Apple Announces 10 New 'Power for Impact' Projects to Tackle Climate Change

[dysamoria]

This really means nothing unless every energy supplier specifically details where and how every bit of the energy is generated. The term “renewable” is a corporate weasel word, because there are countless businesses out there using the word “renewable” for combustion (such as waste coal and incinerators, the latter competing with recyclers for plastics to burn!).

 

[burgman]

Really? Did you get that information from Tic Tok or was it Instagram? Or was it a definitive source of a think tank funded by the fossil fuel industry? I'm curious when you think the end of a solar panels lifecycle is. Or what you think is going to be so toxic about them at that point.

Wind turbines, solar, EV all get the same misinformed responses. The strides made in a short time in recycling and reuse is amazing. They ignore that hydrocarbons are the ultimate use once and into the landfill. The landfill being atmosphere, rivers, lakes, lungs.

Solar panels are a pain to recycle. These companies are trying to fix that.

www.technologyreview.com

 

[Arsenikdote]

Great. Solar panels actually cause more toxic pollution at the end of their lifecycle.

Since the primary ingredients are glass, silicon, and metal....it seems strange they cause MORE TOXIC POLLUTION at the end of their lifecycles doesn't it? Can you cite a source that has measured the amount of toxic pollution created compared to the same amount of other energy sources over a 30-40 year timespan and how they differ?

100%

Solar panels are a looming waste disaster!

Solar panels are starting to die. What will we do with the megatons of toxic trash?

Most solar manufacturers claim their panels will last for about 25 years. That means the solar e-waste glut is coming.

grist.org

I think if you took some time to understand the situation you would not cite that article. It is more "click-bait" in how it uses words to describe the current scenario. It uses words like "toxic trash" and "ewaste" but then in the same article talks about how if the panels are not recycles then we will loose valuable resources. As mentioned above, the panels mainly consist of glass, silicon, and metal. Just like anything man-made that isn't directly bio-degradable, we have to recycle it or it goes into a landfill. Saying the sky is falling because solar panels are going to need to be recycled is not helpful. Brining attention to a new area that we have to put infrastructure in place to be able to properly handle is good.

From our own US gov. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/solar-energy-and-the-environment.php

That is about solar panel production not about solar panel recycling. Also, it appears to be referencing old information before solar panel production scaled up, but I can't say for certain. For sure it is not talking about recycling or landfills though.

 

[Naraxus]

Climate change is a complete farce but leave it to Woke Apple to get on its soapbox

 

[justperry]

How much extra CO2 will be ejected into the air moving from now until zero, just saying, there will be billions of tons added to our air before we even go down, there will be a huge spike, and it will take years to even go back to where we are now.
All those solar panels, electric cars, windmills are not green to built...?

Mind you, I am/was the first to admit we do have problems, I already told others 30 years ago we are going to have problems, I think we might be already too late or close to.. too late.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Solar panels have a life span of 25 years. Then they go right into the landfills.

1 million kWh of electricity requires 2.8 acres of land. Electricity consumption in the United States was about 3.8 trillion kilowatthours (kWh) in 2020. So for just the U.S. to get all of its electricity from solar panels, it would take 10,640,000 acres of land covered in solar panels.

Now imagine how much garbage is produced by replacing 420,000 acres of solar panels each and every year.

Landfills are unfortunate, but the one overriding concern is greenhouse gases. Everything else is trivial by comparison. Even beyond that, landfills stop being a concern with recycling. An additional advantage to recycling is, it greatly reduces the amount of energy needed to make the next set of solar panels.

I suspect one of the most important industries in the next 50 years or so will be mining landfills for recyclable material. Thank you 20th Century.

 

[scotty321]

Climate change…. ??

 

[BlakeSchneider]

Since the primary ingredients are glass, silicon, and metal....it seems strange they cause MORE TOXIC POLLUTION at the end of their lifecycles doesn't it? Can you cite a source that has measured the amount of toxic pollution created compared to the same amount of other energy sources over a 30-40 year timespan and how they differ?

From Wired, Institute for Energy Research and a couple articles from Forbes.

 

[citysnaps]

Enjoying reading all the whines from the experts here about Apple not doing enough with the clean energy projects they've been spending $$$$$$$$$$$ on over many years, but always unwilling to state what the "proper" amount is. Never disappoints.

 

[TheLastUserName]

Landfills are unfortunate, but the one overriding concern is greenhouse gases. Everything else is trivial by comparison. Even beyond that, landfills stop being a concern with recycling. An additional advantage to recycling is, it greatly reduces the amount of energy needed to make the next set of solar panels.

I suspect one of the most important industries in the next 50 years or so will be mining landfills for recyclable material. Thank you 20th Century.

Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. “Approximately 90% of most PV modules are made up of glass,” notes San Jose State environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. “However, this glass often cannot be recycled as float glass due to impurities. Common problematic impurities in glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony.”

Researchers with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) undertook a study for U.S. solar-owning utilities to plan for end-of-life and concluded that solar panel “disposal in “regular landfills [is] not recommended in case modules break and toxic materials leach into the soil” and so “disposal is potentially a major issue.”

California is in the process of determining how to divert solar panels from landfills, which is where they currently go, at the end of their life.

California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), which is implementing the new regulations, held a meeting last August with solar and waste industry representatives to discuss how to deal with the issue of solar waste. At the meeting, the representatives from industry and DTSC all acknowledged how difficult it would be to test to determine whether a solar panel being removed would be classified as hazardous waste or not.

If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?

Environmental scientists and solar industry leaders are raising the red flag about used solar panels, which contain toxic heavy metals and are considered hazardous waste. With recycling expensive, most solar panels end up in landfills. Will they be exported to poor nations?

www.forbes.com

 

[iReality85]

From Wired, Institute for Energy Research and a couple articles from Forbes.

The problem with all those articles (which I just looked through) is that they give low-level discussion of the quantities of toxic materials involved.

They also presume as if SPs will stay the same. One article talks about the ramifications of SP landfills by 2035. Well in 15 years, I would think most toxic materials will be eliminated, recycling will be established, and SPs themselves will be more efficient. Sure, we’ll have to deal with the “toxic” SPs that are currently aging, but future ones shouldn’t pose issues.

This article from this year breaks down the trace toxic materials involved, quantifies them, and discusses how they’re being phased out:

Are solar panels really full of toxic materials like cadmium and lead?

As the solar market continues to expand, concerns have emerged about trace toxic materials used in panels, like lead and camium. Is this really a problem?

www.freeingenergy.com

 

[Jax44]

you cant stop climate change. you are not god

God drives a 1998 Chevy?

 

[rochford]

here is a thing - the 15 biggest container ships produce as much pollution as ALL (approx 750million!) cars in the world. As long as people buy stuff that is produced thousands of miles away then anything we do to reduce pollution will be literally a drop in the ocean. The same with plastics etc - look at where all the plastics in the ocean come from and you will see it is sourced though basically 10 big rivers in places - Africa and the Far East - where no-one cares about the damage they are doing.
The West is going to put in restrictions which affect peoples lives in all sorts of ways but until we stop buying goods manufactured abroad and start producing them at home, in whatever country you live in of course, local means local worldwide, and stop sending our trash to be 'recycled' in places like Africa (where recycling seems to mean dump it somewhere once you have taken the precious metals back out to sell to Apple etc) then nothing will change.

Apparently a misquoted statement originally about sulfer pollution, but was dubious at the time, refer this:

No, 15 Large Ships Do Not Pollute More Than All the Cars in the World

In 2009, Dr. James Corbett, a professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware, came up with what he describes as a thought experiment. He compared the sulfur dioxide produced by the largest container ship burning the dirtiest bunker … Continue reading →

www.oldsaltblog.com

From the article “
a quote from Forbes in 2019:

Pound for pound, water transport is by far the most environmentally friendly way to move goods. But with the maritime industry’s vast scale, its environmental footprint remains substantial. To reduce shipping’s impact, new International Maritime Organisation regulations are requiring ocean-going ships to shift to cleaner fuels—and the industry has committed to further improvements by 2030 and 2050.“

 

[Shirasaki]

Wow, please stop with the depressing fake drama.

What is fake drama? We literally need to see Sydney being submerged under water to believe things are going out of control? It’s depressing because we have millions of people denying climate change and taking every single possible action to break efforts on saving planets. For what? Who knows. COVID didn’t teach human anything, but it lets us see how we behave under global crisis, and it’s not good enough. I would be more optimistic if summer is even remotely bearable in Australia YOY. But no. 2021’s summer is going to be hotter and more painful to live through than that of 2020, 2019 and 2018.

If you even bother reading part of the page linked by another forum member you’d know why I’m so pessimistic towards this. The worst part is, even IF opera house is under water, people would STILL deny climate change.

 

[triton100]

In terms of absolute emissions, China is indeed the biggest polluter. But that is, frankly, a naive way of measuring things. On a per-capita basis, China is actually one of the smallest polluters. On a per-capita adjusted basis, the US (and Saudi Arabia) are the world's biggest polluters. For surely every person has an equal responsibility when it comes to pollution, no?

And China's supposed pollution isn't even taking into account that most of its pollution occurs in the production of goods the rest of the world wants. I.e. if a Chinese factory didn't do the pollution, the pollution would simply occur somewhere else. Western countries (and citizens) are good at pointing the finger when, indirectly, they're the root cause of much of the pollution that occurs in these developing countries.

That literally has nothing to do with anything. The point I made still stands. The fact that you are implying that China should be left to do as they wish is ironically the actual real naive statement.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Really? Did you get that information from Tic Tok or was it Instagram? Or was it a definitive source of a think tank funded by the fossil fuel industry? I'm curious when you think the end of a solar panels lifecycle is. Or what you think is going to be so toxic about them at that point.

Well, he is sort of correct, but not really. Yes, there is toxic waste in solar panels, but it is a minor problem compared to coal, nuclear, or the looming climate Armageddon. The problem is not yet solved, but it's not top of priority by a long shot. This from The Guardian, hardly your Tik Tok or fossil fuel think tank:

The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: The powerful few who benefit from the fossil fuel status quo are exerting their influence

www.theguardian.com

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Great. Solar panels actually cause more toxic pollution at the end of their lifecycle.

Well, you are sort of correct, but not really. Yes, there is toxic waste in solar panels, but it is a minor problem compared to coal, nuclear, or the looming climate Armageddon. The problem is not yet solved, but it's not top of priority by a long shot.

The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: The powerful few who benefit from the fossil fuel status quo are exerting their influence

www.theguardian.com

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

They do not.

Please do actually do some research before blindly reacting to something you doubt. You give us lefties a bad name. Yes, there are toxic chemicals in solar panels, but...

The latest weak attacks on EVs and solar panels | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: The powerful few who benefit from the fossil fuel status quo are exerting their influence

www.theguardian.com

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

here is a thing - the 15 biggest container ships produce as much pollution as ALL (approx 750million!) cars in the world. As long as people buy stuff that is produced thousands of miles away then anything we do to reduce pollution will be literally a drop in the ocean. The same with plastics etc - look at where all the plastics in the ocean come from and you will see it is sourced though basically 10 big rivers in places - Africa and the Far East - where no-one cares about the damage they are doing.
The West is going to put in restrictions which affect peoples lives in all sorts of ways but until we stop buying goods manufactured abroad and start producing them at home, in whatever country you live in of course, local means local worldwide, and stop sending our trash to be 'recycled' in places like Africa (where recycling seems to mean dump it somewhere once you have taken the precious metals back out to sell to Apple etc) then nothing will change.

The first electric cargo ships are already in use in Norway for short runs. It's all in progress, and it needs to continue in every which way, as fast as possible. There are $billions being investing in battery tech and research, and each passing year brings incremental improvements. Same with solar and other renewables. It's a bit like Moores Law so far, and if they keep on improving, then with each passing year, electric becomes more and more cost/weight/range effective, and every industry will naturally switch, simply, if nothing else, because it will save them money. Many industries already have, and more and more are each year.

 

[shigzeo]

Clearing farmland and forests to put up power stations, solar or otherwise, for ever-growing energy needs all to serve yours and others's growing digital empire that requires more energy is not in any sense environmentally friendly. I bicycle with my daughter around the various dikes here in Tokyo. Farmland and wetland are being replaced by steel and graphite at such a pace that they are becoming heat islands.

Want to help the environment, Apple? Switch off your batteries, stop expanding into new markets. This is hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

[Arsenikdote]

From Wired, Institute for Energy Research and a couple articles from Forbes.

Thanks for the articles.....couple things....

Wired does talk about the lead being toxic. It is true but it is a fraction of the materials that make up the solar panels. Therefore they are predominantly recyclable and not toxic. Is your point that some part of the panel is not able to be recycled? Are we ignoring the 95% that is? Does 95% count for something?

They also talk about "what if" on the recycling front, but again, that is true for ANYTHING. It doesn't make something that is helpful and 95% recyclable bad just because it might not get recycled or some of it is toxic if not handled properly. That is really throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The Institute for Energy Research is funded and run by lobbyists for large corporations. Pretty much will say whatever the money is telling them to say. This is not me being a conspiracy theorist, this is just basic research as in....

Institute for Energy Research - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The last two articles (by the same writer) are on the production of the panels, not on the recycling of the panels. I don't feel like going down the production rabbit hole with you. If we want to start a new thread, great! But just know that dong production of goods and services in third world countries and using abhorrent processes are not the fault of solar panels, nor does it stop anyone from buying and using the thousands of other items that are done in the same way. Also, this article and other articles lumps solar panels AND battery production into the same conversation.

 

[ButterF1ngers]

you cant stop climate change. you are not god

They aren’t claiming they can singlehandedly, just somewhat doing their part.

 

[Flight Plan]

God drives a 1998 Chevy?

And Jesus helps my friends jumpstart their pickup trucks! Truth!

What is fake drama? We literally need to see Sydney being submerged under water to believe things are going out of control?

If any property at or near sea level were in danger of being submerged, then we would not have rich Hollywood and Washington types buying and building mansions AT SEA LEVEL.

If you want to use your brain, you might start asking what do they know that you don't?

If you even bother reading part of the page linked by another forum member you’d know why I’m so pessimistic towards this. The worst part is, even IF opera house is under water, people would STILL deny climate change.

Oh puh-lease, the drama, the drama!

You're obviously not ready for a calm conversation about the things we CAN do without calling companies evil at every turn and without putting Americans into the poorhouse. I've said that I'm on board with environmental issues, but just because I don't agree with you on all of your worst horrors, you're not willing to even listen to valid concerns.

And worst of all, you've passed up the opportunity to actually CONNECT with somebody on this important issue.

 

[Shirasaki]

And Jesus helps my friends jumpstart their pickup trucks! Truth!

If any property at or near sea level were in danger of being submerged, then we would not have rich Hollywood and Washington types buying and building mansions AT SEA LEVEL.

If you want to use your brain, you might start asking what do they know that you don't?

Oh puh-lease, the drama, the drama!

You're obviously not ready for a calm conversation about the things we CAN do without calling companies evil at every turn and without putting Americans into the poorhouse. I've said that I'm on board with environmental issues, but just because I don't agree with you on all of your worst horrors, you're not willing to even listen to valid concerns.

And worst of all, you've passed up the opportunity to actually CONNECT with somebody on this important issue.

Sure. I have no idea why those riches keep building expensive houses in sea level, but I don’t give a $#^&!*( what they are thinking. They are still human after all.

Valid concerns? All of this here https://cache-baba.medium.com/the-future-is-grim-27ca6f7ab07b
are valid concerns. If anything, COVID already tell me what should believe. All megacorps are there to blame because their impact is huge.

I never was the optimistic kind and probably will never be. However, I do believe you have no desire to continue this meaningless arguing process. So I will do my favor and stop the conversation here.

 

[kriebe]

Anyone pushing for cleaner energy and not talking about nuclear does not actually care about clean energy.