Apple Now Powered by 100 Percent Renewable Energy Worldwide

[ohbrilliance]

Ah, it's settled. Zero debate allowed about this issue, you see. If you question it, why you must be like one of those wacky holocaust deniers.

If you don't see the problem with what you are saying, then it is pointless to have a discussion with you.

Nah, not holocaust denial. It is settled. There is overwhelming scientific evidence. The science of the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been settled for over a century. The science of our contribution to increasing carbon in the atmosphere is settled. The science behind that having observable effects on climate is there. What is in doubt is how quickly temperatures will increase and the nature and severity of the resulting effects.

An opinion stating that climate change is just politics is just that, an opinion. It's not based on fact. If you'd like to get into the debate, I'd like you to peruse this page and other related pages, and come back with specific doubts you have to the veracity of the findings, backed up by credible evidence. Get back to me when you have.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[Rojaaemon]

[doublepost=1523405948][/doublepost]

Nah, not holocaust denial. It is settled. There is overwhelming scientific evidence. The science of the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been settled for over a century. The science of our contribution to increasing carbon in the atmosphere is settled. The science behind that having observable effects on climate is there. What is in doubt is how quickly temperatures will increase and the nature and severity of the resulting effects.

An opinion stating that climate change is just politics is just that, an opinion. It's not based on fact. If you'd like to get into the debate, I'd like you to peruse this page and other related pages, and come back with specific doubts you have to the veracity of the findings, backed up by credible evidence. Get back to me when you have.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The "settled science" has so many different models, one can hardly keep up with it. Most, if not all, of them are full of variables which fall into the category of "We can't measure that, and we didn't." So, as with all science, there is much we do not know, and much more "settling" to be done.

 

[acorntoy]

https://www.fastcompany.com/40554151/how-apple-got-to-100-renewable-energy-the-right-way

Interesting to read about the Reno center, I’m quite close, maybe I’ll take a trip to see it I always thought it interesting these companies are keeping temperature sensitive devices in the desert.

 

[ohbrilliance]

[doublepost=1523405948][/doublepost]
The "settled science" has so many different models, one can hardly keep up with it. Most, if not all, of them are full of variables which fall into the category of "We can't measure that, and we didn't." So, as with all science, there is much we do not know, and much more "settling" to be done.

Which is what I said "What is in doubt is how quickly temperatures will increase and the nature and severity of the resulting effects.". That it's happening is not in doubt.

 

[Virinprew]

We want to leave the world better than we found it. Thats why we produce unupgradable, disposable products with planned obsolescence to keep you continually buying products that are being produced through the mass exploitation of finite metals and minerals.

I can agree with the upgradable part. But the exploitation of rare metal is overblown. They do have the recycle program and a lot of materials can be reused. Besides, you can’t make parts out of thin air. Everything always needs something to be produced.

 

[ctdonath]

10 watts/square meter is overly-pessimistic. We get 18 w/square meter averaged year-round.

I wasn't quite clear enough: around 10 w/m^2, something within that order of magnitude - which yours is.

The main problem with the "yay solar" media hype is it ignores the real scale, implying something around 100-1000 w/m^2 and a sense of "no upper limit". Consider the total watts of fossil fuels consumed globally, and then compute how many square kilometers are needed to replace it with solar - still kinda feasible, but requires a huge area (larger than some countries).

I just want to get the "reality check" out there. When daily personal use is measured in lots of kilowatts, ~10 w/m^2 requires a lot of space. Doable, yes, just grasp the reality.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Nah, not holocaust denial. It is settled. There is overwhelming scientific evidence. The science of the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been settled for over a century. The science of our contribution to increasing carbon in the atmosphere is settled. The science behind that having observable effects on climate is there. What is in doubt is how quickly temperatures will increase and the nature and severity of the resulting effects.

An opinion stating that climate change is just politics is just that, an opinion. It's not based on fact. If you'd like to get into the debate, I'd like you to peruse this page and other related pages, and come back with specific doubts you have to the veracity of the findings, backed up by credible evidence. Get back to me when you have.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

There are many, many scientists that question the man made, sky is falling, climate change theory. Ivar Giaever is one. Will Happer is another. Patrick Michaels is yet another. These are academicians; not quacks and hacks. One is a Nobel Prize winner.

Part of the debate, which you gloss over, is the degree to which man made behavior (for lack of a better term) contributes to or impacts warming. A lot? A little? Damaging? Damaging enough to institute redistributive tax policies? Do the models truly represent the future (see those inaccurate predictions from An Inconvenient Truth).

The answers to these questions are not settled and are open to debate. Healthy discussion should be encouraged as opposed to immediately trying to silence those who show skepticism. Skepticism is a hallmark of good science---attempting to silence those who disagree smacks of totalitarianism, which is why I refer to the global warming lunatics as cult members, because it is truly a religion to those people.
[doublepost=1523411612][/doublepost]

Which is what I said "What is in doubt is how quickly temperatures will increase and the nature and severity of the resulting effects.". That it's happening is not in doubt.

There's also that doctored, cooked and fake hockey stick graph thingy that climate lunatics never want to discuss...

 

[lilrush]

I can agree with the upgradable part. But the exploitation of rare metal is overblown. They do have the recycle program and a lot of materials can be reused. Besides, you can’t make parts out of thin air. Everything always needs something to be produced.

Recycle program... how many products really make it back into Apple's hands? Few. I've worked at Apple for years. Most customers either don't know the program exists or just trash the dead products because it's easier than going to Apple.

 

[ohbrilliance]

There are many, many scientists that question the man made, sky is falling, climate change theory. Ivar Giaever is one. Will Happer is another. Patrick Michaels is yet another. These are academicians; not quacks and hacks. One is a Nobel Prize winner.

Part of the debate, which you gloss over, is the degree to which man made behavior (for lack of a better term) contributes to or impacts warming. A lot? A little? Damaging? Damaging enough to institute redistributive tax policies? Do the models truly represent the future (see those inaccurate predictions from An Inconvenient Truth).

The answers to these questions are not settled and are open to debate. Healthy discussion should be encouraged as opposed to immediately trying to silence those who show skepticism. Skepticism is a hallmark of good science---attempting to silence those who disagree smacks of totalitarianism, which is why I refer to the global warming lunatics as cult members, because it is truly a religion to those people.
[doublepost=1523411612][/doublepost]
There's also that doctored, cooked and fake hockey stick graph thingy that climate lunatics never want to discuss...

Two of your scientists are physicists without a background in climate science, both of who have been debunked. The third is a climate scientist who doesn't dispute climate change. His argument is on the severity of it.

What I find interesting is that denialists will quote inaccurate models as a reason against climate change. Sorry, but that doesn't prove anything against climate change. I could well come up with my own graph for you to ridicule. You'd place no credibility on my background or accuracy of the graph to prove that climate change exists, but for some strange reason, I have enough credibility for that graph to disprove that climate change exists.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Two of your scientists are physicists without a background in climate science, both of who have been debunked. The third is a climate scientist who doesn't dispute climate change. His argument is on the severity of it.

What I find interesting is that denialists will quote inaccurate models as a reason against climate change. Sorry, but that doesn't prove anything against climate change. I could well come up with my own graph for you to ridicule. You'd place no credibility on my background or accuracy of the graph to prove that climate change exists, but for some strange reason, I have enough credibility for that graph to disprove that climate change exists.

Note the phrase “denialist,” which is an attempt to compare skeptics to the incredibly ugly holocaust deniers.

Want another prime example of politicizing and this issue and demonizing those that don’t agree with you? There it is right there—-equating climate change skeptics with holocaust deniers. Don’t think for a minute that is an unintentional turn of phrase. It most certainly isn’t.

 

[ohbrilliance]

Note the phrase “denialist,” which is an attempt to compare skeptics to the incredibly ugly holocaust deniers.

Want another prime example of politicizing and this issue and demonizing those that don’t agree with you? There it is right there—-equating climate change skeptics with holocaust deniers. Don’t think for a minute that is an unintentional turn of phrase. It most certainly isn’t.

Huh? The only thing in common here is the term denialist. With the overwhelming scientific evidence, those who disagree with it are by definition denialists. Don't read more into it than there is. I have neither a viewpoint on the comparison with Holocaust deniers or any intention to draw one.

Now, back on topic. Do you have any feedback on the climate.nasa.gov/evidence content?

 

[mikec999]

Wow, it must have been difficult to make this happen at the retail stores.

The truth is, they don’t. There retail stores are hooked up to local utilities who do not provide 100% renewable power as an option. To make this claim, the have to be doing some creative counting. It’s good press but simply not true.

 

[X38]

how do we know its true?

It's not:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/10/apple-caught-fibbing-about-running-on-100-renewable-energy/
[doublepost=1523418784][/doublepost]

Huh? The only thing in common here is the term denialist. With the overwhelming scientific evidence, those who disagree with it are by definition denialists. Don't read more into it than there is. I have neither a viewpoint on the comparison with Holocaust deniers or any intention to draw one.

Now, back on topic. Do you have any feedback on the climate.nasa.gov/evidence content?

Sorry, but you're wrong about that. "Denialists" in the context of climate debate was a term deliberately coopted by proponents of global warming theory to disparage skeptics of their theory by false association with the holocaust denier phenomenon. It doesn't matter whether you deny that historical fact or not, but that is how and why the term came into use.

 

[ohbrilliance]

It's not:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/10/apple-caught-fibbing-about-running-on-100-renewable-energy/
[doublepost=1523418784][/doublepost]

Sorry, but you're wrong about that. "Denialists" in the context of climate debate was a term deliberately coopted by proponents of global warming theory to disparage skeptics of their theory by false association with the holocaust denier phenomenon. It doesn't matter whether you deny that historical fact or not, but that is how and why the term came into use.

Oh dear. Not so, I am afraid. Linking the term denialist with Holocaust denial is its own form of denial. The only connection being made is by those who are unwilling to admit their own (climate change) denialism.

For the love of God, don't quote wattsupwiththat.com. It's pure junk and pure climate change *denialism*.

 

[sunapple]

I wasn't quite clear enough: around 10 w/m^2, something within that order of magnitude - which yours is.

The main problem with the "yay solar" media hype is it ignores the real scale, implying something around 100-1000 w/m^2 and a sense of "no upper limit". Consider the total watts of fossil fuels consumed globally, and then compute how many square kilometers are needed to replace it with solar - still kinda feasible, but requires a huge area (larger than some countries).

I just want to get the "reality check" out there. When daily personal use is measured in lots of kilowatts, ~10 w/m^2 requires a lot of space. Doable, yes, just grasp the reality.

If you want the grasp the full reality, just realize that to find an alternative for fossil fuels, nobody is looking at just one solution but rather a combination. Off shore wind, desert solar, roof solar; whatever fits the case.

Regardless if your numbers are correct, you need solar as well as hydro and wind. For the right case, solar is the best solution and the tech is only getting better and cheaper.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

If you want the grasp the full reality, just realize that to find an alternative for fossil fuels, nobody is looking at just one solution but rather a combination. Off shore wind, desert solar, roof solar; whatever fits the case.

Regardless if your numbers are correct, you need solar as well as hydro and wind. For the right case, solar is the best solution and the tech is only getting better and cheaper.

Add hydro to that and ...

It is standard understanding that multiple sources are required. Including fossil.

For instance Portugal, a country, is serviced by 50% more or less, of clean energy and is looking to be almost 100% in 2040.

The clima is changing. It is no longer a question of scientific measurement. Anyone with 40+ years of age can easily feel that. There is a shift in seasons for instance and the raining days are fewer, albeit probably more intense.

I am glad that a big corp is pushing for cleaner energy. Not only pushing others but themselves.
[doublepost=1523430558][/doublepost]

The truth is, they don’t. There retail stores are hooked up to local utilities who do not provide 100% renewable power as an option. To make this claim, the have to be doing some creative counting. It’s good press but simply not true.

Yes. That is what I think. They are producing has much clean energy has they consume, but do not necessarily consume all the energy that they produce in practice.

It’s an arithmetic conclusion nothing more.

 

[Michael Goff]

The title is extremely ambiguous, grammatically. You could phrase it two ways:


"Apple Now Powered by 100 Percent Renewable Energy Worldwide"

(Ambiguous, lacks punctuation and has capitals for most of the words; WHY? I thought you were ✌️"journalists"✌️?)

Or:

"100 percent of Apple is now powered by renewable energy, worldwide."

The latter seems better to me. Please learn kindergarten English, thanks.

It’s a title of an article, not a sentence. At least if you’re going to correct grammar, try to be right.

 

[sunapple]

The answers to these questions are not settled and are open to debate. Healthy discussion should be encouraged as opposed to immediately trying to silence those who show skepticism. Skepticism is a hallmark of good science---attempting to silence those who disagree smacks of totalitarianism, which is why I refer to the global warming lunatics as cult members, because it is truly a religion to those people.
[doublepost=1523411612][/doublepost]
There's also that doctored, cooked and fake hockey stick graph thingy that climate lunatics never want to discuss...

Yeah, seems like you're open to healthy debate to me. "I'm right and everyone else is a lunatic".

I'm looking at graphs like these, notice the change between, say, 2006 and 2017, and wonder why most sources that would disprove climate change are always so out-of-date. You'd have to really concentrate on a certain time period and certain area of the world to not see the changes that are occurring.

 

[Rojaaemon]

Yeah, seems like you're open to healthy debate to me. "I'm right and everyone else is a lunatic".

I'm looking at graphs like these, notice the change between, say, 2006 and 2017, and wonder why most sources that would disprove climate change are always so out-of-date. You'd have to really concentrate on a certain time period and certain area of the world to not see the changes that are occurring.

Oh, I loved that graph! When the experts at the government are able to reduce a whole year's worth of temperature data for our entire gigantic, dynamic planet to one number and get it down to the hundredth of a degree--that just shows how incredible their scientific powers can be! Thank god they don't have to use slide rules, like their still living parents did in college!

I would also like to point out the excellent global animation, just below your favorite graph, which beautifully animates the world hot spots and their continuous dynamic changes since 1884. Granted they left out the entire continent of Antarctica and its surrounding seas, and the Arctic as well (obviously! Those places are cold and aren't much covered by satellites even now. Duh. Just leave them out!), but OMG they have been able to determine the temperatures of Africa in the late 19th Century. There are hardly any climate stations in Africa now (the one on Mount Kilimanjaro dates from 2007 and provides temperature data, assuming it is still working, for the 400 square mile park and it's surroundings), but I'm told that African civilization is noteworthy for its strong oral traditions, and perhaps using them the experts have unmasked the hidden past there to bring our worldwide temperature data even closer to perfection so that our predictions of the future can motivate us to change our unborn children's lives by changing our lives, today!

 

[Bacillus]

The title is extremely ambiguous, grammatically. You could phrase it two ways:


"Apple Now Powered by 100 Percent Renewable Energy Worldwide"

(Ambiguous, lacks punctuation and has capitals for most of the words; WHY? I thought you were ✌️"journalists"✌️?)

Or:

"100 percent of Apple is now powered by renewable energy, worldwide."

The latter seems better to me. Please learn kindergarten English, thanks.

To rectify the outward lie, which is more concerning, it should read:

“Apple now generating green equivalent of its global energy demand, but fossile footprint remaining”

 

[ohbrilliance]

To rectify the outward lie, which is more concerning, it should read:

“Apple now generating green equivalent of its global energy demand, but fossile footprint remaining”

Electricity is fungible. If you put electricity into the grid generated from renewable sources then the energy you take out of the grid can be considered renewable. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

Fantasic attempt at feigned outrage when you probably don’t even care about renewables.

 

[Bacillus]

Electricity is fungible. If you put electricity into the grid generated from renewable sources then the energy you take out of the grid can be considered renewable. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

Fantasic attempt at feigned outrage when you probably don’t even care about renewables.

Ah. So all the electricity flows into the gas heating in their (european, worldwide) classical 100 years old real estate ?
https://www.google.nl/search?client=safari&hl=en-nl&biw=1024&bih=666&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=rNHNWtvGN8PMwAK_jIrAAQ&q=Apple+classical+stores&oq=Apple+classical+stores&gs_l=mobile-gws-img.3...6768.10495..10679...1....92.973.16..........1..mobile-gws-wiz-img.......0j35i39j0i67j0i24j30i10.9hsl4vkwVC0=

(so why don’t we solve a million worldwide bushfires with a single giant solar farm..?)

 

[ohbrilliance]

Ah. So all the electricity flows into the gas heating in their (european, worldwide) classical 100 years old real estate ?
https://www.google.nl/search?client=safari&hl=en-nl&biw=1024&bih=666&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=rNHNWtvGN8PMwAK_jIrAAQ&q=Apple+classical+stores&oq=Apple+classical+stores&gs_l=mobile-gws-img.3...6768.10495..10679...1....92.973.16..........1..mobile-gws-wiz-img.......0j35i39j0i67j0i24j30i10.9hsl4vkwVC0=

(so why don’t we solve a million worldwide bushfires with a single giant solar farm..?)

Some terms for you:

Power is electricity.
Energy is electricity and/or gas.

What on earth are you rabiting on about bushfires?

 

[Bacillus]

Some terms for you:
Power is electricity.
Energy is electricity and/or gas.
What on earth are you rabiting on about bushfires?

Keep confusing carbon fuel with electricity => so there is no clean energy problem anymore
That’s how appologists are supposed to think

 

[ohbrilliance]

Keep confusing carbon fuel with electricity => there is no clean energy problem anymore
(that’s how appologists must think)

Can you explain your first point? There's no confusion here. Power simply does not mean gas.
I work in the energy sector so have a good understanding of how renewable energy works, and the terminology used, so for the sake of both of us, please don't try spinning this into something it isn't. You're wasting your time.