Apple Enters Agreement With World's Largest Wind Turbine Maker for Clean Energy Projects

[mw360]

Problem is that Apple's data centers are actually using non-green energy. They connect to the grid like everyone else. A data center could not run on wind and solar energy only, just not possible. The solar is sold to the electric company. Saying their centers run on green energy is quite the lie.

If Apple consumes 1GW of energy from the grid, and pays somebody to supply 1GW of green energy into the grid, or even better, pushes that energy into the grid themselves, then what's the problem? I don't see any lie there. Why does it matter where specific electrons go?

 

[manu chao]

If Apple consumes 1GW of energy from the grid, and pays somebody to supply 1GW of green energy into the grid, or even better, pushes that energy into the grid themselves, then what's the problem? I don't see any lie there. Why does it matter where specific electrons go?

The electrons don't matter. What matters is whether that 1 GWh of green power would have gone to the grid anyway, ie, even without Apple paying for it. In a number of jurisdictions, green energy offered by a producer has to be bought by the grid operator at a predetermined price (could be fixed or variable based on a formula). In all other jurisdictions, if the green power producer can offer its electricity at or below the current spot price, the grid operator will naturally also buy it regardless of what Apple is doing.

In the first case, unless Apple is paying even more than the predetermined price (and unless the total green energy demand from consumers like Apple doesn't exceed what green energy producers are already producing, the latter based on how much green energy production the predetermined price is generating), what Apple is doing has zero effect except for a publicity halo effect.

In the second case, things are more complicated. Again if green energy producers can generate enough green energy at market prices to cover all demands from customers like Apple, what Apple does has no effect on green energy production. Most likely, as the average market price will be noticeably lower than the predetermined price, green energy production will be significantly lower than in the first case, and thus demand by customers like Apple can lead to new green energy generating capacity being installed and fed into the grid. Moreover, at all likelihood, because the spot price for electricity can fluctuate widely even hour-by-hour, there will be difference whether Apple just purchases X TWh of green energy per year or X TWh of green energy per day (or even per hour). If Apple does any of the latter, this can lead to green power being purchased by the grid operator at times when other sources of electricity are cheaper in order to fulfil Apple's potential demands of an hour-by-hour green energy supply and thus lead to green energy production that otherwise wouldn't occur.

 

[Cineplex]

If Apple consumes 1GW of energy from the grid, and pays somebody to supply 1GW of green energy into the grid, or even better, pushes that energy into the grid themselves, then what's the problem? I don't see any lie there. Why does it matter where specific electrons go?

Apple says it's data centers are powered by 99% or whatever green energy. That is not the truth. Those electrons are not green and are coming from coal and oil. There really isn't any proof that the 1gw of power is even really offset. It is just numbers on a page. When Apple's demand peaks in that area the coal plant ramps up production, it doesn't activate a windmill in green land. Apple's pretty solar field next door is selling electricity. That division of Apple is a small energy company selling green energy to the other providers on the grid. The electricity generated probably doesn't come close to what they are using. Who knows what percentage is being used and not sent to the ground as waste? Unless you have solar panels directly wired to your building and no grid connection....you do not use green energy. It is a marketing ploy designed to make people feel good about iPhones. The truth, coal is running Apple. You can rationalize it any way you want...doesn't change where the electrons powering iCloud come from. Your iCloud account is polluting and destroying the planet, it is not green. If people weren't so in love with Apple and actually looked at the situation rationally....they would come to the same conclusion. If this was Walmart making the same claim, I doubt you'd be so defensive.

 

[SBlue1]

First, don't throw it away, obviously. Macs have the highest resale value of any brand and last a very long time. The best way to be environmentally friendly is to reuse something for longer. Part of that is their construction techniques.

Looks like you didn't read the reviews saying the SSD is soldered to the mother board. So once the SSD fails the mother board is useless. The complete mother board! Who is gonna buy this?

Second, SO FEW people have ever upgraded anything anywhere on any computer. I would be shocked if the number was even 10%. Apple can make a smaller, more durable device with less materials, costing less resources to ship and manufacture, it's definitely a tradeoff, but you can see why that tradeoff probably results in a net environmental benefit.

Apple used to make computers that could grow with your over time. My white MacBook got a new battery when the old one died. I put in new RAM chips. It was a click. I replaced the hard drive since is was so easy. Apple users did this on a regular basis. So now if your user case outgrows your MacBook you need a new one. There is no way to upgrade! Not even a freaking SD slot to put in a dirt cheap SD drive in!