Slashdot Mirror


Sony To Source All Its Energy From Renewables By 2040 (nikkei.com)

Sony is the latest multinational conglomerate corporation to announce plans to have all its energy come from renewable sources by 2040. Nikkei Asian Review reports: The electronics company has 111 business sites around the world. Renewables will supply all power used not only in manufacturing televisions and cameras, but also in such content creation work as moviemaking. The goal will be achieved through such means as installing solar panels atop production facilities and purchasing green-certified power. Sony will gradually increase use of such energy, aiming first for a rate of 30% in 2030. Sony has already gone fully green in Europe. But 80% of the group's energy consumption is in Japan, mainly because of semiconductor manufacturing. Purchasing solar power facilities will likely be pursued as well.

44 comments

  1. Easy for them.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...with the amount of bullshit they produce, they could probably run the whole planet...

    1. Re: Easy for them.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does lip flapping count?

  2. Wow, they are taking their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When other larger companies can do this in a couple of years, sony takes two decades. What a joke

    1. Re:Wow, they are taking their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No company is even close to using only renewable energy. They make that claim but are using the same grid mix as everyone around them.

    2. Re:Wow, they are taking their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, they buy offsets produced by renewable sources that match their usage in the grid. That makes their claim valid, that the amount of power they use is produced from renewables they pay for specifically.

    3. Re: Wow, they are taking their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will lose money on every sale but make up for it in volume

    4. Re:Wow, they are taking their time by crunchygranola · · Score: 5, Informative

      Which large companies are doing this is "a couple of years" (i.e. about two)?

      I was going to object to the mockery of Sony taking 22 years to reach 100%, since it is arguable that a huge globe spanning operation might take that long to get to 100%. But in TFA I see this:

      ... up from the current level of 7% ... Sony will gradually increase use of such energy, aiming first for a rate of 30% in 2030.

      Gradually indeed! Taking 12 years to get from 7% to 30%? This is not an aggressive plan, to say the least.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    5. Re:Wow, they are taking their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They sell those credits multiple times. It is a scam.

    6. Re:Wow, they are taking their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, that's possible in some tiny minority but the vast majority make that not possible. You're full of Trump smog.

    7. Re:Wow, they are taking their time by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In fact, if they do nothing at all, that's about what they would get by just hooking up to the same power line everyone else uses.

    8. Re: Wow, they are taking their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't make it valid, because those offsets are aggregated over a time period of at least a day, but more often a month or even quarterly.
      This allows them to benefit from fossil energy backing the grid when they exceed the amount of power being produced by renewables, while claiming they are only using renewables.

      And that doesn't address the issue of offsets being oversold, or averaged over longer time periods like years or decades.

      It also hides the fact that fossil energy is used to both produce the raw materials as well as actually build the clean energy plants and power grids.

    9. Re:Wow, they are taking their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This whole plan really sounds like a euphemism for just saying they really don't want to bother with any environmental movement at all, but still sound kind of like they are.

    10. Re: Wow, they are taking their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It also hides the fact that fossil energy is used to both produce the raw materials as well as actually build the clean energy plants and power grids." - Nope, it doesn't at all. That's ridiculous.

    11. Re:Wow, they are taking their time by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Gradually indeed! Taking 12 years to get from 7% to 30%? This is not an aggressive plan, to say the least.

      I dunno. Perhaps they're REALLY planning on making the shift (actually buying generation capacity), rather than pretending to do so by buying power off the grid and calling it "renewable" since SOME of the power supplied to the grid is renewable....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:Wow, they are taking their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they buy offsets produced by renewable sources that match their usage in the grid. That makes their claim valid, that the amount of power they use is produced from renewables they pay for specifically.

      Its bullshit. They pay a little bit more money and get to claim only renewable power is going to their facilities, which we all know it isn't. They depend on the same grid as their neighbors, the power they are using is the from the same sources as their neighbors.

    13. Re: Wow, they are taking their time by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      They will lose money on every sale but make up for it in volume

      I hope that's just an unfunny joke, because if you lose money on every sale, high volume just means high losses.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    14. Re:Wow, they are taking their time by Megol · · Score: 1

      So you think the individual electrons have to be excited by purely renewable sources for this so be a valid statement? While in a way technically correct it is completely irrelevant in practice. By ensuring they want to pay for the creation of renewable power matching their total power consumption they help skewing the market towards renewable energy - so even if there are a number of electrons that "are dirty" the effect is the same as if each and every one came from a renewable source.

      In this case technically correct isn't the best kind of correct.

    15. Re:Wow, they are taking their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think the individual electrons have to be excited by purely renewable sources for this so be a valid statement? While in a way technically correct it is completely irrelevant in practice. By ensuring they want to pay for the creation of renewable power matching their total power consumption they help skewing the market towards renewable energy - so even if there are a number of electrons that "are dirty" the effect is the same as if each and every one came from a renewable source.

      In this case technically correct isn't the best kind of correct.

      The sources supplying electricity at the time they are using electricity must be 100% renewable. Every user is using those sources equally, it doesn't matter how much they pay.

      And I wonder why, if renewables are so much cheaper, do companies have to pay more to claim them?

    16. Re:Wow, they are taking their time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grid wouldn't be stable if not for the gas, fossil, and nuclear generation, so even for just that reason Sony is highly dependent on non-renewable energy,. Wind doesn't even exist on the grid if not for conventional backup.

      Just a stupid accounting trick, but it makes good headlines for the unaware.

  3. 2040!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    2040!? Wow, too little, too late.

  4. stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coal is the future.

    1. Re:stupid by PPH · · Score: 1
      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:stupid by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

      What if we actually could somehow catalyze coal emissions so as to eliminate all harm, and increase efficiency to the maximum theoretical conversion rate? At some point the cost of getting it out of the ground alone would make it cost prohibitive, but I wonder how far we are from that point. I know, coal is already expensive to use, but better ways to deal with the byproducts could keep the industry afloat a bit longer.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  5. Wrong title by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    Corporation Makes Empty Promise With No Discernible Change In Behavior

    Seriously, is anyone else buying this garbage?

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Wrong title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      22 years down the road, no one will remember. If they do, the executives at that time can simply say 'Hey, that other guy said it, not me.'

  6. Remember the SONY rootkit CD ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Anyone who has both intelligence and a sense of ethics won't buy from SONY no matter what SONY does to curry favor in the public eye.

    SONY is a dishonest amoral company which will fuck you.

    So don't give SONY any money.

    1. Re:Remember the SONY rootkit CD ? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

      Anyone who has both intelligence and a sense of ethics won't buy from SONY no matter what SONY does to curry favor in the public eye.

      SONY is a dishonest amoral company which will fuck you.

      So don't give SONY any money.

      Yes, that was bad, but that was over a decade ago, and what large company hasn't done a few shitty things? Better reasons not to buy Sony products today usually include the Sony products themselves.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    2. Re:Remember the SONY rootkit CD ? by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      I stopped buying SONY branded electronics and software after the rootkit incident. Never going to buy a thing from them again.

  7. Let me guess... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    ...buying carbon credits/offsets. That will solve the problem. There isn't any problem that can't be fixed through spending money.

    1. Re:Let me guess... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      I'm doing my diet by buying credits from other people. I figure it will work just as well as carbon credits. (So not at all.)

  8. they won't be powering manufacturing with solar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    i bet the plan all along is to move the rest of their production to china-based "manufacturing partners"

  9. So what by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    They will still produce DRM loaded, limited life span garbage, even if they do it from renewable energy it won't matter.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:So what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, this is not going to revert my boycott on Sony (since '05). I fucking loved my Sony products...

  10. WOW! by Bodhammer · · Score: 0

    How "trendy" and "edgy"! I even remember when Sony used to make quality, relevant products.

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    1. Re: WOW! by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      You must have a pretty good memory. Normally it tends to slip when people get to be that age.

      I kid, but how long has it been since Sony was well regarded for their products?

    2. Re: WOW! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      2013 with the Play Station 4.
      Though some would argue 2000 since the Playstation 2 represented the peak of quality products.
      But then some others would argue game consoles don't count at which you're back to the 90s with Minidisc before they missed the MP3 train.

    3. Re: WOW! by Filter · · Score: 2

      1983 Sony Walkman?

      --

      "better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07

    4. Re: WOW! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Also Trinitron displays through the 90s. I've had a bunch of their CRT monitors, they were all great. Too bad there's no reason to buy their LCD monitors.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Sony will rootkit your computer by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Informative

    while using 100% renewable energy

  12. More than 4 year goal? Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any politician or business executive making some promise in a span of time greater than they are likely to be in that position is just bullshit. For most politicians this time span is 2, 4, maybe 6, and possibly 8 years. Making a 4 year goal is believable. An 8 year goal is possible if there's factors in your favor. Beyond that is plain bullshit.

    When JFK made his "we choose to go to the moon" speech it was at least somewhat believable. He wanted to send a man to the moon, and bring him home safely, within 10 years. For a young and newly elected POTUS making such a promise that has a lot of weight given he's likely to be in office for the next 7 to 8 years.

    For a company to meet some goal 20 years in the future is outright bullshit. Very few people in that company today will be still working there 20 years from now. Cut that in half and I might believe you, as 10 years in the same company is feasible. Cut that in half again, make it a 5 year goal, and I might pay attention.

    Oh, as for running the planet on bullshit, we tried that. It wasn't that long ago when large portions of the population cooked their food over dried cattle dung. That meant women dying prematurely from house fires and lung disease, because cooking with an open fire in a shack means breathing in a lot of smoke and having to get real close to the fire to keep it going. There's all kinds of stories going around of a husband and father going to work in a field or factory only to come home to a smoking wreck where his wife and kids used to be. We got tree-hugging anti-nuclear luddite dingbats like Helen Caldicott telling us we need to read by candlelight and heat with wood. Sure, that works, until it burns down your house with your family inside.

    We can run the world on low CO2 power, and "before this decade is out", but that's going to take people embracing wind, hydro, and nuclear. Maybe we can take all this bullshit from Sony, Apple, Google, or whatever, that promise to run 100% renewable in 20 years, dry that bullshit out in the sun, and use it to cook their sacred cow. We can't get from here to a world that's low CO2 without nuclear power. Sony should know this because the Japanese government tried and failed.

  13. Re:More than 4 year goal? Bullshit. by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    I agree, not impressed. You can basically claim anything you want with a 20+ year plan, including future technologies that have not yet been developed. Before Sony transitions completely to renewable energy, we could see a colony on Mars, significant global warming impacting cities (that's the correct term for "climate change"), some countries only allowing electric/renewable cars, a working space elevator, a cure for cancer, a vaccine for HIV/AIDS, contact with intelligent aliens, icebergs towed to the equator for drinking water, commercial-scale hyperloops, quantum computers everywhere, a female US president, and a whole bunch of crazier stuff that is harder to predict. Way to really move with urgency, Sony.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  14. why quote renewable? by doom · · Score: 1

    Why not "clean"?

  15. That is optimistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That of course, assumes Sony will still be around in 2040. I have my doubts.

  16. That's great but.. by JThundley · · Score: 1

    That's great but you won't renew me as a customer ever since you put rootkits in music CDs.