Part of Energy & Sustainability Network »

The Energy Collective Group

This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Shared Link

Top 10 U.S. corporate renewable energy buyers of 2020

Richard Brooks's picture
Richard Brooks 102,779
Co-Founder and Lead Software Engineer, Reliable Energy Analytics LLC

Dick Brooks is the inventor of patent 11,374,961: METHODS FOR VERIFICATION OF SOFTWARE OBJECT AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY and the Software Assurance Guardian™ (SAG ™) Point Man™ (SAG-PM™) software...

  • Member since 2018
  • 1,541 items added with 673,199 views
  • Feb 11, 2021
  • 1622 views

Consumer momentum continues to influence the energy transition - see link below for details.

In its second-annual Deal Tracker Top 10 report, REBA found that U.S. corporations once again showcased their resolve and commitment to renewable energy with a record-breaking 10.6 GW of contracted capacity.

REBA CEO Miranda Ballentine said, “It is remarkable that the business community announced nearly 100 new deals while managing the impacts of a global pandemic.”

Amazon is on a path to run on 100% renewable energy by 2025, five years ahead of its original target of 2030. Building on Amazon’s procurements last year, the company has continued making solar deals in 2021.

Top 10 U.S. corporate renewable energy buyers of 2020

A new report from REBA highlights the leading players and found that utility-scale solar power was the most sought-after renewable resource among the country’s major companies.

Read More
Source: pv-magazine-usa.com
Discussions
Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Feb 11, 2021

Amazon is on a path to run on 100% renewable energy by 2025, five years ahead of its original target of 2030."

Richard, how could Amazon possibly run on 100% renewable energy - ever? Will they close their doors on cloudy days, when the wind isn't blowing?
I know there's some creative bookkeeping going on that attempts to justify these absurd claims, I'm just trying to find out why anyone would lend credence to them. Thanks!

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Feb 11, 2021

Those ten are: Amazon, Google, Verizon, McDonald's, Facebook, GM, Nucor, Evraz North America, Lowe's, Nestle

Interesting to try and see what commonalities they may have that could provide insight into what other companies can/should follow the lead. The most immediate and obvious trend is big tech companies, but seeing large players in retail (Lowe's), food production (Nestle), and restaurants (McDonald's) shows some compelling diversity. I wonder if the smaller players in those three areas will be trying to play catchup? 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Feb 11, 2021

"In its second-annual Deal Tracker Top 10 report, REBA found that U.S. corporations once again showcased their resolve and commitment to renewable energy with a record-breaking 10.6 GW of contracted capacity."

Matt, "10.6 GW of contracted capacity" makes no sense. Any measurement in watts is a measurement of an energy rate of transfer - in this case, 10.6 billion joules per second.

Does that mean these corporations have contracted solar farms for 10.6 billion joules per second whenever they need it, or only when the sun is shining? If a cloud is covering the sun and only 5.3 joules per second are available, can they sue for breach of contract?

Of course not. Here's what it means: we have a source, pv-magazine-usa.com, with its writers spouting gibberish in units of electricity of which they have no understanding, so that they can sell pay-per-click ads, so big corporations can bask in a fake green glow, and so solar salesmen can sell more panels (the commonality is they're all lying).

For smaller tech companies/food producers/restaurants, playing catchup is simple: put out a press release saying "Popeye's Chicken Runs on 100% Renewable Energy." Piece of cake!

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Feb 11, 2021

Matt, "10.6 GW of contracted capacity" makes no sense. Any measurement in watts is a measurement of an energy rate of transfer - in this case, 10.6 billion joules per second.

Does that mean these corporations have contracted solar farms for 10.6 billion joules per second whenever they need it, or only when the sun is shining? If a cloud is covering the sun and only 5.3 joules per second are available, can they sue for breach of contract?

It's actually not complicated. If Amazon entered into a contract with a 1 MW solar farm or wind farm, that means they've agreed to pay for the production that will come from that solar farm or wind farm. With the uncertainty in exact capacity factor inherent in these energy sources, it will obviously not be a constantly available 1 MW. But their contract is on the production that does come from those facilities. So they aren't saying "give us 500 MWh for this price" they're saying "whatever your XX MW facility generates, we'll buy." Hence the reference to the GW of contracted capacity. 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Feb 11, 2021

I see. So, depending on capacity factor at specific facilities, what they actually receive will be ~20% of that, or 2.12 GW of actual generation.

So it's not really "100% renewable energy by 2025", but "100% of 20% renewable energy by 2025." Correct?
 

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Feb 12, 2021

I'm certainly not privy to their accounting books, but I would guess they're not simply saying "our power needs at a given moment are 10.6 GW so if we contract 10.6 GW of renewable farms then we're 100%! I would expect them more to play with the accounting balances to say OK we used X GWh of power this year, we already paid for Y GWh from those farms so now we're going to try to buy some sort of REC or offset equivalent to X-Y.

Of course, that accounting balance practice is fully and fairly open to criticism, but I'm just saying I don't think the argument is as simple as 'Ha Amazon doesn't know the different between MW and MWh!'

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Feb 12, 2021

I knew it would all come down to some sort of "offset equivalent"  or "renewable energy certificate". 
Whether Amazon understands the difference between MW and MWh is irrelevant. Any company that forces their employees to pee in plastic bottles to meet fulfillment requirements will stop at nothing to promote their business - even if it means lying to the public about the CO2 they're emitting.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission understands why RECs are a lie, and has even released guidelines for companies which explain why "100% renewable" plans amounts to fraudulent advertising. It's illegal - but unprosecuted. FTC is only interested in prosecuting fraud where damages can be proved in court, and to anyone who wants to try to prove to a jury they've been damaged by climate change, I wish the best of luck.*
I post here, on blogs, and elsewhere, because I feel obligated to share my experience with the big lie that is "green energy". Right now there is no other way to hold its purveyors accountable, if only in the public eye. For the sake of future generations, I hope that changes, and sooner than later.

*In 2017 climatologist James Hansen submitted testimony in Juliana vs. the United States, a federal lawsuit on behalf of kids against the U.S. for failing to take effective action against climate change. The case made it to the US Court of Appeals before it was thrown out by a Trump-appointed judge.

Richard Brooks's picture
Thank Richard for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »

Your access to Member Features is limited.

Apply for membership
Related Content
99% Of U.S. Coal Plants Are More Expensive Than New Renewables. A Coal-To-Clean Transition Is Worth $589 Billion, Mostly In Red States
In from the coal: Australia sheds climate pariah status to make up with Europe
Demanding blade transport calls for modular solutions
Coal Cost Crossover 3.0 Interactive Visual Feature - Energy Innovation: Policy & Technology LLC®
Recent Comments
Michael Keller
Michael commented on ...
Nuclear Power Getting a New Look in a Zero Carbon-Driven World
The regulations (Code of Federal Regulations and accompanying regulatory “guides”) have vastly expanded (roughly quadrupling) since the 1970s.
Richard McCann
Richard commented on ...
Is nuclear essential to achieving our climate goals?
My hesitancy about nuclear is driven simply by economics. I used that perspective to recommend closure of Rancho Seco three decades ago.
Hans-Henning Judek
Hans-Henning commented on ...
Is nuclear essential to achieving our climate goals?
Nathan, there are already multiple other opportunities for grid balancing available. For example, almost everywhere are diesel generators used.
chris zygarlicke
chris commented on ...
Is nuclear essential to achieving our climate goals?
Nuclear electricity generation should definitely be in the mix for future U.S. power.