Facebook Says It Aims To Power Itself With 100% Renewable Energy by 2020 (fastcompany.com)

Facebook says it is aiming to buy renewable energy to cover 100 percent of its electricity use by the end of 2020, joining companies such as Citigroup and Ikea in setting that deadline for achieving its goal. From a report: By 2020, Facebook plans to power its global operations with 100% renewable energy, and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 75%. It's the next step in ramping up the company's work to move to renewables over the last several years. "There's the expectation that we have as a company that we think this is good for communities and this is good for the world as a whole, but it's also good business sense," says Bobby Hollis, the company's head of global energy. "We really integrate this into our entire business planning process to make sure that we go into places where renewables make sense." In 2017, the company's carbon footprint was 979,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent -- roughly as much as the emissions from more than 100,000 homes, according to an EPA calculator. The company's data centers, which were supporting the data of 2.1 billion people a month by the end of 2017, account for nearly two-thirds of that footprint (other business activities, including construction and employee commutes and travel, account for 38%).

Comments

Meh

[moehoward]

I'd be much more impressed if these companies/states just did it without having to press-release it all.

And even after they did it, why brag about? We will all just notice how much cooler our globe is and move on.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they're trying to encourage others including their competition to make similar changes, maybe? And who cares what impresses you personally?

Re:Meh

[ls671]

Well, California, now Facebook, what will be the next article published on /. ?
I suggest "Slashdot Aims To Power Itself With 100% Renewable Energy by 2020"...

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly there's no good reason we can't all start jumping onto 100% renewable energy, we need to reinvest in our infrastructure anyway so on-site generation makes more sense all the time. Utilities hate the idea, less $. Republican oil-trolls hate the idea, less $. Nuclear slashdot apologist morons hate the idea, less shilling contract $. The idea that there's no subscriber model required for power is a foreign and hostile concept to these shortsighted pricks.

Re:Meh

[tlhIngan]

I'd be much more impressed if these companies/states just did it without having to press-release it all.

And even after they did it, why brag about? We will all just notice how much cooler our globe is and move on.

Because of idiots like Greenpeace and the like who believe you need to press release about it, or they believe otherwise. Their "green" rankings of companies is based on publicly available information on how green they are. So if you're a company that runs completely on renewables, has a zero carbon footprint and all that, but you never publicize it, Greenpeace and their ilk will categorize you among the biggest polluters. But put tons of PR about it and you'll go from planet destroyer to planet savior.

The other part is, I think to spite the current government just because.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

"Their "green" rankings of companies is based on publicly available information on how green they are." - It makes sense, they need to base it on actual information. They can't guess or measure the world. You're being retarded lol.

You're also lying, because you can't show us anyone that Greenpeace is listing as a "biggest polluter" who actually isn't, you made that up from whole cloth pulled from your lying punk ass. You're a moron.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be most impressed if Facebook took itself online, which should save quite a bit of power.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

He can't help it, he has liberalphobia.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly because these companies are always under attack for not doing enough to save everyone. I thought they just make tech but evidently they're responsible for traffic jams, gentrification, housing, renewable power and a bunch of other stuff I thought governments were responsible for...

Re:Meh

[Mr D from 63]

I'd be much more impressed if these companies/states just did it without having to press-release it all.

And even after they did it, why brag about? We will all just notice how much cooler our globe is and move on.

But they won't even do it. They'll be powered by the same grid mix as everyone around them. If they invest in renewable capacity additions, they are certainly entitled to take credit for that, but they are still depending on non-renewable power to operate.

Re:Meh

[dj245]

I'd be much more impressed if these companies/states just did it without having to press-release it all.

And even after they did it, why brag about? We will all just notice how much cooler our globe is and move on.

As someone who works in the coal & gas industry, I appreciated the heads up. Coal has been a villain during my entire career, but actionable disdain has grown massively recently. The barrage of press releases over the past couple of years has shown me that there are people determined to live in a renewable world, regardless of the cost. I am starting my own (non-fossil fuel) business this year and won't have to worry about my livelihood anymore.

I am only able to shift my career because of my education and significant retirement savings. I only hope that the people pushing these changes have some compassion for those less fortunate than myself. The "retrain workers" catchphrase has all but faded away. Transitioning workers to renewables is easier said than done.

Re:Meh

[ShanghaiBill]

They'll be powered by the same grid mix as everyone around them.

Sure, but THE MIX WILL CHANGE. Electricity is fungible. Pull a watt from the grid, and you can't say where it came from. But Facebook's dollars are going to a clean power company putting watts into the grid, and the amount of clean energy will go up as clean providers expand capacity.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

shown me that there are people determined to live in a renewable world, regardless of the cost.

Or maybe it's that they've calculated the real cost of non-renewables and prefer the option that has lower real costs. Could that be it? If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that there aren't hidden, ignored, or even outright subsidized away costs to coal and oil that's your choice. Some of us will do what's smart and right regardless of the out-of-pocket costs.

Transitioning workers to renewables is easier said than done.

So what, we should even try? And some of the burden has to be on those workers to make a real good faith effort to be retrained.

Re:Meh

[ShanghaiBill]

I only hope that the people pushing these changes have some compassion for those less fortunate than myself.

Why should they? Coalminers may lose jobs, but solar panel and wind turbine manufacturers will create jobs. Why do the miners deserve more compassion?

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

The mix changes all the time, that's a red herring. Investing in renewable means more renewable generation down the road. That's the point. These companies need to be 100% renewable RIGHT NOW, but that's not possible.

So do what is possible.

Re:Meh

[WindBourne]

huh. Where exactly will FB, Google, etc get their energy for a data center in the middle of the night or when there is a storm in the area?

Re:Meh

[WindBourne]

the only companies that run 100% clean are those by hydro , geo-thermal, or nuclear, possibly combined with a SMALL amount of wind/solar. There are no energy intensive companies running 100% wind/solar/etc.

Re:Meh

[mark_reh]

I'd be most impressed if Facebook took itself offline, which should save quite a bit of power.

FTFY

Re:Meh

[h33t l4x0r]

Why do the miners deserve more compassion?

Because they live in swing states.

Re:Meh

[CaffeinatedBacon]

Storage. Batteries, pumped hydro.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Except steel mills located beside windmills/solar and grid scale batteries.

Re: Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody deserves compassion. Human mob mentality bothers me though. I like to root for the underdog. In this case the underdog is coal. I choose to support the romantic image of the guy with dirt and grit pulling antracite from the ground. This is opposed to the image of the white collar worker managing deals with the gobermint to get tax breakes so he can put his green windmills in the ground.

However i fully realize that it is just a biase. Twenty years from now when windmills are falling down and considered a blight upon the world, I am sure i will be all for wind power. By that time the mob will have turned on windpower and the children of tomorrow will call this generation monsters for putting the windmills in the ground and changing global wind patterns.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there are entire small countries that run on nothing but solar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokelau Companies tend to be lazier and more profit oriented rather than worry about doing what's necessary.

Re:Meh

[ShanghaiBill]

Why do the miners deserve more compassion?

Because they live in swing states.

Nope. The biggest coal mining states are:
1. Wyoming
2. West Virginia
3. Kentucky
All are solid Trump territory.

Pennsylvania is swing, but the coal there is metallurgical anthracite.

Re:Meh

[rmdingler]

Frankly there's no good reason we can't all start jumping onto 100% renewable energy, we need to reinvest in our infrastructure anyway so on-site generation makes more sense all the time. Utilities hate the idea, less $. Republican oil-trolls hate the idea, less $. Nuclear slashdot apologist morons hate the idea, less shilling contract $. The idea that there's no subscriber model required for power is a foreign and hostile concept to these shortsighted pricks.

Isn't it worthy of consideration that renewable energy is sort of an all inclusive club, over a long enough time line.

Isn't it theoretically plausible the earth (and her sun) has enough lifespan remaining to sequester the carbon necessary for a future oil & gas boom in the year 165,002,018?

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if the state doesn't publish this, then nobody would know they had to comply with the related regulations.

As for companies, when they do these sorts of things and announce them, there are accounting things that come up such as the good will that it fosters.

Re:Meh

[WindBourne]

utility grid batteries with 8 hours of storage. Where?
I doubt that hydro storage is available even remotely close to all of the FB sites, let alone other companies.

Re:Meh

[WindBourne]

A nation under 1500 that burns coconut oil for 7% of their electricity. Not sure that is workable with companies.

Re:Meh

[CaffeinatedBacon]

Luck we have this new invention. The youngsters are calling it an electric grid, but I don't think it will catch on. Whale oil is the future.

Re:Meh

[blindseer]

Just like everyone else, they'll get it from coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The difference is that they will buy "tariffs" to offset this use later.

In other words this is just an accounting trick like all the other tech companies that made similar announcements to buy "green energy". If these companies were serious about electricity that was green, cheap, and reliable, then they'd be investing in nuclear power. But there's a bunch of idiots out there, like in GreenPeace, that have a rabid hatred for anything "nu-ku-lar" that any such announcement would backfire on them. So, they make happy mouth noises to please investors and the snowflakes and we all pretend this isn't just another pointless PR announcement to prop up the stock price.

Re:Meh

[blindseer]

Electricity is fungible and that is how these companies can "go green" so cheaply. They can buy hydro power from Tennessee, solar power from Arizona, and wind power from Oklahoma (where I hear the wind comes sweeping down the plain) only because large amounts of cheap electricity come from coal, natural gas, and nuclear. We can easily get to 10 % or 20% from wind and sun, but that next 10% will be more expensive and more difficult, and the next 10% more expensive still. Getting to 100% would be possible only with great expense, likely far more than we could afford.

I keep hearing about "all the above" energy plans but they rarely include nuclear power. If the goal is to get cheap, clean, reliable, and low CO2 energy in the USA then nuclear power must be part of "all the above". Not doing so will mean failure.

These announcements on companies buying "green" energy are just PR, they do next to nothing on making the world more "green". If they were serious about lowering their CO2 output then they'd be announcing an investment in nuclear power, but that's the "n-word" that shall not be mentioned in polite company.

Re:Meh

[rtb61]

Well, it is Facebook and we know what they produce more than anything else. So I was thinking they could say relocate to have more regionally focused data centres and well locate them next to those communities sewerage facilities, so methane digestors feeding into gas turbines and voila they are powered by what they produce, renewably, a whole lotta shit ;D (it's especially funny because you could actually do it upon a sound economic basis).

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is people like you have no idea what the fuck is going to be involved in putting up the infrastructure and how much time and money from the federal and state governments this is going to cost the tax payers. The current power infrastructure has been in place, revamped, and expanded since 1882 and now encompasses nearly every household in the US. The highway infrastructure has been around roughly after 1942. Since then there are millions of service stations throughout the whole highway and road system. That is 76 years worth of work and has cost a lot of money.

Then we get people like you that think we can shit quick charging stations in a decade and transfer all gas cars to electric, which I might add is not feasible or supportable with the current power grid system using both renewable and fossil fuels. Meanwhile state governments are struggling to maintain the current highway infrastructure as well as regulating gas stations, so I suppose the money for all these upgrades and changes is going to be taken from the money tree....Furthermore, the private power sector isn't quite up to the task either. They require a shit ton more money than what they currently receive to make the changes to support a complete renewable system.

The huge hint to all the problems with this should be the target dates for these implementations. A private company, if they have been working on it previously, 3 more years isn't such a far fetched idea. When you look at the state of California though, 2045 and the fact they have started a good part of it already, one should easily come to the conclusion that it is a little premature to celebrate anything.

Re:Meh

[Mr D from 63]

Unfortunately, what's obvious to you and me falls on deaf ears to those that have an oversimplified view of how it all works. Very frustrating.

Re:Meh

[thegarbz]

I'd be much more impressed if these companies/states just did it without having to press-release it all.

A silent hidden rolemodel is as good as no role model at all. The power is in the press release. You should be happy that these happen as it gives you the power of examples to follow.

Just Tweet It.

[MJhasHIV]

Make sure they tweet it so it's set in stone. ;]

I find myself curious about CO2 emissions

[CrimsonAvenger]

So, 100% renewable energy.

But only 75% reduction in CO2 emissions? I'm curious as to which form of renewable energy emits ~25% of the CO2 of whatever the standard form of energy emits....

Re:I find myself curious about CO2 emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

Biomass?

Re:I find myself curious about CO2 emissions

[omnichad]

They're being very holistic in their approach to these numbers:
https://sustainability.fb.com/...

Their carbon footprint calculation includes corporate travel, employee commuting, and building construction.

Re:I find myself curious about CO2 emissions

[CrimsonAvenger]

Their carbon footprint calculation includes corporate travel, employee commuting, and building construction.

All of those things use energy. If they're 100% renewable, they won't be using the stuff that produces CO2.

And yes, that includes concrete. And steel.

Re:I find myself curious about CO2 emissions

[omnichad]

They only claim that they would be "powering our global operations with 100% renewable energy by the end of 2020."

Capital improvements aren't considered "operational" and neither is employee travel. Corporate travel may be a different matter, but this is more a matter of semantics. They didn't directly say they are solely using 100% renewable energy.

Re:I find myself curious about CO2 emissions

[presidenteloco]

Maybe 25% is already zero-emission.

Re:I find myself curious about CO2 emissions

[q_e_t]

I don't think FaceBook is in a position to mandate that aircraft should switch to renewables. And all hotels that their staff may stop at when away from home, etc., etc. So yes, it is aiming to power itself with 100% renwables. The big step would be investing in renewables or carbon credits or whatever, to offset that remaining 25% as well.

bit arrogant

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes Facebook think it'll still be around in 2020?

Facebook and 2020

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this was news for nerds but turns out to be fantasy for all.

Apple's already there!

[TheFakeTimCook]

Doesn't that even deserve a MENTION?

Boy, the anti-Apple bias on Slashdot is disgusting.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom...

Re:Apple's already there!

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, the anti-Apple bias on Slashdot is disgusting.

I agree and it's working as intended. Every time I see those
stupid iApple apostrophe's it makes me cringe. Get off your
ifone and use a real manly keyboard.

CAP === 'baseless'

Re:Apple's already there!

[dgatwood]

And Google. Facebook is a little bit late to the party.

That said, like most of these stories, I'd expect it to be only true on paper, i.e. involving either buying renewable energy credits or playing games where they trade renewable energy that they produce during the day for non-renewable energy that they consume at night. Buying as much renewable energy as you consume is easy. Storing enough renewable energy to let you actually run exclusively on renewable energy is much less so.

Re:Apple's already there!

[ShanghaiBill]

playing games where they trade renewable energy that they produce during the day for non-renewable energy that they consume at night.

Since that results in real CO2 reduction, how is it "playing games"?

Storing enough renewable energy to let you actually run exclusively on renewable energy is much less so.

This is just plain stupid. Why in the world should they store energy in expensive batteries when there are people on the grid that can use it RIGHT NOW? Storing is wasteful of energy due to charge/discharge inefficiencies, and wasteful of money that could be spent on even more PV panels or turbines.

It is the amount of CO2 reduction that counts, not the "purity" of how it is done.

Re:Apple's already there!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Since that results in real CO2 reduction, how is it "playing games"?"

Because it doesn't scale. Eventually there has to be CO2 free energy being produced at night when it is used and these word games do nothing toward that goal.

Re:Apple's already there!

[ShanghaiBill]

Because it doesn't scale.

Just because a solution won't work in 2060 doesn't mean it isn't a good solution today. We are a long long way from "too much clean energy".

Re:Apple's already there!

[dgatwood]

playing games where they trade renewable energy that they produce during the day for non-renewable energy that they consume at night.

Since that results in real CO2 reduction, how is it "playing games"?

Because it only works for the first few companies that do it. If everybody did that, eventually, you would hit a point where the renewable power production during the day would greatly exceed demand, meaning that the renewable power wouldn't be reducing carbon emissions anymore but on paper, it still would be. And at night, you'd hit a point where demand for renewable power would greatly exceed the plausible supply, and the ISOs would end up using non-renewable power to meet demand.

Storing enough renewable energy to let you actually run exclusively on renewable energy is much less so.

This is just plain stupid. Why in the world should they store energy in expensive batteries when there are people on the grid that can use it RIGHT NOW? Storing is wasteful of energy due to charge/discharge inefficiencies, and wasteful of money that could be spent on even more PV panels or turbines.

Because that technology must exist and be viable before society as a whole can even begin to approach greenness, and in the absence of adequate demand for better, more efficient, cheaper storage hardware, there will never be enough R&D spending to drive the costs down and the efficiency up enough to make the technology affordable/usable by the general public.

We've already driven down the cost of solar power to the point that it is viable. Spending more money there isn't really driving technology forwards. Companies who have enough excess money that they can buy 100% renewable electricity just to "go green" would do far more good in the long term by spending some of that money on power storage. The more money that gets spend on power storage, the more R&D spending will happen in that area, and the faster the cost will go down and the efficiency will go up, and thus the sooner it will be viable for everyone else.

Re:Apple's already there!

[dgatwood]

California has a goal of reaching 100% renewable energy by 2045. This is not a 2060 problem. At this point, we can't usefully increase our hydroelectric power production (and because of methane emissions, it is arguably not so green anyway). So you're talking about making up the entire rest of the base load with wind within 27 years. It might be possible, but I wouldn't count on it.

And we've already reached the point where the California ISOs sometimes have to actually pay other states to take our excess solar power during the day. This is problematic because it means the economic value of that energy actually becomes negative; we're producing that much more power during the day than we need. It is just a matter of time before we're producing more power than *anyone* needs, at which point we're pretty much screwed, and will end up shutting down some solar power generation on sunny days to prevent overload on the grid.

We need to start solving the storage problem now so that by the time it reaches a crisis point, the solutions will already be in place. Otherwise, a lot of that money we've spent on going green will just end up making the windmills spin faster. :-D (Insert obligatory Futurama joke here.)

Re:Apple's already there!

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't work that way though. Usually they dominate a renewable energy source like local hydro, solar, wind, whatever... and force everyone else who would have been on it back to coal or LP. Like buying carbon credits, it doesn't fix the problem. It simply allows one entity to be smug over their energy, after they've forced everyone else to the remaining power options.

Re:Apple's already there!

[thegarbz]

Boy, the anti-Apple bias on Slashdot is disgusting.

Slashdot isn't anti-Apple, it has a perfectly level playingfield for the entire technology sector. It just looks like anti-Apple because one specific fanboy sucks up so much positive Apple bias that the rest of Slashdot has maintain balance in the force.

Re:Apple's already there!

[TheFakeTimCook]

Boy, the anti-Apple bias on Slashdot is disgusting.

Slashdot isn't anti-Apple, it has a perfectly level playingfield for the entire technology sector. It just looks like anti-Apple because one specific fanboy sucks up so much positive Apple bias that the rest of Slashdot has maintain balance in the force.

Riiiiight.

"Perfectly level playingfield..." (shakes head)

Tell me another story, Daddy...

Oh shit

[DontBeAMoran]

2018-08-29, 16:45.
Facebook becomes self-aware and says it aims to power itself with 100% renewable energy by 2020.

100% Gullible Audience

[Tough Love]

This is the real power of Facebook.

Re:100% Gullible Audience

[Anonymous Coward]

What the audience doesn't know is that it will only require 2 pencil batteries to power what is left of FaceBook in 2020.

Re:100% Gullible Audience

[Anonymous Coward]

Not unlike trumptards.

Re:100% Gullible Audience

[GuB-42]

It is not that hard to use 100% renewable energy.

Here is the idea. Power company produces 1 TWh of renewable and 10TWh of fossil power per year. Facebook needs 100GWh, GiveNoFuck Inc. needs 1TWh. In the end both companies use 10% renewable. Now Facebook, by paying a small premium, tells power company "I want full 100% renewable", so they assign 100GWh of their renewable production to Facebook and at the same time, GiveNoFuck Inc. now runs at 0% renewable, at maybe a slightly lower price. Not a single solar panel has been installed, not a single gram of coal has left the plant, but Facebook is now "clean".

Please accept these trinkets

[Drunkulus]

We're sorry we enabled Trump to be elected, so here's a PR-driven stunt to distract you.

Buying renewable power accomplishes nothing

[Solandri]

From TFA:

Facebook started to move toward renewable energy when it signed its first contract to buy wind power in 2013, a few years after Google pioneered a new way for corporations to buy renewable energy from utilities. By 2017, Facebook was buying 51% renewable energy for its facilities.

Buying renewable power does nothing. All it does is take renewable power away from another customer.

• Before, other customers used x MWh of renewable powers, Facebook used x MWh of coal power.
• After, Facebook uses x MWH of renewable power, other customers have to use x MWH of coal power because Facebook bought all the renewable power.

The only way using renewable power makes a difference is if you add new renewable power sources. Install solar panels on your building's roof. Help pay for a new wind farm for the power company. Help fund the construction of a new hydroelectric dam. But if you're not adding new renewable power, all you're doing is taking away renewable power from someone else who was going to buy it anyway.

(The requirement is even stricter. The renewable power you add to power your offices needs to be renewable power which otherwise wouldn't have been added. So adding solar panels to your house to power your new EV only results in a solar-powered EV if you wouldn't have installed the solar panels if you didn't get the EV. If you were planning to install the solar panels anyway, then the EV ends up taking solar power away from your home and other customers. i.e. Without the EV you would've used x kWH of solar power for your home, and 0 kWh of coal power. After you get the EV you use x kWh of solar power for your EV, and another x kWh of coal power for your home. Which is the same thing as the EV being powered entirely by coal.)

Re:Buying renewable power accomplishes nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Buying renewable power does nothing. All it does is take renewable power away from another customer.

Creating a shortage?

Which very likely drives prices higher?

Causing providers to produce more? Or others to enter the market?

You got a D- in your Econ101 class I bet. You must be Donald J. Trump.

amirite?

Re:Buying renewable power accomplishes nothing

[WindBourne]

In fact, these companies are NOT 100% renewable. The reason is that they do not have storage on the lines. Without storage and using only indeterminate energy, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be 100% renewable.
And at this time, the only storage that is capable of providing enough energy is hydro storage.

Re:Buying renewable power accomplishes nothing

[CaffeinatedBacon]

And at this time, the only storage that is capable of providing enough energy is hydro storage.

And where would we find any of that...

A noble goal...

[berchca]

... and we can help them by using their website less!

technically right is the best kind of right

[Thud457]

human blood is a renewable resource. So they're already 100% renewable.

Five reasons they do this

[WillAffleckUW]

1. Carbon taxes exist worldwide, and in many states as well. By purchasing green energy, you lower your corporate taxes, and pay less when you sell or buy your products and/or services.

2. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. Yes, all fossil fuels. In some locations, there are artificial subsidies that distort the market to make it appear they are cheaper, but when you allocate all costs to the firms, including their employees and customers, renewables are still cheaper even after the artificial anti-capitalist subsidies and exemptions that fossil fuels receive. No, it's 2018, not 1978, so stop pretending your old metrics work.

3. Reliable supply lines. With fossil fuels subject to disruptions in the supply chain, renewables owned by a corporation will not only power reliably, a mix of renewables resists things like oil shocks, and you can frequently store or sell the generated renewable energy to others, or use it periodically. This reduces your tax impact for buildings, removes your need for trucks to deliver fuel, and allows you to be nimble and efficient.

4. Positive social impacts - both from consumers and from trading partners. It's a lot easier to make trade deals with other firms and other nations if you have green energy sources, since it shows up better on the purchasers' balance sheets - this allows even oil companies to greenwash their appearance to be "green" by purchasing goods and services from subcontractors and thus lower their emissions rates, which lets them bid for contracts worldwide at a premium. No, nobody cares about your failed fossil fuel religion.

5. Utilization of lower cost buildings and warehouses at a more optimal profit/loss ratio. When you replace old aircon on warehouses with modern solar/wind powered fans and ventilation, you reduce spoilage and cut your energy use purchased from external sources. This allows giant warehouses to become net profit centers, not just money sinks.

It's today, not last century. Adapt. Business already is.

Re:Five reasons they do this

[WindBourne]

#2; False. Wind is cheaper than coal in most of America, AND cheaper than nat gas in SOME of America. Solar is beyond nat gas, and only beats coal in a few areas.

#3???? come again? Wind/Solar are indeterminate energy sources. In America, wind is around 32-37% capacity factor, with solar being around 25-30% capacity. OTOH, coal and nat gas are 50-60%, and near 100% availability(well, when enron is not involved). More importantly, American oil and nat gas is only now being exported. As such, 100% of our nat gas was here, which is why America has CHEAP nat gas. We do not have supply issues (Europe does, but that is a different issue).

#4) Most Businesses do not care about the pollution. If they did, then all manufacturing would remain in the west.

Re:Five reasons they do this

[acoustix]

#2 is false. If you remove all subsidies from the prices then fossil fuels are still cheaper. At one point wind power was being subsidized by federal and state governments to the tune of over 50% of the cost.

sure sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Energy like money is fungible What makes it their renewable energy?

If they aren't generating the electricity themselves, this is meaningless.

Shame..

[Colourspace]

It can't power itself on the bullshit it creates, a perpetual motion machine right there!

Yeah right...

[mark_reh]

maybe they'll have 10 subscribers left by then.

Re:Yeah right...

[chefren]

That just means they will reach the target even sooner!

Fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actual fake news, right here before your eyes.

They are doing nothing at all to change the source of the power used for their data centers and offices.

This is just more pointless "credit buying" bullshit that doesn't change a damn thing.

If they really wanted to make a difference, even only a partial difference, they'd cover their buildings in solar panels.

why you lie so much?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-20/steel-maker-teams-with-ross-garnaut-to-run-factories-using-rene/8965240

Whole countries can run on renewables...

I really don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Until they announce that they are going to stop stealing people's data, they may as well announce they are lighting every oil field on earth on fire. Fuck 'em!

God what a waste of electrons.

[toonces33]

Just sayin..

Caffinated Bacon/Crimson; why you lie so much?

[WindBourne]

Caffinated Bacon/Crimson Tsunami; Like always, you continue to lie.

"While every electron that's used won't be from renewable energy, we expect to be putting more renewable energy into the grid than we're taking other energy out of it," Professor Garnaut said.

Even they are agreeing that it can not be 100% renewable. You are a gutless troll.

More Windy lies

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole state of Tasmania in Australia runs on hydro. I wonder if they have any companies...
Other countries are 100% renewable, they have companies too...

you haven't shown any lies why you accuse always?

[Anonymous Coward]

They expect to be putting more power into the grid when it's expensive and taking more out when it's cheap. It's called making a profit, businesses like that.
They expect to produce more renewable energy than they use, but that still isn't good enough for you is it WindBourne.

WinBourne's fact check - LIAR

[Anonymous Coward]

lie - companies are 100% renewable
lie - storage can be on the grid
lie - not impossible
lie - not only storage type capable

verdict - lots of lies

WinBourne's fact check -

[Anonymous Coward]

irrelevant - company size

verdict - troll

WinBourne's fact check - DISHONOURABLE LIAR

[Anonymous Coward]

lie / false accusation - it's AC
lie - more than 100% renewable

verdict - dishonourable liar

Re:WinBourne's fact check - DISHONOURABLE LIAR

[WindBourne]

More than 100% renewable? Wow. I guess that you got your stats class in China.

WinBourne's fact check - LIAR

[Anonymous Coward]

lie - only companies
lie - energy intensive companies

verdict - usual WindBourne lies

WinBourne's fact check - TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

meaningless - how much storage?
lie / irrelevant - hydro location

verdict - troll and lies

WinBourne's fact check - LIAR

[Anonymous Coward]

lie / claim with no evidence - all prices
claim with no evidence - capacity factors
claim with no evidence / lie - availability
lie - reason for cheap nat gas
claim with no evidence - supply issues
lie / claim with no evidence - businusses caring, manufacturing location

verdict - lots of lies and claim

That should be easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

With the amount of absolute sh*t people post on Facebook, they could power the whole planet for millennia on burning methane :-)

Re: you haven't shown any lies why you accuse alwa

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that would mean that the electricity is not 100% renewable as windy/article points out?
Quit lying. Xi banged your head too many times against the wall?

Go fuck yourself Windy

[CaffeinatedBacon]

You are still yet to show a single lie, yet you claim it all the time.
You like to also claim any random AC is me, it's probably you. You are dishonest enough to pull that shit.

I often point out your lies and lies more lies more lies even more lies lies and lies
When you aren't lying, you are just making shit up that is in no way believable, and lying.

Re:Go fuck yourself Windy

[WindBourne]

Sad that you troll so much that you are keeping links to many of your own lies.
BUT, I decided to keep my favorite lies of yours.
Only a paid Chinese would even try to convince others that CHina is NOT a communist country.
And what was it the limey said? Go suck on Xi's knob???? something like that.
If not, follow the rest of the ACs that tell you to take a hike.

Does someone elseâ(TM)s power count?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems obvious that Facebook should use the computing storage and power as well as bandwidth of their users in distributed power and peer to peer fashion, as part of the price of having a Facebook account.

In fact, I would be surprised if they were not already doing that. This begs the question, how much of their workload is already being done by their users, and is part of their strategy to achieve 100 percent renewable power to use the electricity of others to reach their goal.

Essentially, it is like the myth of hydrogen-powered cars being inherently cleanly powered. It IS clean ONLY IF the source of the energy used to produce the hydrogen was clean. Otherwise, all that powering a car with hydrogen does is relocate the filthy, disgusting tailpipe from the back of the car, to the top of the gas or coal-fired power plant.

Similarly, if Facebook offloads its processing and storage workloads onto the machines and devices of their users, and switch what load is left in their data-centers to renewable power, all they end up doing is moving their own filthy, disgusting tailpipe somewhere else.

More Porky/Red tide lies

[WindBourne]

and as I said, none are ran 100% on wind/solar, only on hydro, geo-thermal, and nukes.
As I asked before, show us a single nation that is 100% wind or solar.
NOT going to happen.

And yet porky/red tide, you will continue to lie.

Re:More Porky/Red tide lies

[CaffeinatedBacon]

this post explains who the liar is Windy.

You are still yet to show a single lie, yet you claim it all the time. You like to also claim any random AC is me, it's probably you. You are dishonest enough to pull that shit.

I often point out your lies and lies more lies more lies even more lies lies and lies When you aren't lying, you are just making shit up that is in no way believable, and lying.

you massive liar

[Anonymous Coward]

100% wind/solar/etc.

That isn't what you said at all, but compulsive liars gotta lie all the time right Windy.
What was the etc for if you didn't mean other renewables?
You think an entire state wouldn't have a singe company? You truly are a deceitful idiot.

Go fuck yourself some more Windy

[CaffeinatedBacon]

I notice you've given up even trying to deny you are a massive liar.

What's sad is that you keep accusing me of lying but still can't show even a single one.
I just did a bit of Googling to find some of your lies, if I was keeping links there would be dozens of better ones to choose from. Some of the economics ones are your funniest.

It's easy . Anyone can do it. Just add a topic as well if you like, and a date range.

Your excuse for lying is that you're being trolled

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously WindBourne, your excuse for all your constant lies is that someone is trolling you and pointing them out?

How does that work exactly anyway? If he/she weren't pointing them out, you would just stop lying all by yourself?
How believable do you think that is?

WindBourne's fact check - LIAR

[Anonymous Coward]

lie - only companies
lie - whole countries are clean
lie - companies running 100%

verdict - Standard WindBourne lies

WindBourne's fact check - DISHONOURABLE LIAR

[Anonymous Coward]

lie / false accusation - it's an AC
lie / false accusation - haven't shown lie
moving the goalposts - using the grid as a battery

verdict - dishonourabe liar

WindBourne's fact check - DISHONOURABLE TROLL LIAR

[Anonymous Coward]

lie - links are to WindBourne lies
can't count - 'lies' but only 1 link
lie - false accusation

verdict - dishonourable liar

WindBourne's fact check - DISHONOURABLE LIAR

[Anonymous Coward]

lie - that isn't what you said
lie - that isn't what you asked
lie / false accusation - AC
lie / false accusation - haven't shown a lie

verdict - dishonourable liar, changing his story

WinBourne's fact check - TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

troll - they will make more renewable than they use.

verdict - troll