Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Pledges To Cover 15 Massive Warehouse Rooftops With Solar Panels (arstechnica.com)

Amazon announced earlier this week that it would install solar panels on 15 of its fulfillment and sorting centers around the U.S. in 2017. "Depending on the specific project, time of year, and other factors, a solar installation could generate as much as 80 percent of a single fulfillment facility's annual energy needs," Amazon wrote in a press release. "That energy will provide electricity for everything from keeping the lights on to powering Amazon Robotics at fulfillment centers," reports Ars Technica. From the report: Amazon is finding stride with other major companies, but it's a bit short compared to some of its more ambitious peers. For example, Google announced in December that by the end of 2017 it would be using a carbon offsets program to pay for as much renewable energy as all of its data centers and offices worldwide consumed. The search giant said at the time that the move to renewable energy wasn't just for show -- it was about avoiding energy price fluctuations in the long term. That's a sentiment Amazon echoed as well in its Tuesday press release. "We are putting our scale and inventive culture to work on sustainability -- this is good for the environment, our business, and our customers," wrote Dave Clark, Amazon's senior vice president of worldwide operations. "By diversifying our energy portfolio, we can keep business costs low and pass along further savings to customers. It's a win-win."

44 comments

  1. This is excellent news by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    And I for one am glad that Amazon Sustainability is taking such a forward-looking cost-cutting measure by using large-scale renewable energy instead of expensive and polluting fossil fuels for the bulk of their warehouse roofing space.

    Kudos to Seattle's former transit czar!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:This is excellent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how are those solar panels manufactured? With energy from fossil fuels.

      And how are Amazon's products getting shipped to customers? Using fossil fuels.

      Idiots. It's a gimmick designed to make you think they care, because their customers want them to care. They pat you on the head and send you on your way thinking you somehow influenced them.

    2. Re:This is excellent news by shilly · · Score: 1

      Don't be an absolute arse-twonk. Don't let the best be the enemy of the good.

    3. Re: This is excellent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A solar panel produces more energy over its lifetime than the energy it took to produce, transmit and install that panel. You'll have to try better if your trying to stand in the way of progress for the sake of special interests.

    4. Re:This is excellent news by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      And how are those solar panels manufactured? With energy from fossil fuels.

      Actually, n00b, here in the Pacific Northwest, where we make carbon fiber jets, solar, wind turbine blades we use hydropower, solar, and wind for most of our energy.

      Adapt.

      The market cares nothing for your 18th century fossil fuel religion.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  2. Impossible! by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I mean, Amazon must be getting carbon credits or something for this, right? Right? /s

    1. Re:Impossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Public relations credits. You gauge how much positive press per dollar spent this gives you, and allocate your money. So many dollars to youtube videos, so many dollars to search ads, so many dollars for a superbowl ad, so many dollars to environmental stunts.

    2. Re:Impossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not necessarily a bad thing however. They're taking into account the cost of using solar vs the positive PR generated. That reduces the marginal cost of putting in the solar, making it more cost-effective than fossil fuels. It's a good thing.

    3. Re:Impossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if they sell the energy into the grid in a state with the appropriate Renewable Energy Credit laws. If they use the energy for their own servers they wouldn't earn RECs.

    4. Re:Impossible! by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I mean, Amazon must be getting carbon credits or something for this, right? Right? /s

      They get tax credits, which basically amounts to the public paying for part of their power usage.

  3. A mountain of dead batteries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who will buy my mountain of dead batteries. First up is my home battery, next is my car battery, then my computer battery and finally you can have my phone battery.

    1. Re: A mountain of dead batteries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spent batteries can be recycled into materials. It's harder to do that with pollution from fossil fuels. Which includes mercury and other stuff that's in coal btw. https://www.edf.org/climate/mercury-and-air-toxics-rule-power-plants

      Also, currently, off-peak power is cheaper (night time) to try and load-balance the existing coal plants. So companies and individuals have shifted their usage to the night-time to save money. In a pro-solar world, cheaper power pricing at night won't make any sense, so the price structure will change, and you'll find that energy use shifts towards the daytime in a big way, which will massively reduce the need for battery solutions in the long term. Since we *deliberately* try and get people to use more power at night now, it should not be a surprise that we stop applying those incentives in a solar scenario, and thus the amount of batteries needed will be much less.

    2. Re: A mountain of dead batteries... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      you are a prime example of someone who does no research before making ignorant posts

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  4. Second Amazon article this afternoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bozo must have paid his /. bill

    1. Re:Second Amazon article this afternoon by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      By that logic, Tesla paid double and Uber's in Venezuela-class financial trouble.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  5. Bezos is soooooo noble by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 0

    He's still going to fill those warehouses with employees who are LITERALLY not allowed to talk to each other under pain of termination.

    1. Re:Bezos is soooooo noble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's still going to fill those warehouses with employees who are LITERALLY not allowed to talk to each other under pain of termination.

      who are you complaining to? the government? what a joke! trump thinks people make too much already

    2. Re:Bezos is soooooo noble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talking employees are potentially unionizing employees. And we can't have that now, can we?

      Silicon Valley is super-liberal until the exact second you bring up unions or worker rights. Then suddenly they're as hardcore conservative as the reddest of red states.

      I knew a guy who worked at one of the local Amazon centers. He said they got a 30-minute lunch break. But you weren't allowed to eat on the factory floor and the place was so big that the only break room was a 15 minute walk away. So basically, employees weren't allowed to eat for 8-12 hours. That kind of shit would never fly in a union shop.

    3. Re:Bezos is soooooo noble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too, worked in a warehouse, and that simply is not true.

      It's hard work, but hey, it's a warehouse. Don't like it, better yourself.

  6. Something's not adding up here by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    Covering the entire rooftop of one of these facilities should provide far more electricity than required to operate it. Robots, lighting, and even HVAC should represent fairly modest loads in comparison.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    1. Re:Something's not adding up here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HVAC? They have cooling in those warehouses?

    2. Re:Something's not adding up here by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Higher efficiency warehouses lighting has not even kicked in yet ie LED lighting automatically switched on or off at points of work, unlike high intensity discharge lamps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., not long start up time and off and on is very energy inefficient for them. So warehousing is set to become even more energy efficient, next question, is it worth covering the carpark with carports with solar panels, how close is that decision.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Something's not adding up here by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that robotic workhouses are not lit or climate controlled to human standards so the savings might be smaller.

      Personally, I'm happy with LED lighting since about 2012.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:Something's not adding up here by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      Yes, when the sun is shining on a cloudless day at the best time of day for how the panels are situated then the facility then the panels should provide a good percentage of the electrical needs. I can't say for sure because I don't know how much one of their facilities requires and how many panels they can install on the roof.

      But what about the rest of the day when the sun hitting the panels isn't optimal? At 9:00AM the sun is up but you aren't getting the full amount of electricity being generated. And then there's the whole of the night when the facility is running but the panels are not putting out any electricity. So you have a facility that is probably using power at a constant rate 24/7 and the panels that generate electricity with varying efficiency during the day.

      There's probably a fair number of computers in each facility which work out where everything is stored, copies of orders to be shipped, etc. If your internet connection goes down you don't want to stop operations.

  7. Going Green by jxander · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At what point do we stop praising companies for "going green," when switching to solar just makes financial sense?

    The company will net profit from this investment. It also happens to be good for the environment, so hooray, but I'm willing to bet the former was the real reason for this.

    It kinda feels like praising companies for cancelling their ritual kitten sacrifice. They might be doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, or maybe kittens are just getting pricey, and then you've gotta steam clean the carpets because SOMEONE tracked blood everywhere...

    --
    This signature is false.
    1. Re:Going Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accept for those of us with cat allergies...by not killing that kitten they may have just signed my death warrant.

      Cute and cuddly balls of death they are :)

    2. Re:Going Green by fgouget · · Score: 1

      For as long as the seemingly prevailing opinion is that global warming is a Chinese conspiracy?

    3. Re:Going Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as it's unusual enough that it's somewhat novel for companies to do this then it's worthwhile pointing it out so that more companies actually realise that it makes financial sense.

  8. Where's the love for Florida? by Londovir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Although I'm pleased to see this announcement, living here in Lakeland, FL where there's a fairly large Amazon distribution center I'm really disappointed that there's no move this year to put these here, when they're going to be putting them in Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey. In virtually every solar radiation average exposure map I've seen, Florida generally receives more solar radiation than all three of those states - and sometimes more than areas of California as well. This area is ripe for this, at least from a physical standpoint. I have to assume there's some sort of governmental roadblock in the way at the moment that isn't to their tastes, because it certainly can't be because they won't generate enough power down here.

    --
    Londovir
    1. Re:Where's the love for Florida? by Notabadguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Although I'm pleased to see this announcement, living here in Lakeland, FL where there's a fairly large Amazon distribution center I'm really disappointed that there's no move this year to put these here, when they're going to be putting them in Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey. In virtually every solar radiation average exposure map I've seen, Florida generally receives more solar radiation than all three of those states - and sometimes more than areas of California as well. This area is ripe for this, at least from a physical standpoint. I have to assume there's some sort of governmental roadblock in the way at the moment that isn't to their tastes, because it certainly can't be because they won't generate enough power down here.

      Yes, it is harder to get solar in Florida. If you voted in November, don't you remember the solar amendment?

      https://www.wired.com/2016/10/...

      http://www.sun-sentinel.com/op...

    2. Re:Where's the love for Florida? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's little to no subsidies for solar in Florida. Can't have the electric companies losing lots of money.

    3. Re:Where's the love for Florida? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      they could create some sort of water catcher and Archimedes screw setup to generate power from the heavy rain to make up for the solar loss :o)

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  9. Smoke and mirrors by louden+obscure · · Score: 0

    A typical roofing system on a commercial building begins to fail inside twenty years. It costs a crapton of money to roof/re-roof a building when there are only a few obstacles. Now cover it with retrofitted solar panels; labor intensive at best. Nevermind that the building probably wasn't engineered for the additional weight. Providing that 80% of the required power is going to be very expensive.

    --
    Serenity now, insanity later.
    1. Re:Smoke and mirrors by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      here's an option... http://www.solarcity.com/resid...

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  10. Some are complete and running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I happen to know (well) a guy who is a project manager for these and at least 3 are done and running as of last November (2016), and yes, several more are being designed and planned. It's just smart and we need to do it. Energy storage systems are being built and online (while many people babble away about whether it's possible) http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tesla-energy-storage-20170131-story.html/

  11. Win for them maybe, lose for you definitely. by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 0

    Never mind the "Depending on the specific project, time of year and other factors" sleaze-speak, behind which is hidden some reality that would temper the tone of the press release... and just going with that absurd 80% figure... what they're describing here is (by definition) a facility that always consumes more energy than it produces. "Gonna give back to the grid" people can remain blissfully silent. So regardless of what it means for them, what it would mean for you is that these Amazon warehouses will be contributing ~80% less annually to the local energy cooperatives whose infrastructure they (and you) rely on to maintain reliable 24/7 electricity delivered over the grid.

    Which means your local Amazon-hosting energy cooperative will lose a significant amount of buying power as it routinely makes bulk purchases from the grid. Nevertheless, no one on the grid will be able retire a single generating plant now in operation but they will bring in less revenue because they must remain on standby. Because, night and solar holidays.

    There is only one context in which this could be said as a win for everyone, namely a 'theoretical' offset to necessary global electrical capacity by a tiny amount. That is worth something. Actually ~0.0012% of global nameplate capacity. I take that back, this 45 megawatts sounds like a lot but is hardly worth anything. It is half the capacity of the smallest gas-fired plant you'd ever want to build, should you be more concerned with reliability than enrichment of the solar industry. But would be worth even less if true costs of implementation (including manufacture of solar panels, the re-engineering to support extra weight) and the fossil fuel burned in those things might be factored in, which it will most assuredly will not be. Press release land is feelgood land.

    Installation of IRRELIABLE energy sources anywhere on the grid is like little skin cancers growing here and there. Gaia worshipers will gladly scratch those itchy bumps until the first round of "Whod'a'Thunk it" brownouts and grid failures begins. They'll imagine that if the worst happens they will be able to retreat into some solar/wind/hydro enclave to enjoy a quaint Medieval lifestyle (with smartphones) while the massive population outside those tiny bubbles just agrees to lay down, starve and die.

    Solar and wind will never power the factories that manufacture wind turbines and solar panels, let alone purify your drinking water, treat your sewage or keep you from freezing in Winter. Little green lollipops for environMENTALists to suck on. There's only one way out and it's nuclear.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:Win for them maybe, lose for you definitely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda difficult to take seriously someone who capitalises their egregious spelling errors.

    2. Re:Win for them maybe, lose for you definitely. by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      Kinda difficult to take seriously someone who capitalises their egregious spelling errors

      IRRELIABLE? Both irresponsible and unreliable. It's not misspelled, you just didn't get it. Don't feel bad.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  12. It's bitztream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll!

  13. How's life in the hypocrite lane?

  14. Why not all in the solar region doing it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    even Walmart/Target and others can do similar to install solar panels on all the solar region. especially in south.

  15. Re:Warehouse workers dying inside by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    No, the point of installing solar panels on the roofs is to run ceiling fans and cooling systems during periods of extreme heat and cold.

    The main power need for warehouses tends to be at the times when the sun shines most brightly. Most modern warehouses can run dark much of the time, waking up those parts they need when they're used.

    The roof space isn't being used, and if you build to modern codes you already need a roof structure that can support modern solar panels. It's a way to monetize your investment, bringing power generation to where it's used, and cutting costs for long distance transmission. You can charge up forklifts and trucks (most modern ones from places like PACCAR) at the same time, or use hot swap battery power. You can even generate water, or split water into power cell fuel.

    The world has changed from the old days when I worked in giant warehouses and ran forklifts and power systems. Now it's all integrated, and only used when it's used. Cooling and heating costs are some of the most costly aspects of warehouse operation, and since these are modern warehouses, the labor component is highly robotic in nature.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --