Universal Studios Hollywood, GE use alternative energy

Posted Monday, April 18, 2011 11:06 AM | Contributed by Jeff

As part of NBCUniversal's continued efforts to employ the latest in alternative energy, an innovative onsite fuel cell energy system has been installed at Universal Studios Hollywood, enabling the theme park to cut CO2 emissions from its enormous food production operations by 40% compared to traditional forms of power generation, an environmental impact equivalent to the planting of almost four acres of trees.

Read the entire press release on PR Newswire.

GE rebuilt an old Allan Herschell Co. carousel from Arkansas. Among the 30 horses, two chariots and two chickens, some of the parts were nearly a century old. Workers stripped the ancient three-phase AC motor and replaced it with a quieter motor from an electric car, and added solar panels for power.

Read more from The LA Times.

Monday, April 18, 2011 6:01 PM

I still don't like GE. Every GE electronic product that I have ever bought has ended up not working just after the warranty ended. Plus, they don't pay any taxes. So what if they use solar panels and cut CO2 emissions, if the stuff they sell sucks?

+0
Monday, April 18, 2011 6:26 PM

To suggest that everything they do sucks in a company in that big seems a little ridiculous, don't you think? Does Universal Orlando suck? Do the jet engines they build suck?

+0
Monday, April 18, 2011 7:10 PM

Well, I don't buy jet engines, and I only visit UO ever five or so years. I buy electronics much more frequently, and I stay away from their products because I believe that they are made to not last (from experience). They are the opposite of Sony, in my opinion.

On the other hand (lol), Sony has been involved in some shenanigans lately too.

GE needs to work on a lot of things, including paying taxes, before they can brag about how wonderful and responsible they are, in my opinion.

+0
Monday, April 18, 2011 7:26 PM

Jeff said:
Do the jet engines they build suck?

Yes. Yes, they do. They suck big time. Don't believe me, go ask a few geese... ;)

+0
Monday, April 18, 2011 10:10 PM

What I find interesting about this story is that I could really see this being a Disney thing. WOuldn't a solar powered carousel outside of University of Energy fit nicely at EPCOT? Granted EPCOT has had solar panels for quite some time on Universe of Energy (I think, actually, since the ride opened...)

+0
Monday, April 18, 2011 10:26 PM

Why hate GE for not paying taxes? They're not breaking any laws. Take it up with your Congresscritter for having a stupid tax code.

+0
Monday, April 18, 2011 10:41 PM

LostKause said:
I still don't like GE. Every GE electronic product that I have ever bought has ended up not working just after the warranty ended. Plus, they don't pay any taxes. So what if they use solar panels and cut CO2 emissions, if the stuff they sell sucks?

I know I've seen a few GE products outside of lighting and electricity stuff, but...people actually buy that crap? I don't think they've ever been a manufacturer for quality products beyond lighting/utility/appliance stuff (at the consumer end). I wouldn't touch a GE television or general electronics product no matter the price bargain, because I know that's not their core business and is likely to be more of a POS than quality product. Their lights, on the other hand, I am all over. Christmas lights have traditionally been Westinghouse with regular purpose GE lights (especially their CFLs) everywhere else in the apartment.

This seems like a pretty good PR move, and will almost certainly shave a bit off of operational costs in the long run. Applications like these are what generally help push technology improvements out to the consumer.

+0
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 12:11 AM

LostKause said:
GE needs to work on a lot of things, including paying taxes, before they can brag about how wonderful and responsible they are, in my opinion.

Is the guy that breaks his neck to let everyone know how poor he is every time someone even mentions money in a topic trying to tell us he would pay taxes even if he found a loophole that allowed him not to?

+0
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 3:24 AM

^ The part that irks me is that many of those loopholes only exist because GE has spent a lot of money buying members of congress. Although I suppose that still ultimately leads to blame being placed on how poor our current system operates, I do blame GE for actively being part of the problem.

Plus GE didn't just not pay any taxes, they got a $3 billion "handout" to pad their bottom line. The fact that a highly profitable company is getting back more than they paid in is deeply troubling.

+0
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 7:18 AM

LostKause said:
...I stay away from (GE's) products because I believe that they are made to not last (from experience). They are the opposite of Sony, in my opinion.

I've had the opposite experience when it comes to SONY. I've owned a few of their products, and all but one of them has failed prematurely. They do make some neat stuff, though.

Jeff said:
Why hate GE for not paying taxes? They're not breaking any laws. Take it up with your Congresscritter for having a stupid tax code.

While I agree that GE would be stupid (from a purely capitalistic angle) to not take advantage of the moronic tax code, there is the fact that avoiding paying taxes, especially on the scale purported in the news recently, is a pretty shady move from a moralistic point of view. So, while I respect the business decision, I feel perfectly justified hating companies that behave poorly, whether they're polluting or avoiding paying their share.

Last edited by djDaemon, Tuesday, April 19, 2011 7:22 AM
+0
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:46 AM

djDaemon said:
I feel perfectly justified hating companies that behave poorly, whether they're polluting or avoiding paying their share.

But who decides "their share"? In this case tax law does and they indeed paid "their share".

Don't hate the player, hate the game. ;)

+0
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:59 AM

Exactly. If you could legally not pay taxes, why would you? I think the displeasure over the situation is completely misplaced. What does morality have to do with it? "We don't pay taxes, but we'll make a big donation to the feds because we're moral." Yeah, that would go over really well with investors.

+0
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 12:18 PM

Corporations' "fair share" as determined by those in charge has been declining so fast it's incredible. I agree that companies are obligated to their shareholders first and foremost - and that that's not entirely a bad thing.

But, since the Citizens United decision, there is virtually limitless ability of corporations to exercise undue influence over those who DO have some say over tax rates...and thereafter, ANY tax burden has been deemed as unsustainable - and individual taxpayers of modest incom,e have NO ability to exercise such influence. "Might makes right" has become the de facto principle operating our government...and honestly, I am not sure the "one citizen, one vote" rule has any real say in legislation from Capitol Hill any longer.

This WAS a great country, and it CAN become one again - but not as long as graft, greed, and corruption rule the day.

+0
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 12:20 PM

Lord Gonchar said:
Don't hate the player, hate the game. ;)

It need not be an either/or situation. I have plenty of hate to go around. :)

As I tried to allude to in my previous post, I do understand and agree with their tactics toward maximizing profitability, strictly from a business perspective. But at the same time, I feel that lobbying against paying taxes (into an economy that allowed you to make tons of money in the first place) is a pretty crappy thing to do, morally speaking. I'm not sure why people aren't allowed to dislike a company for shady behavior, regardless of whether or not that behavior has been deemed legal by the authorities.

+0
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 12:30 PM

The funny thing about morals is that they're never black & white.

You're allowed to hate a corporation for any reason you decide. No one has to agree.

Last edited by Lord Gonchar, Tuesday, April 19, 2011 12:31 PM
+0
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 4:09 PM

rollergator said:
t...and honestly, I am not sure the "one citizen, one vote" rule has any real say in legislation from Capitol Hill any longer.

I disagree entirely. The problem is that voters spend too much time worrying about who sleeps with who, who had an abortion and other such nonsense instead of things that actually have a material effect on their lives. I don't blame the institution of government for voters' screwed up priorities or lack of engagement. We get the government we deserve.

+0
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 5:53 PM

+1 Jeff!

Even though I see where Gator is coming from.

+0
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:02 PM

But I don't think we can deny the power that large amounts of money have over the general populace, regardless of their priorities, engagement, or whatever.

It also sure as hell doesn't help that we're trapped in a two party system and both parties are mediocre at best.

Last edited by ApolloAndy, Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:02 PM
+0
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:13 PM

Sure money influences government. But voters sit there and let it happen. I can only be sympathetic to that in a limited fashion.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...