The report is not even assessing manufacturing or transport, but Internet services. Its called Click Clean report for a reason.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Tops Greenpeace Clean Energy Index Based on Renewable Energy Initiatives
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The report is not even assessing manufacturing or transport, but Internet services. Its called Click Clean report for a reason.
Your concerns should be alleviated by the forests Apple is protecting
While I'm dubious that the source of your concerns is saving trees, this should satisfy you:
http://www.techrepublic.com/article...n-acres-of-trees-to-ensure-sustainable-fiber/
While I'm dubious that the source of your concerns is saving trees, this should satisfy you:
http://www.techrepublic.com/article...n-acres-of-trees-to-ensure-sustainable-fiber/
It's more about net benefit... there's a difference if they cleared 100 acres of beneficial trees to use as firewood vs clearing 100 acres to create 20 MW of renewable energy vs any other alternative that may exists.
Oh no, Apple powers its cloud telepathically -- from radiated mental energies of tens of millions of sycophants. Most actually believe that 100% number cited in the article, and some think it may even be higher, approaching 150%, because Cook and the Boyz have circumvented the laws of thermodynamics.
Yes, and France is a thorn in the thigh of all the others (Russia too)
They are building one plant right now and have 58 active ones.
Germany will probably never have another one approved. After spending 4 billion dollars to build it, the "fast breeder" in Kalkar never got the permission to go on line. That was actually a joint project of Germany, Holland and Belgium.
It is until today the defining moment of Germany against nuclear power.
After apr. 40 years of a single farmers fight (Being supported by the public) that last nuclear project was scrapped. Being from Germany I followed the fight and was happy that it never got permission.
Drove by there plenty of times.
Every time somebody talks about nuclear energy in Germany, they don't get past submitting plans.
The designers/builders never have deposits covered and the French cores being transported by train secretively in concrete caskets always cause a major action by environmentalists.
In general nuclear may be efficient, but is not safe.
Statistically one can manipulate that number, except one accident and it all goes out the window.
In Europe the continent would be finished.
I just don't see how one can build nuclear reactors in densely populated areas.
As for the US they'll most likely be closing 13 reactors and are building 4 at the moment
ready by apr. 2020.
Same time as the apple car
Last edited:
It is almost certainly the later. It may be a mix of wind and hydro as well, but the data centers run 24/7 and they are certainly running at full capacity at times when the solar and wind resources that Apple buys energy from or owns outright are not producing. Apple's clean energy resources might be producing (over the course of the year) much more electricity than the data center uses. And all that clean energy does get used by somewhere on the grid. And it does displace natural gas or coal generation. So it isn't much of a stretch to credit the energy to the company that caused the energy to get put on the grid. No one can really say where any specific piece of electricity that flows from a power plant actually "ends up." But it also doesn't really matter. If your clean energy inputs exceed your draw, then you can take credit that you are 100% clean. Of course you do have a set of dirty energy facilities backing you up. But shh. Let's not focus on that.
Because it's not... If you're not convinced, what about spending your next holidays doing some tourism in Fukushima ?
And we still have no durable solutions to handle nuclear waste. For now, we just store it in salt mines. And then ? What happens in centuries or millennia, during wars, revolutions or earth quakes ? The main difference is that with coal we are destroying our earth today, with nuclear we are leaving our great-grandchildren to deal with our mess...
----------
Yeah, sure. Like ignoring ecological issues and building cars as if gas was not getting expensive did wonder to your car industry...
Coal is only cheap because you chose to ignore most of its costs...
In the full report, next to each company they have a little web showing each company connected to several products.
What is the significance of those connections?
IE, it shows The Weather Channel connected to IBM. What does that mean? I'm pretty sure IBM doesn't own TWC. Does IBM power TWC via SoftLayer somehow?
What is the significance of those connections?
IE, it shows The Weather Channel connected to IBM. What does that mean? I'm pretty sure IBM doesn't own TWC. Does IBM power TWC via SoftLayer somehow?
This is tenfold in a country like Germany, yet they seem to manage reasonably well... The quality of life in Germany certainly seems better than in most of the US from what you describe.
Why does greenpeace still exist, aside from contributing to the communist objective of strangling our energy supply? I don't care how companies source their energy. The US is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, but our own government is preventing us from making use of this cheap AND clean energy resource. So sorry if some of them don't want to spend a billion dollars on useless solar panels.
Ya, but the attack on energy is massive. From Obama's goal to make gas costs painful to putting cheap energy out of business. This one single idea of high fossil fuel costs has head devastating impact and change from the dude down the street that delivers pizza to the business that fields 5000 delivery trucks.
I don't care about nor did I mention nuclear energy.
I don't see what your deal is. I agree with almost everything you said. We differ on how huge an impact this current administrations quest against fossil fuels has.
Pigs and lipstick.
It is trite to suggest that Apple uses 100% renewable energy.
Manufacturing an iPhone involves a lot of mining for metals and minerals, this is not coming form clean renewable usage of energy. Even recycling metal involves a lot of energy usage. Shipping iDevices from China around the world is not using clean and renewable energy. Having customers stream content from the cloud instead of storing it on a device causes customers to burn through more energy.
So sure, Apple has done more to protect themselves from Greenpeace criticism, but of course the narrow minded, short-sited environmentalists do not look at the wide scale impact Apple has on the environment, and that involves 25+ million people discarding an old device within weeks of Apple releasing a marginal device update yet Apple makes everyone think it is the second coming of Christ.
Apple could do more for the environment to simply opt for at least a 2 year life cycle on all products, reducing the impact of producing and distributing a new device on a quick turnover and having customer "enjoy" their device for longer periods of time, but then that would eat into company profits and when it comes to ANY corporation and profit, its always "**** the environment!"
Apple using renewable energy in a factory or data center is just lipstick on a pig. Their impact on consumers is huge simply because of their greed and incessant need to grow profit.
It is trite to suggest that Apple uses 100% renewable energy.
Manufacturing an iPhone involves a lot of mining for metals and minerals, this is not coming form clean renewable usage of energy. Even recycling metal involves a lot of energy usage. Shipping iDevices from China around the world is not using clean and renewable energy. Having customers stream content from the cloud instead of storing it on a device causes customers to burn through more energy.
So sure, Apple has done more to protect themselves from Greenpeace criticism, but of course the narrow minded, short-sited environmentalists do not look at the wide scale impact Apple has on the environment, and that involves 25+ million people discarding an old device within weeks of Apple releasing a marginal device update yet Apple makes everyone think it is the second coming of Christ.
Apple could do more for the environment to simply opt for at least a 2 year life cycle on all products, reducing the impact of producing and distributing a new device on a quick turnover and having customer "enjoy" their device for longer periods of time, but then that would eat into company profits and when it comes to ANY corporation and profit, its always "**** the environment!"
Apple using renewable energy in a factory or data center is just lipstick on a pig. Their impact on consumers is huge simply because of their greed and incessant need to grow profit.
Heh... Let's look at the solar panel producing site, plus the place where the solar panel plant gets their resources, and so forth. The path to so-called "clean" energy is quite dirty.
Deere, Alcoa, steel mills, Maytag, Honda etc. You must watch a lot of TV and think Iowa is all tractors and farms all day long right? We not making battleships here or anything, but we do a lot of manufacturing. We don't compare with large coastal manufacturing but we do have large manufacturing going on here.
We have 72 coal plants here in Iowa so we do have those trains rolling in here and I'm still in favor of them. I used to deliver packages to a coal plant a few time a week as a part of a previous job. Even though we have all this terrible coal, Iowa is still beautiful.
Obama or for that matter anybody will NOT be able to make fossil fuel costs go up by design.
The price is dictated by the people who have the oil and coal AND the corporations who explore and have contracts.
The prices will go up depending on demand vs. availability.
We can all assume that if oil runs out (not in my life time) one will do whatever . Use coal, burn wood , go back to more nuclear etc.
There is and has been a worldwide race for raw material and anything producing energy is part of that race.
As always things move very slowly, because humans are involved and nobody likes change.
Just check how long it took the auto industry to adapt to build more fuel efficient cars. They protested and protested and in the end they did it.
There will be inventions we can't see yet, as that field is wide open to make money in.
In that next period coal will not be considered much.
Money will decide what is next.
You seem to be referring to market forces determining production, consumption and cost. That is simply not what we have in most places of our economy today. Gov't pays people not to produce, subsidizes others, regulates competition out of business - including in the energy space whether it's conventional or green.
When Obama backdoors EPA regulations that are (by his own admission) designed to put a large part of energy production (coal) out of business to accommodate the mythical global warming matra, costs will increase dramatically. That is what he has stated. What is what he wants. Sorry. It's his own words. Yes, it's about the money but it is the politically connected green energy con artists who are there for the kill. Think Solyndra. Think Al Gore.
It is his stated plan to get energy prices to SKYROCKET. See it for yourself.
And let's not forget that the FOUNDERS of Green Peace quit the organization because it had gone 100% communist.
Any rating from GP is a rating from a communist organization that wants to destroy freedom and capitalism.
Freedom and capitalism- the two are dynamically linked. Remove capitalism and you loose your freedom.
Has anyone built a nuclear power station without government subsidy?
----------
Just check how long it took European washing machine manufacturers to create better washing machines. All it took was some rating stickers in the shop.
Or for something purely capitalist, how long it took the iPhone to become good.
----------
Just check how long it took European washing machine manufacturers to create better washing machines. All it took was some rating stickers in the shop.
Or for something purely capitalist, how long it took the iPhone to become good.
It annoys you less if 250km away four reactors melting into the ground and leaking the <beep> out into the ocean.
Sure, nuclear power looks easy; from technological point of view also fascinating. And during regular operation relative safe; if everything follows the SOP.
Big concern and often forgotten: what to do with the created waste during operation and what to do with old, depreciated facilities ? That's a waste you don't want to have near to you for quite a while. And shooting to the sun is not a solution. Plus often we see that the power companies try to sneak out of the waste-discussion and dump the cost on the tax payer (see some discussions in the past in Germany, like here http://www.bund.net/themen_und_projekte/atomkraft/atommuell/folgekosten/ )
So it's not clean energy; watching end-to-end
Back to topic: I sure appreciate the efforts from
and hope they roll that out downstream their supply chain much further. A nice role model.
Last edited:
Just another thing for Apple users (and shareholders) to be smug about. And I mean that sincerely. We really deserve to brag about something like this. It's one of the most important issues facing mankind. It's a shame that other companies can't say the same. For all the things Apple does to irritate us from time to time, it's stuff like this that truly makes it a pleasure to be their customer. I cannot wait for other companies to join Apple at the top of this list.
???
This is what is happening in all the world. Oil is almost 4 times more expensive in Europe, by design. You just have to make 80% of the price of oil taxes, and I can assure it makes its costs go up by design. Just like what is done with tobacco or alcohol.
"here is and has been a worldwide race for raw material and anything producing energy is part of that race."
You can also win the race by doing a lot more with the same amount of energy...
For instance, Intel is now on the business of producing the most power efficient CPU, not the fastests. That's because its main clients are datacenters and energy costs are huge there.
"As always things move very slowly, because humans are involved and nobody likes change."
Yes, that's why you induce changes by moving prices up or down.
For instance, double the price of electricity and people will invest quickly in low energy lights.
"Just check how long it took the auto industry to adapt to build more fuel efficient cars. They protested and protested and in the end they did it."
They did not did it, they mostly went bankrupt because they refused to adapt. Look at what is left of cities like Detroit. The car industry has moved to Asia, it still exists in Europe but it has great difficulties in the US.
Why ? Because in these countries the governments made gas expensive. So the people demanded cars that were more energy efficient. And the industry had to adapt sooner to that consumer demand.
Due to very low oil prices, the US car industry became lazy. First, they lost exports since noone outside of the US wanted oil guzzlers. And now, with the crisis, people prefer cheaper can that are energy efficient.
"There will be inventions we can't see yet, as that field is wide open to make money in."
There are already inventions. When I was a kid, it was common to have cars that would burn 15l per 100km. Now, we have electric cars and cars able to go 100km with 5l...
----------
You really need to look into what communism really is... To read you, it sounds like some Beast from Hell or something...
Besides, you do live in a communist country since most of its debt is now owned by China, soon to be the #1 economy. I least if we believe them when they say they're "communist"...
As for freedom or not, this has nothing to do with economic liberalism or communism. It has to do with democracy. "Communist" countries like Denmark or Finland are very democratic and value freedom a lot for instance.