Apple is part of the cult of climate change, which is almost a religion at this point.
Much of this is virtue signaling.
Much of this is virtue signaling.
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
PV panels can provide sufficient power for houses and the ROI is a few years. We've had 18 PV panels on our roof for four years now, producing 4400 watts at max capacity (2010w as we speak) or 3936 kWh in 2017 for example (of the 4700 kWh we used that year). If you want to go fully off-grid you'll need more panels and a battery like the Tesla PowerWall.
[doublepost=1523371442][/doublepost]
What are you talking about? Apple has always been a religion.
Apple uses a myriad of classical buildings as offices, headquarters and stores in city centers and shopping malls all over the world. Many of these are conventionally heated and still mostly depend on fossil energy. Nobody ever saw Apple repleting gas and oil in the soil where those fuels came from. This makes the claim that they solved the energy transition for 100% outright ridiculous.
The energy puzzle is not a matter of energy generation, but energy distribution.
In that context, Apple has hardly started.
Given their wealth they could also buy x times their own emission rights (without even noticing on their P/L) and then claim they solved the issue.
Last edited:
Now if only I could get my house to 100% renewable energy. Or even 50%. Someday I'd like to output more than I use and sell back to the grid. I think this will be my next big house project, and it's going to be a long one! We moved in 2016. The first phase was to build storage shelving to get organized, installing some HomeKit devices, building a workshop so I could start making things, and reviving the pathetic lawn. Phase 2 was to put in a kitchen downstairs for my wife's daycare and start clearing out paths in the woods at the back of our property. Phase 3 is just beginning where I'm building an office and a daycare craft room and doing landscaping with some retaining walls. I've been wondering what phase 4 will be, and solar panels sounds like a good idea. Not sure where to get started though. I know Tesla has a power wall and those new solar roof tiles. I just have no idea when they're shipping? I also don't know what our HOA has to say about that. Maybe I could start with just a power wall and a few cheaper, but still slimmer panels on the southwest corner of the house—which is also where our electrical box is. Then it's not facing the street and I can hook into it easily. We have all LED lighting, smart thermostat, and an extremely efficient cooling system since the house is still fairly new, so I'm thinking that most days our requirements will be reasonable. Maybe someday down the road we can replace the whole roof with solar tiles once they've worked out the kinks and come down in price.
Where I live it's not really economically attractive to generate more than you need and then sell back to the grid. Price per kWh that you have to pay is higher than what you get when selling. Depends on local prices of course. Any local company that sells PV panels can calculate what works best for you, at least where I live there's plenty of companies who are happy to give advice (as the panels are selling like hot cakes). A Power Wall is a great next step of course.
At our house we generated almost 4000 kWh in 2017 with our 18 PV panels and used 4700 kWh in that same year (little more than most years). The panels are some four years old and I believe we should have our investment back in another 3-4 years. Nowadays I think these times are getting shorter.
Apple knows from the bills that the accountants pay exactly how much energy their shops and offices etc use. Even from GAS there is a calcluation that turns the Cubic feet used into kW of power.
Add all that up and you get and amount of energy used per year in MWh.
Then take all the power that Apple directly or indirectly generates and calcluate the difference. If the latter exceeds the former then they are generating more power from renewable sources than they use.
Those of us who actually generate our own power know that their statement is perfectly reasonable.
It really saddens me that there are so many nay-sayers posting here about things that they clearly don't understand (nowt new there then).
What I do know from my own experience that even a small PV system can have a huge effect on the amount of externally generated power used in the course of a year. My grid use has decreased by around 54% and that includes a good number of charges of my PHEV.
Learn to read.
The world's energy issue is not about generation or clever accounting, but about distribution (as explained with examples where they miss the boat)
Last edited:
This headline may be misleading. Notice that it says "powered by 100 Percent Renewable Energy" rather than "100% powered by Renewable Energy." The current headline could be interpreted as "Powered by energy, including renewable engery and that renewable energy is 100% renewable."
I don't get it. They claim they get their energy 100% renewable, yet you claim the get some of it from fossil fuels. What evidence is their to support that?
From what I understand they get their energy locally from solar or wind farms which they either build themselves, helped building or who they are paying.
https://fastcompany.com/40554151/how-apple-got-to-100-renewable-energy-the-right-way
So, the iMac Pro is "no significant innovation"?
The 2016/2017 MacBook Pro is "no significant innovation"?
[doublepost=1523377750][/doublepost]
They are working (hard) on that end, too.
I might be misunderstanding your comment, but this isn't a conservation problem. Its a clean energy problem. All the clean energy that Apple creates, is less "dirty" energy created by power plants. I'm also unfamiliar with "buying emission rights"?
“All the clean energy that Apple creates, is less "dirty" energy created by power plants.“ => that is right - but only from a local perspective !
Generating more clean energy where there is already an abundance doesn’t solve their dirty footprint in remote locations such as their classical/heritage real estate that remains dependent on fossil fuel.
Which isn’t Apple’s fault - but they can’t repair that either.
So that’s the sad part about their claim. Whatever they do to their best - they can’t say they completed their energy transition at a full 100%. They can say they reached 100% of their clean energy quota - i.e. from an accountancy perspective - but that still ignores the whole distribution issue, meaning that they’re still imperfect (yet).
Buying emission rights is similar: it allows companies to trade carbon emission quota (or imperfection), in order to reach a certain collective target sooner - which in fact is limiting the impact of their dirty footprint by balancing costs and/or time.
It compromises instead of reaching a full-clean energy mandate
That’s similar to what Apple has achieved - if it would tell us the whole story.
Last edited:
So if a company had 5 locations that used 100 watts of energy from fossil fuels and 1 location that used 100 watts of green energy, but produced 700 watts and pumped the extra back into the grid, how's that manipulating numbers? That 500 watts they pumped back in the grid would be replacing someone else's reliance on fossil fuel generated energy, no? That would offset the harm to the environment that they caused, right? Are you arguing that the one location should only produce 100 watts of green energy because that's all it needs?
Perhaps you should read The Birth of the Anthropocene by Jeremy Davies. Or maybe you could just drive up and down the road and notice all the trash strewn about. Obviously, there is a lot we need to do to resolve the poor choices of past generations and those less committed to sustainability today.
[doublepost=1523382783][/doublepost]
*Ahem* https://www.tesla.com/solarroof You should be able to replace your roof with solar for essentially the same price as getting it restored when it comes due for replacement.
Last edited:
They still encourage people to keep buying new stuff every few years... making people upgrade instead of allowing people to swap out ram or the battery. They know most won’t bother to recycle it and will just throw it away. Especially if they think their phone needs replacing due to slowdown thanks to a crap battery
Don't get me wrong, Apple's accomplishment is fantastic, but a 100% claim is marketing material, it's just a statistical paperwork exercise. Their accomplishment is commendable, but let's get real on a few things...
All of Apple's facilities worldwide are going to be connected to their respective local power grids. Not all buildings are going to have solar panels and wind turbines on top, or a fuel-cell station nearby. Apple apparently has calculated that all of their properties consume a total of 626MW currently, and they have brought 626MW of power generation online. Whoo! Whoo! 100%! But, that's just on paper, it's not where the actual power is coming from, physically.
Apple is putting 626MW into the world's electrical grids, but the juice for any single given property is not necessarily physically connected to Apple's power generation systems, and even those that are connected will not be serviced every minute by Apple's "renewables." This is where "offsets" come into play. The majority of power generated around the globe comes from coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, and then other methods.
Many of Apple's facilities are connected to grids where only a small percentage of the power comes from "renewables," if any. So while Apple is injecting 626MW in total to the world's power grids, Store A may be physically using none of that, or maybe 20% of that. Store B might be using 70% "renewable" sources, and Store C might be receiving power from 50% "renewable" sources, physically, at any given moment. That is why this becomes a paperwork exercise, and not a 100% physical reality. This fact does not diminish Apple's accomplishment - their impressive power generation capabilities are, well, impressive.
Okay folks, now it's time to put on your critical thinking caps... What happens at night? What happens when it's a cloudy, rainy day? What if the wind is not blowing? Well, guess what? We don't store electricity. There are not enough batteries in the world to store even a fraction of 1 day's worth of power generation. Electricity generation is an on-demand service (for example, with a hydro plant, if customers demand more power, the plant routes water to another turbine and brings it online). How much power do all those PV panels generate at night? Oh, that's right - zero. What about on a cloudy day? That depends on how cloudy it is - maybe 50% on average? How much electricity do wind turbines generate when the wind is not blowing? Oh yeah, zero again.
When "renewables" are not generating power, then the power has to come from another source, a source that doesn't suffer from disruptions. Those sources are "fossil" fuels. Apple's efforts to cover every building with solar panels and squeak out additional power from wind and methane are great, and encouraging, and I hope they continue. People should just be aware that there are realistic limitations, and solar panels are not going to replace coal anytime soon. As more companies around the globe bring more solar, wind and other technologies online, our reliance on "fossil" fuels should diminish over time, at least during daylight hours.
All of Apple's facilities worldwide are going to be connected to their respective local power grids. Not all buildings are going to have solar panels and wind turbines on top, or a fuel-cell station nearby. Apple apparently has calculated that all of their properties consume a total of 626MW currently, and they have brought 626MW of power generation online. Whoo! Whoo! 100%! But, that's just on paper, it's not where the actual power is coming from, physically.
Apple is putting 626MW into the world's electrical grids, but the juice for any single given property is not necessarily physically connected to Apple's power generation systems, and even those that are connected will not be serviced every minute by Apple's "renewables." This is where "offsets" come into play. The majority of power generated around the globe comes from coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, and then other methods.
Many of Apple's facilities are connected to grids where only a small percentage of the power comes from "renewables," if any. So while Apple is injecting 626MW in total to the world's power grids, Store A may be physically using none of that, or maybe 20% of that. Store B might be using 70% "renewable" sources, and Store C might be receiving power from 50% "renewable" sources, physically, at any given moment. That is why this becomes a paperwork exercise, and not a 100% physical reality. This fact does not diminish Apple's accomplishment - their impressive power generation capabilities are, well, impressive.
Okay folks, now it's time to put on your critical thinking caps... What happens at night? What happens when it's a cloudy, rainy day? What if the wind is not blowing? Well, guess what? We don't store electricity. There are not enough batteries in the world to store even a fraction of 1 day's worth of power generation. Electricity generation is an on-demand service (for example, with a hydro plant, if customers demand more power, the plant routes water to another turbine and brings it online). How much power do all those PV panels generate at night? Oh, that's right - zero. What about on a cloudy day? That depends on how cloudy it is - maybe 50% on average? How much electricity do wind turbines generate when the wind is not blowing? Oh yeah, zero again.
When "renewables" are not generating power, then the power has to come from another source, a source that doesn't suffer from disruptions. Those sources are "fossil" fuels. Apple's efforts to cover every building with solar panels and squeak out additional power from wind and methane are great, and encouraging, and I hope they continue. People should just be aware that there are realistic limitations, and solar panels are not going to replace coal anytime soon. As more companies around the globe bring more solar, wind and other technologies online, our reliance on "fossil" fuels should diminish over time, at least during daylight hours.
Why, so they can go bankrupt? Apple could only do this because they have piles and piles of cash on hand. It would be business suicide for most companies, large or small, to follow this. As an added bonus, it would do absolutely nothing to enhance the environment. The costs in upkeep for solar panels, windmills and other such nonsense will cancel out any perceived benefit. I'm glad Apple can do it, though I don't know why they would do it--it's tilting at windmills (pun intended). If they ever get into financial straits (which they will if they persist in boondoggles like this), this endeavor will likely be one of the first things to go.