Biased and wrong. He either completely doesn't understand how green energy works or intentionally attempts to deceive the reader.
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 Now Powered by 100 Percent Renewable Energy Worldwide
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We don't know anything about it, but the promise makes people wet themselves.
Apple is on the power grid in cities with Apple stores, and those use coal-fired electric or nuke electric.
I'd like a truly in-depth report by a third party or impartial investigation group. You'd probably find that either the data is skewed or the accounting is ridiculous.
Title is inaccurate. They offset their use , they do not RUN OFF of renewables.
While much of that is well and good. Biofuels are not clean energy.
Biofuel
- Requires converting massive amounts of wilderness into farmland. Displacing wild species. Since you need to keep producing the fuel. This displacement is permanent.
- Requires massive amounts of fresh water. We already are using far more than can be replaced naturally. The aquifers are already being drained way too quickly. Eventually they will be tapped out. Growing bio-fuels will just exacerbate the process.
- More farmland means use of more fertilizers and pesticides. Which eventually runoff into lakes, rivers and oceans.
- Takes nearly a half gallon of fuel to produce one gallon.
- Still produces greenhouse gases when burned.
Biofuel
- Requires converting massive amounts of wilderness into farmland. Displacing wild species. Since you need to keep producing the fuel. This displacement is permanent.
- Requires massive amounts of fresh water. We already are using far more than can be replaced naturally. The aquifers are already being drained way too quickly. Eventually they will be tapped out. Growing bio-fuels will just exacerbate the process.
- More farmland means use of more fertilizers and pesticides. Which eventually runoff into lakes, rivers and oceans.
- Takes nearly a half gallon of fuel to produce one gallon.
- Still produces greenhouse gases when burned.
Joke obviously, but I am experimenting with running my Apple devices (2 MacBooks, 2 iPhones, iPad, Watch) on solar.
How do you know it's not true?
[doublepost=1523367020][/doublepost]
How do you know it's not true?
No, I'm saying it would be better if Apple said F it, lets not have so many stores that use up so much energy and so many unwanted products that sit on store shelves! Can you imagine what a cleaner world this would be, had Apple not been producing hardwarefor 40 years? All the manufacturing, shipping, remainder of logistics, hardware dumps,..stockpiles of chemicals used to create the products...etc
OMG, can you not see how you are being hoodwinked into thinking that they are green? Lol
Since electricity is fungible, they can achieve the same result by producing enough "green" power to run all the mall stores etc and just feed that power into the general grid. While direct wiring would be more intellectually satisfying, there is no objective difference.
Spot on!
Though many here will start getting the conspiracy shakes at the word "fungible."
...says a person using a plethora of exactly what he criticized others for using.
Apple products are produced about as "greenly" as such things can be: yes there's more impact than giving up high tech, but nobody here is ready to return to the Stone Age; insofar as computers will be used, Apple builds them with minimizing environmental impact, and they help people live minimally impactful lives (if they choose).
Apple products are sold about as "greenly" as such things can be: online sales is encouraged, and retail stores have by far the highest dollars-per-square-foot (to wit product efficiency) sales.
I've been able to mostly give up driving & and using an away-from-home office, precisely because of my Apple devices (telecommute/teleconference nationwide, live on writing apps, partially solar-powered).
Let us know when you go 100% truly "green". If you're serious about it but don't know where to begin, I suggest watching the entire Primitive Technology series on YouTube ... then buying a few cheap acres (see Zillow.com), setting up a self-maintaining tax-paying account (a necessary evil), and then giving away everything else you own to completely abandon technology. You can post of your achievement here as your last high-tech act.
I'll bet the taxing agencies around the world that tack on bunchteen regulatory taxes and fees to electric bills for everybody else are pissed that they aren't getting all that revenue.
This has probably already been answered several times by now, but Apple uses X amount of energy for all its stores and manufacturing buildings, and everything. Then they create the same amount of renewable energy, and pump it back into the grid. So while they aren't necessarily using the exact energy they create, someone else is.
You mean Shill Philler?
I would love to see them running thermal and hydro. If I am not mistaken, those are the cleanest you can get.
That article was outdated. If you're interested in how they actually do it, I can recommend this article: https://www.fastcompany.com/40554151/how-apple-got-to-100-renewable-energy-the-right-way
It's basically a necessary evil. Better than coal, but not clean. I guess it's the best they could get, we're talking big facilities of course.
[doublepost=1523369800][/doublepost]
Never seen houses with solar panels? This is basically that on a large scale. And the large scale makes it incredibly hard, but enough money and commitment can get you there.
That demonstrates Apple doesn’t understand the basic energy conversion problem: it’s not a matter of generation, but distribution.
Given the enormous amount of older buildings they occupy, pumping the grid isn’t the solution but a mere relocation of the problem.
With their enormous wealth they could also buy several times their emission rights - without even noticing - and claim they “solved” it.
Those are the cleanest, but harder to source. Hydro in particular requires a river and place to put up a dam. Permitting to build a new large dam and hyrdro generator would be incredible. Thermal only works in certain areas and I don't know how well it scales outside of a few areas. Apple doesn't want to buy credits from existing renewable resources, they only are counting new projects that they helped get off the ground. So they can't just agree to buy electricity from an existing hydro source.
Apple wanted to scale quickly, and Solar was the best bet for that. I'm sure Apple has also now locked in fixed or predictable electricity prices for the next decade or so from this renewable energy.
Yes, but it always expiremental like operating simple LED lights etc. Nothing that actually replaces the conventional energy and operates a house fully with its water pumps, TVs, PCs, hair dryers, AirConditioners...etc.
The utilities track renewable energy credits. They've been doing this for decades. It is easy to track energy usage because of meters all along the process. Apple simply adds up all the electricity it uses (think electric bills) and then compares the renewable energy going into the system from its various projects (which are all metered by the utility receiving that electricity into the grid). It is complicated and requires a lot of data, but utilities, accountants, and Apple all do complicated stuff involving a lot of data all the time. Likely Apple is close enough to 100% for this to be a justifiable claim.