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."

13 of 114 comments (clear)

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

    commit to anything

  4. 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.

  5. 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 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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.