things, then I'll play. Show me your math and then I'll show you mine.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    5. Re:Why? How? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power uses less concrete and steel, produces power at lower cost, and does so with less carbon output per MWh no matter how the wind blows.

      And nuclear mining is a shitfest. In theory it can be done cleanly. In practice, there are always negative environmental effects. Always. You don't get to just handwave away the environmental impact of mining for radioactives, nor of processing ores.

      Unless you can show me otherwise I will maintain that more land is paved over with wind power than nuclear power.

      Actually, the best place to put it is offshore.

      Show me your math and then I'll show you mine.

      Your math doesn't include mining, so it's not interesting. In alt power we account for our externalities. You are invited to do the same if you want to be taken seriously.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. Made up "facts" by sjbe · · Score: 1

    But I'm a firm believer in math - aka reality - and to replace our grid capacity with solar and wind would require paving over most of the southwest, and limit any growth to current levels.

    Evidently you went to the Donald Trump University majoring in Made Up Statistics and minoring in Bogus "Facts". For a person who professes to "believe in math" there is a distinct lack of it in you posts. It would take something like 11-12 million acres or about 2000sqft per person. That's about 0.6% of the land mass of the US. A lot of space sure but nothing remotely close to "paving most of the southwest". Furthermore much of that acreage could come simply by utilizing already existing rooftops. Furthermore wind power is a thing and doesn't require nearly the area that solar does. In fact it can even be off shore and in areas where solar is highly impractical. Of course it's a moot discussion since there is no way we are going to go 100% solar/wind.

    A tiny nuclear fission reactor like on our aircraft carriers could power a small city cleanly and safely for decades, for relatively low cost.

    Fission reactors are sort of clean. Until they aren't. And when they aren't they REALLY aren't clean. In many cases nuclear fission is the least worst alternative available to us today but let's not pretend it doesnt cause any sort of pollution. Nuclear waste and fallout (when things really go wrong) are serious problems with no particularly good solutions. Nuclear reactors on aircraft carriers are maintained by the military under military discipline without any profit motive and at enormous expense. There is a reason we only put reactors on a handful of ships - they are hugely expensive and challenging to maintain safely. Just because something works in a military setting doesn't mean it will work in the civilian world. While arguably the technology would be transferable, the economic case for it is FAR weaker.

    Fusion could be an answer but we haven't figured that one out yet and it doesn't look to be in the cards for a few more decades. Right now it's just science fiction for all practical purposes.

    1. Re:Made up "facts" by prof_robinson · · Score: 1

      We get it. You hate Trump. [yawn] Military grade reactors are not "challenging" - I know someone who worked on them. Mini nuke solutions - like the ones GE are working on - are black boxes. They are plug and play, no maintenance. They don't leak, they don't explode. If anything goes wrong, they shut down immediately. They are sealed boxes that are also disposal containers. Breeder and thorium reactors are very safe, as well as newer chinese models that actually do appear to be metldown-proof. Episodes like Fukiskima are outliers. The reactor in that case was a 40 yr old GE model, and people are still debating whether the actual core breached. The radiation that was released was not from the reactor, but the spent fuel rods being stored in pools on premises.

    2. Re:Made up "facts" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Episodes like Fukiskima are outliers. The reactor in that case was a 40 yr old GE model,

      Most of the reactors in the USA are just as old and crap as that.

      and people are still debating whether the actual core breached.

      Tee hee

      The radiation that was released was not from the reactor, but the spent fuel rods being stored in pools on premises.

      Yeah, we have that situation here in the USA too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  22. More made up "facts" by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Wind and solar are only less expensive because of subsidies - which is cheating.

    Fossil fuels are hugely subsidized globally to the tune of around $500 Billion annually and that doesn't even count the countries that sell oil to citizens below cost. This is substantially more than renewable energy subsidies. Furthermore all nuclear power is subsidized as well since it requires government backing to get any kind of insurance. Furthermore your argument implies that subsidizing green energy sources is somehow a bad thing. I would argue that it is an economic imperative based on the apparent climatic effects of the dominant source of energy - fossil fuels.

    They are actually the most expensive forms of energy out there, not only in terms of kw output, but the overall footprint required.

    Boy you are all about the unsupported assertions aren't you? Here are some actual facts about cost of energy by source. You'll note that on-shore wind is actually among the cheaper sources of energy and photovoltaic is competitive with the more expensive forms of fossil fuel production.

    1. Re:More made up "facts" by prof_robinson · · Score: 0

      Fossil fuels are not hugely subsidized - in America. America is home to the only two private oil companies in the world. In AMerica, green energy gets more subsidies than the oil industry has ever gotten in it's entire history. All of the other oil companies are state-owned cartels that are fully subsidized. So your analysis is a bit flawed. You're comparing apples to oranges.

    2. Re:More made up "facts" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Fossil fuels are not hugely subsidized - in America.

      Of course they are. There is no practical difference between a subsidy and a tax break. You can argue that it's "not a subsidy" all day, but if they wind up paying less taxes and thus keeping more money then there's no difference in practice whatsoever.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  23. Not Likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GM won't even exist in 2050.

  24. Re:China nuclear? No delays there, full steam ahea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-first-advanced-nuclear-reactor-faces-more-delays-1421297393

    http://www.moneyweb.co.za/news-fast-news/safety-review-delays-chinas-areva-designed-nuclear-reactors/

    http://www.vidalatinasd.com/news/2016/aug/04/china-delays-reporting-incident-at-nuclear/

  25. You're not counting General Fusion by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    A Canadian company that's much more advanced in their fusion R&D. They're only always 5 years away.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re: You're not counting General Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, they only need funding for another 5 years and then they will go bankrupt. I cannot believe people fall for these types of scams over and over again. When will we learn (if ever)?

  26. Too slow, too late by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    If climate changes following current path until 2050, I am not sure GM will still exist at that time. Supply chains and customers will have been wiped from earth's surface.

  27. Why is solar classified as renewable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we make a new sun now?

  28. since when was landfill gas renewable? by idji · · Score: 1

    It's appalling that some countries are still using landfill. Stop it already.