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 Doubling Size of Fuel Cell Facility at North Carolina Data Center
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Methane is good, hydrogen is the holy grail for powering fuel cells. I saw a hydrogen fuel cell Honda on the freeway while traveling for Thanksgiving.
Cold fusion is real. My wife has known the secret for some time now...(drum roll).
Cold fusion is real. My wife has known the secret for some time now...(drum roll).
a lot of renewable energy is just silly and results in negative net energy (more energy consumed in production than energy gained)...not to mention extra real-estate used for low-efficiency solar panels, windmills, etc.
So everything should run on positive net energy sources or energy sources that output the least amount of entropy.
Hippies need to realize that there's no free lunch here. Entropy is always increasing, no matter what you do. These green initiatives often increase entropy more than coal-burning.
Am I the only one that thinks those thinks look out of place outdoors like that ?
No roof ? What if it rains ?
No roof ? What if it rains ?
And yet there are homes and buildings being built that are energy regenerative, and their building cost is on average only about 2% higher than a regular home. This isn't the 1970's, solar cells are becoming more efficient, there are production cars that run on biodeisel, hydrogen fuel cells are becoming cheaper to construct. It's not perfect yet, but it's getting a lot better.
People need to realize that fossil fuels are finite, even stuff like shale, coal, etc, are all going to run out. So developing renewable fuels is the best idea to do now, not when we run out of fossil fuels.
It's not about negative net within the conversion process only. The fact of the matter is, the sun shines, the wind blows, biomass decomposes, might as well harness this natural energy to cover a portion of load, otherwise it's sitting there doing nothing.
I agree; but when those devices which are manufactured to capture this energy are built at companies in countries with factories that puke pollutants unchecked and when the energy used to source the raw materials, manufature and transport those devices is far higher than then energy captured over the life of the device you have to question that logic a bit.
Yes I get your point, even after all that, you are still capturing SOME energy that would have otherwise been wasted and you are still OFFSETTING some energy that you have otherwised been sourced from some fossil fuel, but still at the end of the day, often the green devices are dirtier than just burning fossil fuels.
Factory pollutants are not exclusive to renewable equipment. They're endemic to any kind of manufacturing. The alternative to renewables, building a giant peaker plant, will have the same issues, plus you get additional pollutants during the combustion process.
Do you have a source that quantifies the energy for materials/transport > energy produced?
Of course they are not unique, but if they aren't producing the renewable parts, then, you aren't sourcing the materials and running the plants for that purpose, trucks aren't on the roads mining and moving the parts, container and bulk ships aren't sailing across the ocean to transport them, oil isn't being extracted to fuel them, etc.. Sure the plants would still be used and the vessels still be used and the oil of course still be used for other purposes, but those other purposes would also exist so the pullution from the creation of the renewable devices is in addition.
As for a source, I did a college paper on it a while ago, if I can pull out my sources I will be happy to post them; I recall several government and NGO sites having more than a few statistics about it. My paper focused on the micro side of energy savings and pollutants, ie home wind energy and CFL/LED lights, but the macro would apply.
I am not against renewables, but it would make far more sense to produce them with in an as green a method as possible. I think people sometimes fool themselves when they think they are saving the enviroment by using a renewable energy source without really knowing the full picture.
Just to put that into perspective: That comes from someone who hasn't understood, that all our fossil fuels have been heavily processed by pressure for centuries.
There are no positive net energy sources (recheck you facts - or educate yourself about the industries trying to simulate this effect by applying pressure, heat and hydrogen to get "fuel" from organic waste).
Posted by some hippie in Germany, whose household and business, consuming 10MW per year, runs exclusively on renewable energy (if I'm to trust my suppliers). Is there any service like that in the US?
If not I should consider opening up one. I never understood why there are no giant solar farms in Silicon Valley. Really, landspace is a non issue for the US...
Those arent fuel cells, that's the new Mac Pro design
Chuckle, chuckle
It seems there's nothing APPLE or anyone else can do, to make those guys 'happy'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sransari
a lot of renewable energy is just silly and results in negative net energy (more energy consumed in production than energy gained)...
----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc11
when the energy used to source the raw materials, manufature and transport those devices is far higher than then energy captured over the life of the device you have to question that logic a bit.
but still at the end of the day, often the green devices are dirtier than just burning fossil fuels.
Ethanol. Every gallon of ethanol fuel pumped into your car has a hidden $2.21 hidden subsidy supporting its creation and delivery being covered by taxpayers (or their grandchildren).
Originally Posted by sransari
a lot of renewable energy is just silly and results in negative net energy (more energy consumed in production than energy gained)...
----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc11
when the energy used to source the raw materials, manufature and transport those devices is far higher than then energy captured over the life of the device you have to question that logic a bit.
but still at the end of the day, often the green devices are dirtier than just burning fossil fuels.
Ethanol. Every gallon of ethanol fuel pumped into your car has a hidden $2.21 hidden subsidy supporting its creation and delivery being covered by taxpayers (or their grandchildren).
I'm just saying you're gonna be sourcing the materials and manufacturing and transporting equipment anyway no matter the type of generation - renewable or not. But switching to renewables, you'll be able to eliminate a percentage of non-renewable penetration. By taking non-renewable gen offline, you also eliminate the sourcing of fuels by not having to mine or frack. During the actual energy conversion cycle for most renewables, you also eliminate emissions from combustion because sources like solar and wind don't burn fuel to create electricity. With renewables you're also able to add distributed generation to existing infrastructure, which ups reliability and lowers grid operational costs.
That would be cool if you can find them. Or even a short summary would be helpful
He was talking about devices. Not fuels, and he was saying that they took more energy to make and deliver than they produced over the lifetime of the device. Two different things.
Just imagine a macbook powered off of a smaller version of these with endless power. *cheers to the future*
![54.gif]()
Yes, but it's a lot easier to say "you're building some big new thing that is going to require a lot of power, you should also build a way to power it" than it is to tell someone they should provide renewable energy to the hundreds of millions of houses that are scattered around the country. Gotta start somewhere.
They look like the gel battery packs we used in US Army Signal Building UPS Room in the mid 90's.