T-Mobile Commits To 100 Percent Renewable Electricity By 2021 (cnbc.com) 64
T-Mobile said on Monday that it will move to 100 percent renewable electricity by the year 2021. It had also "finalized a contract for wind power from the Solomon Forks Wind Project in Kansas," reports CNBC. "Power generation there is due to begin at the beginning of 2019, and will supplement the energy T-Mobile receives from the Red Dirt Wind Power Project in Oklahoma." From the report: John Legere, T-Mobile's president and CEO, said moving to renewable energy was the right thing to do and smart business. "We expect to cut T-Mobile's energy costs by around $100 million in the next 15 years thanks to this move," he added. T-Mobile has also joined the RE100, a group of global businesses committed to renewable power. Other members of the RE100 include Apple, Facebook and Google.
Coal and oil. (Score:1)
Those are renewable too... *shrug*
does this include the cell towers? (Score:2)
I'm curious if this includes the towers and the associated equipment as well. I'd be really surprised if it did.
This is a wise choice, with a mix of renewables (Score:4, Interesting)
Wind, solar, and other renewable energy has a lower cost than old-school fossil fuels, and allows them to build grid resilience. Wind combined with either battery or compressed air storage allows you to achieve full reliability even during extreme weather events.
Given the distributed nature of their business, this allows them to drop costs and compete with other higher cost providers.
Re:This is a wise choice, with a mix of renewables (Score:5, Interesting)
These are stories I like to read about. Trump may be trying to save a dying coal industry but I just don't see it happening. What I see happening, just as I hoped would happen, is companies realizing that being Green is a asset. I believe they are seeing the same things I'm seeing. An that is more people with money to spend are starting to think about where the shit they are buying comes from.
This is a good thing.
Just to say fossil fuels days are numbered. The fat lady isn't on the stage yet but she is defiantly in the opera house if not warming up back stage.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable energy is the new perpetual motion.
You've been had. haha.
This is pretty much the perfect representation of your climate-denier slashdot dickhead. Annoying, sure, but the primary component is stupidity. Rank fucking stupidity.
Re: This is a wise choice, with a mix of renewable (Score:1)
You will be using fossil fuels your entire life. I guarantee it. There will never be 100% renewable anything. Itâ(TM)s a marketing ploy for dumb millenials who donâ(TM)t know better.
Sad you do not know this but now you do. Reality hits hard but now you have knowledge and not internet memes to help you through life.
Re: (Score:2)
You will be using fossil fuels your entire life. I guarantee it.
lol - look everybody, this stupid AC cunt guarantees it, so it's definitely so.
Sad you do not know this but now you do.
Know what? What a dumbass said on the internet? Thanks, man.
You'll always be a moron, I'm afraid there's no upward curve for someone as retarded as you. But keep your chin up, people might not notice if you keep your stupid mouth shut.
Re:This is a wise choice, with a mix of renewables (Score:4, Insightful)
Coal still used in the here and now, and export market is growing. Might as well have them get it from us than somewhere else...
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could sell them clean technology.
Re: (Score:3)
Coal still used in the here and now, and export market is growing. Might as well have them get it from us than somewhere else...
Which in now invalidates or changes anything I've said. Coal, like all fossil fuels, is a limited resource. Be it by market forces or by simply running out its days are numbered. It is best that we begin the conversion now to alternative means of energy production while we have time and can do so in a safe and orderly manner.
So Trump can say "clean coal" all he wants to but its days are numbered. And that is simply a fact.
Re: (Score:1)
A good pair of links about Obama's schema, one at the start of his administration and a retrospective a couple of years ago:
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
https://grist.org/climate-ener... [grist.org]
Ferret
Re: (Score:2)
you're so funny, we have CENTURIES of supply of coal at least.
It's days are numbered and the number is extremely high.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Globalist"
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Same problem with more conventional sources, well a far worse problem when you include cleanup.
Most coal fired sites remain wasteland for generations. And we won't even discuss the costs of nuclear cleanup.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake me up when
Sorry, don't think you're capable of what a neurotypical person would call wakefulness.
Re: (Score:2)
They are probably planning to use batteries too. Mobile base stations and network hardware are already battery backed so that phone service doesn't stop in the event of a power cut. It's particularly important during a disaster when people might need to call the emergency services.
I don't know what he legal requirement is, or if there even is one in the US, but 24 hours of battery backup power isn't uncommon in many places. So given that they already have that in place, why not use it to smooth renewable en
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but it is dangerous. People fall off windmills. Electrons are incredibly powerful and can kill people if there are bunched together. Guess what, these windmills and photovoltaic are designed to bunch electrons together. That is right these green energy technologies are designed to kill people.
You do know the water you drink has electrons in it, right?
Publicity Stunt (Score:3, Informative)
This is more of a publicity stunt than anything else. T-Mobile headquarters is just outside of Seattle here in Western Washington. We're already 90%+ hydroelectric power in this region. The remaining 10% is heavily influenced by wind power generation as well. The only areas they need power otherwise is primarily for cell towers throughout the country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Not to mention, despite their commercials, their coverage just isn't that good.
Really? I've been using them for a long time and used to travel extensively. I can't say I've been many places that didn't have coverage. I originally went with T-Mobile because I traveled outside of the US frequently and at the time I think Verizon and T-Mobile were the best choices. There have been a few place in the US that I didn't have coverage years ago, and I have no service when I visit my mother, but she's in the middle of nowhere and there's actually no carrier that has coverage where she lives.
Re: (Score:1)
They still have some patchy spots.
South of buffalo along the lake i get no coverage, or roam on at&t (last visited last July, I have band 12, but not 77 which they're rolling out).
Eastern shore Maryland is terrible coverage (last visited in August), only Verizon works there.
There are two bars locally (Wilmington, DE) that I get great coverage outside of but zero inside (every other carrier gets inside too)
They have been rapidly and continuously improving though.
I went to Faber, VA in June and had zero c
Re:Publicity Stunt (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you're confirming that the story is true, but it's still a "publicity stunt"? Would it have been better if they had hidden the fact that they're committed to 100% renewable energy? Does hydroelectric power somehow not qualify as "renewable" in your mind?
Publicity Stunt that has zero net effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Before
After:
No net change in fossil fuel consumption. Assuming your energy consumption remains the same, to cause a real reduction in fossil fuel use, you have to use renewable energy which otherwise wasn't going to be generated e.g. If T-Mobile decided to install new wind turbines on property they owned, that would result in:
That's a net 10 MWh of fossil fuel electricity consumption. Real changes in renewable energy use comes from adding renewable generation. Not from buying your electricity from a renewable source that was going to sell it all whether or not you bought form them. Likewise, charging your EV with solar panels on your house doesn't reduce the amount of electricity generated by fossil fuels. It only reduces it if the only reason you installed the panels was because you got the EV (that is, if you hadn't gotten the EV you wouldn't have installed the panels). If you were going to install the panels anyway, all you've done is shift solar electricity that was going to be used to your house, to be used your EV instead.
For the same reason, it's important to realize that energy conservation has the same impact regardless of whether you live in an area which gets most of its electricity from renewables or from fossil fuels. The entire electrical grid interconnected. Electricity generated by renewables that is not used locally is transmitted to other areas, where it causes a reduction in the amount of energy that needs to be generated by fossil fuel plants
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You ignore the simple mechanism that when entities commit to buying renewable energy, more renewable energy generation is installed.
Or, to put it another way, you falsely assume it is a zero sum game.
Re: (Score:2)
You are thinking so hard about how smart your concept is, you ignore the blindingly obvious: the installed capacity of renewables is increasing daily to meet demand. Extra demand creates incentives for suppliers to deploy more capacity, more quickly, than they otherwise would have. This is *precisely* the mechanism by which renewable capacity has grown so rapidly and costs-to-serve have dropped so quickly over the past decade. When large corporates commit, the effect is even stronger, because they are worth
Re: (Score:2)
If all else is equal, you may be correct. But all else isn't equal, we live in a world of hype, network effects and cost of electricity.
Wind/Solar is cheaper than other forms of electricity already even with subsidies for coal/natgas. It will only get more so.
Re: (Score:3)
All T-Mobile has done is cause a bunch of people who would've bought electricity from this wind farm, to buy electricity from a coal or gas plant instead.
That's a common myth about buying only renewable energy. What actually happens is that it excludes fossil fuels from even bidding to supply that energy. From an investment point of view that makes renewables more attractive, as more and more of the market starts excluding fossil sources.
Thus more money goes into building more renewable capacity, we get more renewable energy, it becomes cheaper and more people start demanding it by excluding fossil.
Many of these renewable energy companies have a commitment t
Re: (Score:2)
No net change in fossil fuel consumption. Assuming your energy consumption remains the same, to cause a real reduction in fossil fuel use, you have to use renewable energy which otherwise wasn't going to be generated e.g. If T-Mobile decided to install new wind turbines on property they owned, that would result in:
This puts more conventional energy in the market, and reduces the supply of renewables. So price of renewable goes up, profits go up, it attracts more investment, and the renewable capacity goes up.
Remember this, the biggest cost for renewables is the initial investment, cost of amortization. Fuel costs zero. Running costs are way below. Anything that attracts investments to renewable sector is a good thing,
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mobile headquarters is just outside of Seattle here in Western Washington. We're already 90%+ hydroelectric power in this region.
So what? They are talking about their entire network, nation wide.
Unless they are running every router, every exchange, every base station off really really really long extension cords from their HQ then most of their energy consumption won't be in Seattle.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to be clear, your implying that the power required for their headquarters being mostly renewable already is more important to the validity of their cause (vs being a publicity stunt) than the power required for the cell towers. Even though the cell tower power may be orders of magnitude greater?
Re: (Score:3)
It would be great if they sold me a phone where the battery would last me a couple of days, instead of running out of juice each evening.
They sold one to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you just buy a phone that is compatible with T-Mobile from somewhere else? We don't have to ask to "pretty-please activate my new device" like some carriers.
I bought a Sony direct and unlocked and I get 5 days of battery life between charges. The only reason I had to visit a T-Mobile after I got it is because my SIM was too large for the new phone so I couldn't just put it in. They gave me a new (nano) SIM for free.
But there is a catch. (Score:1)
I know it does not make sense. But renew and cell phone company calls for a joke, and this pathetic excuse is all I could come up in short notice.
In my best jeb impression: Please mod up.
Won't happen (Score:2, Offtopic)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... [nytimes.com]
That meeting reviewed the Murray Energy Action plan - the Head of Murray energy and huge Trump supporter, his plan inculdes killing off clean energy. read the Trump approved document yourselves and, please, remember this November.
https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
Why pick out T-Mobile? (Score:4, Informative)
In doing this, T-Mobile has joined RE100, an initiative for large corporates to buy only 100% renewable electricity. 123 have joined so far. T-Mobile is not the first, not the largest, not the only tech player, and hasn't moved the furthest. So I've no idea why its decision is considered story-worthy, but not the decision of Adobe, Autodesk, BT, ebay, etc.
RE100 is a great initiative, especially when corporates also commit to science-based targets for GHG reductions that cover scopes 1, 2 and some or all of scope 3 emhttps://hardware.slashdot.org/story/18/01/30/225248/t-mobile-commits-to-100-percent-renewable-electricity-by-2021#issions.
Re: (Score:2)
So I've no idea why its decision is considered story-worthy
Probably because T-Mobile is somewhat different to most others, in that it consumes electricity in many different locations. Every base station needs its own supply, all over the country.
It's different to say a company that just does this for its HQ or some datacentres, T-Mobile has to put in place hundreds, maybe thousands of contracts to supply all its geographically diverse locations.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, lots of RE100 companies have this kind of challenge.
T-Mobile _US_, not T-Mobile (Score:2)
This was announced just for US subsidiary, not all T-Mobiles.
How about committing to coverage? (Score:1)
T-Mobile has, bar none, the worst network coverage in the country. I can be standing in the parking lot of major businesses like casinos or supermarkets and signal just comes and goes. These are not places you should be wondering about whether you're going to have coverage. It's been several phones so far, too, and they've always been like this. All carriers' coverage maps are dirty lies, but T-Mobile's is dirtier than others.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst network, bar none, as long as you only count the top 4 networks.
You first have to ignore the other hundred or so that own and maintain their own networks within the US (not MVNOs).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
On the east coast they're better than Sprint, and very very close to at&t (area) and better than at&t with data (area one can stream video).
They aren't there with Verizon, but they aren't bar none the worst coverage, and they are notably improving year after year.
all t-mobile installations? (Score:1)