For sure, 100% renewables for the grid as a whole is a long way off. But with green power, it doesn't matter when you generate the power and when you use it. Putting electricity into the grid isn't un-green. Electricity grids are closed systems, and by-and-large anything put in gets used by somebody. Other generators will then need to put less into the system than they otherwise would have.
The round-trip efficiency of batteries is around 80%, which would be less efficient than having your neighbours use your solar power. Batteries themselves are also not very green.
[doublepost=1523783090][/doublepost]
As said several times, The Fast Company does not represent Apple. They are not Apple. So anything that could be construed as misleading, is completely irrelevant to Apple's claims (and not that there's much there for you to go on anway - a wrong word in a title, woopdidoo. In context of the whole article it is obvious that this is a mistake to any reasonable person). Reference Apple's report only if you want to pursue false claims on energy as a whole. As I've already pointed out in painstakingly simple terms, there is no way you could interpret Apple's story as being about anything but electricity.
Here goes, an analysis of the term 'energy' in the Fast Company article, with frequency and context for where the meaning isn't clear without it. The only usage in the entire article that could be construed to apply to energy other than electricity is in the title.
1 energy-wonk jargon
1 sun's energy
1 solar energy
8 green energy
4 green-energy
10 clean energy
30 renewable energy
3 NV Energy
15 energy projects
" to build new solar or wind farms that pump new green power onto the public grid. Jackson told me Apple especially likes to do this in markets where the majority of the existing energy comes from ecologically unfriendly sources like coal or oil. “It’s an approach that’s really important because you’re growing the clean energy market around you,” she says."
"reducing their energy costs"
"energy industry"
"After looking to local energy providers for renewable sources"
"made it possible for big power consumers to buy energy directly from a third-party renewable energy provider"
"increase energy prices for all power customers"
"While Apple is playing a leading role in building out green-energy infrastructure, in the end it’s a maker of computing hardware, software, and services, not an energy company."
"Now that renewable energies are more mainstream and the cost of the energy is far lower"
"green-energy companies are willing to take on greater roles and risk in building new energy projects"
"gives Apple low and predictable energy rates for years into the future"
"And it’s only going to need more of that energy. Apple’s services business is growing quickly, and so will the number and size of its data centers."
"It’s more complicated than that, because of the nature of today’s energy markets"
"It turns out RECs (like carbon credits) can be sold independent of the energy itself"
"floating solar farm that will generate more energy than the company uses for Apple manufacturing"
"keeping its RECs closely associated with actual energy"
"more dependent on internet services than Apple’s, they buy far more energy than Apple does"
"Institute for Energy and the Environment"
"Foxconn, which uses more energy than any other Apple supplier"
"prepare for a time when coal and oil are no longer tolerable (or even available) energy sources"
"optimistic about energy’s renewable future"
"I don’t see anything that’s going to stop the trajectory toward lower-carbon energy worldwide"
I'm completely bored of this conversation. I have nothing else to add.
