Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Plans To Use 100% Renewable Energy by 2020 (fortune.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the marching-forward dept.

Samsung said this week it plans to transition to entirely renewable energy in its offices, factories, and operational facilities in the United States, China, and Europe by 2020. From a report: The company has also joined the World Wildlife Fund's Renewable Energy Buyers' Principles and the Rocky Mountain Institute's Business Renewables Center. In its home in Korea, Samsung plans to install 42,000 meters of solar panels at its headquarters, and will continue to add approximately 21,000 meters of solar arrays and geothermal power generation facilities beginning in 2019 at its satellite campuses in Pyeongtaek and Hwaseong.

60 comments

  1. Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if a company would commit to doing something that would drop its share value..

  2. Can you hear that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's nobody caring.

  3. Hohum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another Asian company showing the Retardistani’s of the US up, nothing to see here.

  4. Renewable Energy by sophiamulla12 · · Score: 1

    Very interesting subject. I like this concept. After implementation of this whole world will be using free electricity.

    1. Re:Renewable Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It won't be free, and likely not ever. Someone will have to pay for implementation (land and equipment), operation, and maintenance. It won't be free until either people stop wanting to be paid for work, or complete automation from manufacturing all the way to R&D.

    2. Re: Renewable Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Free meaning marginal cost is basically zero. Of course there are fixed costs.

    3. Re:Renewable Energy by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      After implementation of this whole world will be using free electricity.

      . . . which is why I am surprised that some patent troll hasn't tried to claim the IP rights to the sun:

      "You can install solar panels . . . but you will have to pay a small licensing fee to the IP rights holder of the sun."

      Actually, I was a little disappointed after reading the title. I was expecting to see solar & wind powered cell phones, TV sets and microwaves.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re: Renewable Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marx & Engels. Much better economical science than Adam Smith, whos theories of "free markets", "supply and demand", have nothing to do with reality. Give me ONE economical scientist that would gamble the stock market following Smith' principles.

  5. Korean Apple by 2ms · · Score: 1

    They'll be the Apple of the East!

    1. Re:Korean Apple by Rei · · Score: 1

      Korean Apple

      Pyrus pyrifolia? Most people call them Korean Pears. Yes, they have a shape and texture more like an apple, but... Pyrus, not Malus. And the taste is more pearlike.

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    2. Re:Korean Apple by Rei · · Score: 1

      At risk of getting more off-topic, on my TODO list someday is to create a new apple/crabapple crossbreed and name the resultant hybrid "maleficarum", so that the proper name for it would be "Malus x maleficarum".

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
  6. 42K meters? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    Wow, that's a lot! 42 km of solar panels.

    Of course, a lot depends on how WIDE that 42 km of solar panels it is....

    In other words, would it be too much to ask the editors to actually, you know, edit?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:42K meters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would imply they actually knew about the metric system... or actually read wth they were posting.

    2. Re: 42K meters? by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they omitted the word -square-? Just guessing.

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    3. Re: 42K meters? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Just so. Hence my comment about the editors editting...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re: 42K meters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you put that in terms that I understand?

      Olympic swimming pools or Eiffel tower units?

    5. Re: 42K meters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So 42km squared?

    6. Re:42K meters? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Wow, that's a lot! 42 km of solar panels.

      Of course, a lot depends on how WIDE that 42 km of solar panels it is....

      In other words, would it be too much to ask the editors to actually, you know, edit?

      Remember they are editors, not the people writing the story. The writer, one Emily Price, wrote that they were using 42,000 meters of solar panels.

      You have to go back to the actual announcement from Samsung to see the itty bitty superscript 2 next to the meters https://news.samsung.com/globa...

      See what you made me do though? You made me stand up for the editors at Slashdot. I need a drink.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re: 42K meters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo momma's ass is 42km wide

    8. Re: 42K meters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, 42 (kilometers squared), or about 10,000 acres (a unit that already means area).

    9. Re:42K meters? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's a lot! 42 km of solar panels.

      Of course, a lot depends on how WIDE that 42 km of solar panels it is....

      In other words, would it be too much to ask the editors to actually, you know, edit?

      How about 42km wide!!! ;-)

      And about 77 inches tall.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    10. Re: 42K meters? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      No, you could probably power half of Asia with 42km * 42km of good panels. OK actually that'd only supply about 1% of global energy requirements, but a lot more than Samsung need I'm sure.

      Source:
      http://landartgenerator.org/bl...

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    11. Re: 42K meters? by careysub · · Score: 1

      Or to stay Metric, 4200 hectares, or (if you are part of the former Ottoman Empire) 42,000 dunams.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  7. Why not? by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Samsung is leading the way in renewables... like, for example, when it recycles Appleâ(TM)s designerâ(TM)s ideas! (Come to think of it, didnâ(TM)t Apple also announce they were doing this... earlier?) Do fresh ideas contribute to carbon pollution or something? Remember the side by side photo of the iPhone 3g and the thing Samsung made, that was, IIRC, the same size, shape, and general appearance, but with a rounded-rectangle-shaped home button, instead of a round one? Like that.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    1. Re:Why not? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apple didn’t just announce it. They completed the transition to 100% renewable energy earlier this year, and now they’re forcing their suppliers—Samsung included—to do the same as well as a condition for retaining their contracts with Apple.

      Talk is cheap, literally. I hope Samsung does as they say they will, but they say a lot of things (like claiming innocence as yet another of their chiefs is indicted of bribing government officials), so I’ll wait for action before believing them.

    2. Re:Why not? by atomicalgebra · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except Apple is not 100% renewable. Purchasing renewable credits is not the same thing as being 100% renewable. The goal of course is to be 100% clean which includes nuclear energy. Samsung uses a lot of nuclear energy being in South Korea.

    3. Re:Why not? by triffid_98 · · Score: 2

      Nuclear energy is pretty much 100% renewable if you do it with breeder reactors vs light water. I mean, it "uses" water by turning it into steam, which then gathers in the atmosphere as lets say..."a cloud"...and precipitates back into the ground as "rain" so unless your local area is lacking water I don't see the major problem other than South Korea (Samsung is located here) having the exact same (byproduct of the process) weapons grade uranium that North Korea already has. What is the downside?

    4. Re:Why not? by atomicalgebra · · Score: 1

      Last time I check nuclear energy does not dump any pollution into the environment. It is the only source of energy(except hydro) that is required to control 100% of its waste products.

      Waste is a red herring. It has never harmed anyone in human history. It is only really dangerous if you eat it. Don't eat the heavy metal rod.

      According to Finnish Analysis-assuming nuclear waste canisters start leaking waste after a mere 1000 years, a city is built on top of the repository by people who only eat food produced locally and only drink water from local sources and spend 24/365 on the most contaminated spot it is possible one living person in 12000 AD might receive a dose of 0.00018 mSv per year. That is the equivalent to eating 2 bananas.

      Waste is a trivial problem. We can and should recycle it. We can produces 1000's of year of electricity from our unspent fuel.

      So yes nuclear energy is 100% clean you stupid fucktard

    5. Re:Why not? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Other than the fact that breeder reactors don't work, it's a good theory.
      From Wikipedia:
      In 2010 the International Panel on Fissile Materials said "After six decades and the expenditure of the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars, the promise of breeder reactors remains largely unfulfilled and efforts to commercialize them have been steadily cut back in most countries". In Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, breeder reactor development programs have been abandoned.[57][58]

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    6. Re:Why not? by atomicalgebra · · Score: 1

      Other than the fact that breeder reactors don't work, it's a good theory.

      The United States built one in Idaho called the experimental breeder reactor II . It worked and was the worlds first 4th generation reactor. So yes breeder reactors do work. The real issue with nuclear is that it would make fossil fuels obsolete which is why the fossil fuel industry has spent billions convincing "useful idiots" like yourself that nuclear is bad. That is why the project was shutdown. Not because it did not work, but because the fossil fuel industry did not want any competition from meltdown proof reactors that can recycle waste.

    7. Re:Why not? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Working as an experiment is much different than working as a viable commercial reactor. Definitely failed at that (all over the world).

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    8. Re: Why not? by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      Per the article specifically about those (not linked), yes they do...

      Breeders were at first found attractive because their fuel economy was better than light water reactors, but interest declined after the 1960s as more uranium reserves were found,[2] and new methods of uranium enrichment reduced fuel costs.

    9. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mining and enriching... Once it's there it's efficient fuel but the impact of creating it should be calculated in

    10. Re:Why not? by atomicalgebra · · Score: 1

      You said that "breeder reactors don't work." A successful experiment is the only example I need to prove your statement false.

      You are changing the goal posts by now saying "viable commercial reactor" which is also not true. The US fast-neutron breeder reactor project was shutdown by the Clinton administration as a favor to the fossil fuel industry. It was never an issue with technical feasibility or commercial viability. The Russians have a successful breeder reactor called the BN-800 reactor which they are exporting all over the world. Bill Gates is also building a viable commercial reactor, a Traveling Wave Reactor, in China. There are also a lot of companies building small modular reactors such as NuScale. All of these learned from the Experimental Breeder Reactor II.

      Do facts just get in the way of your preconceived notions?

    11. Re:Why not? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Your definition of "work" is different than mine.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    12. Re: Why not? by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      So...working for 30+ years in some cases (Thorium based reactors do not but Uranium based breeder reactors have already been proven to do so) still counts as "does not work"...good to know. It clearly does work and if reactor fuel ever went into short supply the power of economics would show you that. Currently it's cheaper to run far less efficient reactors and laugh uncontrollably while packaging up long term radioactive waste, just as the "eco-warriors" do when they once again block disposal in salt mines in the middle of a goddam desert because apparently leaving it in some plastic 55g drums inside the city limits makes way more sense.

    13. Re:Why not? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Except Apple is not 100% renewable. Purchasing renewable credits is not the same thing as being 100% renewable.

      Actually, Apple doesn’t purchase renewable energy credits (REC). They specifically addressed that topic, in fact, when they announced that they had hit 100%. Good thinking, since Google and others are using that trick to claim 100%, but Apple isn’t one of them.

    14. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the Russians are less corrupt and get more workable and commercially viable designs going.

      Or, maybe you should just read your own link : "While BN-600 uses medium-enriched uranium dioxide, this plant burns mixed uranium-plutonium fuel,[2] helping to reduce the weapon-grade plutonium stockpile and provide information about the functioning of the closed uranium-plutonium fuel cycle."
      So, they made a reactor that burns frigging military plutonium!
      BN-1200 article : "Fast reactors of the BN series use a core running on enriched fuels like highly (80%) or, at least, medium (20%) enriched uranium or plutonium."

      I think that this might be very useful mind you, but this is not about providing endless free terawatts from nuclear waste. More like a handful plants to get rid of high quality, highly concentrated discarded nuclear weapons material!
      What you call "exported all other the world" might be a single nuclear reactor in China and I can imagine it will recycle old nuclear weapons too.

    15. Re: Why not? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      If they worked, people would build them.
      If the problems of waste, high cost, long lead time were solved, people would build them.
      You can't modulate output so too much power at night.
      All nuclear has these problems.
      They don't work in any practical sense.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    16. Re:Why not? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The US fast-neutron breeder reactor project was shutdown by the Clinton administration as a favor to the fossil fuel industry. It was never an issue with technical feasibility or commercial viability.

      If it had been commercially viable it would have produced enough money to outbribe the fossil lobby.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Why not? by atomicalgebra · · Score: 1

      That is a stupid comment. How in the hell are scientists going to out bribe the fossil fuel lobby?

    18. Re:Why not? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      By getting backing from a company that hopes to make money from it if it's commercially viable.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Why not? by atomicalgebra · · Score: 1

      Well luckily that is happening now with a nuclear startup called NuScale. They have not really bribed anyone, but they are building 12 reactors in Idaho. Even then it is going to be an uphill battle because there is no way they can outspend the fossil fuel companies.

    20. Re:Why not? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      The US fast-neutron breeder reactor project was shutdown by the Clinton administration as a favor to the fossil fuel industry. It was never an issue with technical feasibility or commercial viability.

      Taking credit for my cognition and research I see.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    21. Re:Why not? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Well luckily that is happening now with a nuclear startup called NuScale. They have not really bribed anyone, but they are building 12 reactors in Idaho. Even then it is going to be an uphill battle because there is no way they can outspend the fossil fuel companies.

      You're adorable. I gave you the research that shows why this will never happen and you're just to much of a dogmatic ideologue to get it. Not that I'm going to clue you into how you are being used by the fossil fuel industry as their "useful idiot" - but do carry on.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  8. AUUUGHHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is SOCIALIST TYRANNYYYY

    *suddenly cares about birds*

    *rolls coal*

  9. Notice the lcations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "in its offices, factories, and operational facilities in the United States, China, and Europe"

    Noticeably absent from that list are Korea, Vietnam and India.

    1. Re:Notice the lcations by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Hmm... you didn't bother reading the story, did you?

      In its home in Korea, Samsung plans to install 42,000 meters of solar panels at its headquarters, and will continue to add approximately 21,000 meters of solar arrays and geothermal power generation facilities beginning in 2019 at its satellite campuses in Pyeongtaek and Hwaseong.

  10. And it will remain on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hottest company there is. Nobody can match its explosive products.

  11. Re: Trump plans to plead 100% innocent too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Samsung will be green just in time to celebrate Trump's reelection and your suicide.

  12. Death by Unicode by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    It's just a typo, and actually, I can't fault them. The original quote from Samsung uses unicode character 13217 to display the "m2" unit symbol, but it just comes out as "m" in the press re-post. On Slashdot, the entire character is stripped.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re:Death by Unicode by careysub · · Score: 1

      Someday Slashdot will discover the wonder that is Unicode.

      I jest of course.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  13. Their main manufacturing happens in Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So while commendable, it's not quite as big a move as the subject line makes it sound.

  14. San Jose Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple will be suing their asses again.
    USA! USA! USA!

  15. Good by raind · · Score: 1

    It's a small step in the right direction. A journey of a thousand miles begins.....

    --
    Get up!