Apple Boosts Efforts in Renewable Energy and Water Sustainability

[Confused-User]

Just because a place is uninhabitable, does not mean it would never affect a future generation. Some of the smartest people are working on solutions for radioactive waste disposal... from deep bore holes, deep ocean, tectonic subduction into earths mantle.... to blasting it into space (which I find pretty disgusting... I hope if an alien race ever encounters a heap of radioactive trash that they redirect to sender.. it's essentially littering on the greatest scale possible).

Most of what you wrote was reasonable but "littering in space" is a hilarious concept (unlike littering in orbit, which actually is a problem). You really have no idea how vast space is. It's simply not comparable to the idea of littering on earth.

Of course if you're going to get it to escape velocity (which, BTW, seems like a terrible idea, as it's a huge waste of energy) you could dump it on the moon. Or into the sun.

Which means those customers really do not care about our environment.

Care implies sacrifice.

Not so, and that logical fallacy is one of the tools reactionary interests (the energy lobby and the coopted right) use to discourage people from supporting the move to renewables.

We are not going to sacrifice our way out of this problem (in general - in some isolated and specific instances, we may have to). We can't, because too much of the world (third-world countries, and most people elsewhere) won't stand for it. We solve this with better tech, or we die. Fortunately, the better tech is coming, and lots of it is already here.

 

[Confused-User]

Sustainability is a joke. It's Utopian dream. And, like all utopian dreams, it will just end in misery and suffering.

How utterly foolish. "It's hard, so I give up." *Not* addressing the issues we face is a guarantee of misery and suffering.

What's your plan, burn carbon fuels and leave the mess to future generations?

 

[svish]

Good to know about Apple's achievements towards protecting the environment.

 

[flottenheimer]

But the old batteries still need to be recycled, and that's more difficult than recycling glass and aluminum.

Difficult or not, batteries of all kinds are being recycled on an industrial scale all over the world.

 

[Confused-User]

Difficult or not, batteries of all kinds are being recycled on an industrial scale all over the world.

That argument is often irrelevant to industrial-scale batteries, many of which are not what you'd normally think of as batteries, as they use water, or heat, or any number of other ways to store energy that's less compact and/or efficient, but also less prone to failure over time, than typical chemical batteries.

 

[steve09090]

That argument is often irrelevant to industrial-scale batteries, many of which are not what you'd normally think of as batteries, as they use water, or heat, or any number of other ways to store energy that's less compact and/or efficient, but also less prone to failure over time, than typical chemical batteries.

Are you suggesting Pump Storage Hydro has a problem being recycled?

 

[WRONG]

First off, I'm no nuclear physicist or have any type of expertise in this field, but my gut feeling (assumption!) is that neither do you.

That's a blanket statement that just seems untrue. Nuclear waste as is being produced currently and in the past is highly radioactive and therefore harmful to life and our environment, ergo, a problem.


Just had a quick glance at Wikipedia, but I noticed two things while doing so:
1. No Gen 4 facilities exist or are expected to exist in the coming years.
2. Not even a clear DEFINITION of Gen 4 nuclear reactors exists.

So presenting it as some end-all solution seems a bit precarious to me and a weird hill to die on.
Not to mention that it is quite a stretch to assume that Apple, a consumer-electronics company, can somehow just churn out speculative nuclear technology.

What they said is completely true
1 - Everything produce waste. Solar panels, wind turbines, and especially coal. Everything.
Nuclear waste can be armful, yes, but it is also easily contained, the quantities are ridiculously small compared to the energy produced, and is always safely stored. The same cannot be said for coal and gas, and for some cases, wind and solar too.
2 - Maybe the glance you gave at Wikipedia was too quick?
A IV Gen reactor is currently being built in China, but there are also other examples.

The point is, if Apple is really willing to do something for the environment besides greenwashing (and making products unreparable), they should at least invest into some nuclear research as well.
The current nuclear technology we have is safe, solid and clean.

 

[Confused-User]

Are you suggesting Pump Storage Hydro has a problem being recycled?

No, on the contrary. I was saying that recycling issues with chemical batteries, however significant they may or may not be, aren't relevant to kinetic, heat, and other large-scale batteries. Recycling isn't really something you think of when building structures meant to last 100+ years. The truth is, by the time we want to get rid of them, like as not we'll be using some industrial nanoscale disassembly or something else incomprehensible to pre-singularity humans. Assuming we survive at all...

 

[Confused-User]

What they said is completely true
1 - Everything produce waste. Solar panels, wind turbines, and especially coal. Everything.
Nuclear waste can be armful, yes, but it is also easily contained, the quantities are ridiculously small compared to the energy produced, and is always safely stored. The same cannot be said for coal and gas, and for some cases, wind and solar too.
2 - Maybe the glance you gave at Wikipedia was too quick?
A IV Gen reactor is currently being built in China, but there are also other examples.

The point is, if Apple is really willing to do something for the environment besides greenwashing (and making products unreparable), they should at least invest into some nuclear research as well.
The current nuclear technology we have is safe, solid and clean.

Unfortunately that's not entirely true.

I do support expanding use of nuclear, but there are externalities beyond the engineering that change the picture somewhat. Specifically, the threat of terrorism both to an active facility, and in the use of waste products, is significant. In fact, it can go beyond terrorism, as you can currently see at the ZNPP in Ukraine.

 

[TallManNY]

For someone who is in the energy business seem to know very little about it. You dont just dig a hole, put in waste, cover hole, and leave it alone forever.

There are extremely strict criteria for suitable places to bore holes... then there is the local populations consent, then there is the building of the facility (its not just a hole). Then once it's built it has to be overseen, inspected, material prepped and store as best as possible. Then parts of the site are filled in, monitored and overseen. Even once the site has been filled to capacity.. it has to be monitored and secured for the entirety of its life.

The argument that the amount of waste is really small compared to the size of the earth is deceiving.. that waste is concentrated in one spot.. and may not be buried that deep, in relation to the geology and its depth. Only if you were to successfully and fully inject it into the mantle where it would mix into a huge volume of material would that statement make any sense.

Obviously I'm being glib with "dig a hole".

Yes, all those things need to be done. First, we know many "suitable places to bore holes". And the US picked the Yucca Mountain in 1987. But let us be clear, there is no lack of suitable places for the tiny amount of waste. Yes, you have to do the process in a competent manner (which would include burying it deep). NMBYism would have to be overcome, but that is true for the building of any new infrastructure.

The basic facts remain that nuclear waste is a largely solved issue in terms of scientific and industrial process. There are not solved issues of cost to build nuclear power plants, but nuclear waste has been used as a bogeyman to scare the uniformed for decades. And those decades of inaction in building new nuclear power plants has resulted in very real and very much not solved climate change issues as well as other equally problematic waste byproducts of fossil fuel electricity generation (e.g., something on the order of 100+ million tons of coal ash a year in the US).

 

[Fuzzball84]

Obviously I'm being glib with "dig a hole".

Yes, all those things need to be done. First, we know many "suitable places to bore holes". And the US picked the Yucca Mountain in 1987. But let us be clear, there is no lack of suitable places for the tiny amount of waste. Yes, you have to do the process in a competent manner (which would include burying it deep). NMBYism would have to be overcome, but that is true for the building of any new infrastructure.

The basic facts remain that nuclear waste is a largely solved issue in terms of scientific and industrial process. There are not solved issues of cost to build nuclear power plants, but nuclear waste has been used as a bogeyman to scare the uniformed for decades. And those decades of inaction in building new nuclear power plants has resulted in very real and very much not solved climate change issues as well as other equally problematic waste byproducts of fossil fuel electricity generation (e.g., something on the order of 100+ million tons of coal ash a year in the US).

It's not a solved problem... quite the opposite. Radioactive waste continues to build up... and some long term storage facilities have recently been found to have lacking safety and security. Indeed, most radioactive waste resides nearby nuclear facilities because of a lack of long term storage facilities. The US has some (which have been found to have safety lapses), the UK does not have one... and many other countries are still figuring out what to do.

Yes there is processing and storage for material thats not as hazardous.. but for the most hazardous that will remain radioactive a very long time... there is no solution.

They are still debating where and how.... even how to warn future generations (many hundreds of years into the future) of the safety risk via pictorial warning signs and deterrent designs highlighting the hazard.

for the record... I'm not against nuclear... but the waste issue is a massive problem that needs solving soon.

 

[TallManNY]

It's not a solved problem... quite the opposite. Radioactive waste continues to build up... and some long term storage facilities have recently been found to have lacking safety and security. Indeed, most radioactive waste resides nearby nuclear facilities because of a lack of long term storage facilities. The US has some (which have been found to have safety lapses), the UK does not have one... and many other countries are still figuring out what to do.

Yes there is processing and storage for material thats not as hazardous.. but for the most hazardous that will remain radioactive a very long time... there is no solution.

They are still debating where and how.... even how to warn future generations (many hundreds of years into the future) of the safety risk via pictorial warning signs and deterrent designs highlighting the hazard.

for the record... I'm not against nuclear... but the waste issue is a massive problem that needs solving soon.

Solved from the sense of scientific and industrial process (making a long term storage location is solved problem and not super expensive, places that aren't so great were likely not designed to be permanent storage facilities). Not solved in the sense of NMBYism because of local opposition. So, for example, the federal government has been prohibited from building and using a long term storage facility. Yeah, I've read about the pictorial warning signs. Highly speculative need for that since current humanity can decipher written words from thousands of years ago and I seriously doubt that future humanity is going to incapable of doing the same. But fine if you want to put some pictures around the site.

Anyway, it might all be moot in the US at least. The recent attempts (recent being attempts in the last 10 to 20 years) to build nuclear facilities have been financial disasters. Solar and wind keeps moving the bar for economic viability (not to mention gas plants). Storage is getting cheaper (though still quite expensive). So it is hard to make the economic case for a new nuclear facility in the US. Maybe Gen 4 facilities will make the economic case, but I'm doubtful that building smaller facilities will be cheaper on a kWh of production basis.

 

[Fuzzball84]

Solved from the sense of scientific and industrial process (making a long term storage location is solved problem and not super expensive, places that aren't so great were likely not designed to be permanent storage facilities). Not solved in the sense of NMBYism because of local opposition. So, for example, the federal government has been prohibited from building and using a long term storage facility. Yeah, I've read about the pictorial warning signs. Highly speculative need for that since current humanity can decipher written words from thousands of years ago and I seriously doubt that future humanity is going to incapable of doing the same. But fine if you want to put some pictures around the site.

Anyway, it might all be moot in the US at least. The recent attempts (recent being attempts in the last 10 to 20 years) to build nuclear facilities have been financial disasters. Solar and wind keeps moving the bar for economic viability (not to mention gas plants). Storage is getting cheaper (though still quite expensive). So it is hard to make the economic case for a new nuclear facility in the US. Maybe Gen 4 facilities will make the economic case, but I'm doubtful that building smaller facilities will be cheaper on a kWh of production basis.

I think the pictorial signs are incase most humans don't make it…and those that remain don't have the means or ability to decipher the text. A symbol form is much easier to warn a person of a threat.

 

[steve09090]

It's not a solved problem... quite the opposite. Radioactive waste continues to build up... and some long term storage facilities have recently been found to have lacking safety and security. Indeed, most radioactive waste resides nearby nuclear facilities because of a lack of long term storage facilities. The US has some (which have been found to have safety lapses), the UK does not have one... and many other countries are still figuring out what to do.

Yes there is processing and storage for material thats not as hazardous.. but for the most hazardous that will remain radioactive a very long time... there is no solution.

They are still debating where and how.... even how to warn future generations (many hundreds of years into the future) of the safety risk via pictorial warning signs and deterrent designs highlighting the hazard.

for the record... I'm not against nuclear... but the waste issue is a massive problem that needs solving soon.

The answer here appears to be 'bury it'. Burying it is not solving it, it’s hiding it in a place that is not stable over the course of the half life of the material.

 

[TallManNY]

I think the pictorial signs are incase most humans don't make it…and those that remain don't have the means or ability to decipher the text. A symbol form is much easier to warn a person of a threat.

So I've read. I think it is fine, because we are talking about making and putting up a sign. But also a bit silly because I think it highly unlikely that either (A) future humans can't decipher English and (B) if humans aren't here, then a future alien race capable of interstellar transportation doesn't have the ability to scan for radiation. Anyway, put up signs. Fine. The real issue in the US is that the Federal government hasn't shown the will to just override local opposition and pick a permanent storage place for US nuclear waste. So instead we are putting barrels of nuclear waste into deep swimming pools near our nuclear reactors (which largely happen to be fairly near some of our cities). But that is a political will failure, not a real problem with nuclear technology.

 

[flottenheimer]

That argument is often irrelevant to industrial-scale batteries, many of which are not what you'd normally think of as batteries, as they use water, or heat, or any number of other ways to store energy that's less compact and/or efficient, but also less prone to failure over time, than typical chemical batteries.

Are you arguing that Apple AirPod and Laptop batteries should not be replaceable and recyclable? That they are not replaceable and recyclable because the chemistry is atypical? Or something else?

 

[Confused-User]

Are you arguing that Apple AirPod and Laptop batteries should not be replaceable and recyclable? That they are not replaceable and recyclable because the chemistry is atypical? Or something else?

Huh? Where would you get that from what I wrote? I was very clearly talking about *industrial-scale* batteries. You know, the kinds you'd use to store solar-sourced energy during the day and release it at night, or equivalent load-balancing for other types of energy (most usefully for renewables, but not necessarily only those).

It's right there in the piece you quoted, in fact: "[...] not what you'd normally think of as batteries, as they use water, or heat, or any number of other ways to store energy that's less compact and/or efficient, but also less prone to failure over time, than typical chemical batteries."