Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Opposes Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan in United States

TheColtr said:
Here’s my problem. As someone who doesn’t have a lot of money, would this repeal make energy cheaper? I really wish renewable energy was cheap. I’d love to have clean everything, but it’s just too costly for the majority of consumers. Even things like solar panels on roofs, despite paying for themselves eventually, most people don’t have the upfront cost to spare.
Click to expand...

The great thing about solar is that there are government programs that offer low interest financing. You can obtain a loan through some other method and sell some of the solar energy you producd back to the power company to help lower your costs. You can also either outright buy or lease your equipment and sell energy back to help bring down your costs.

There are a ton of creative options to pay for it. Just google it. Here’s one:

https://www.sunrun.com/solar-lease/solar-financing
 
WatchFromAfar said:
And he couldn't do anything about the situation in 8 years? Every other President enjoyed some period of piece; he handed "those quagmires" over to Trump.
Click to expand...
It took Russia 9 years to give up on Afghanistan, and they didn't even install a 'friendly' leader. ... Not to mention Iraq War Part 2 was complete BS that only served to bolster anti-American sentiment and foster the growth of groups like ISIS, and when the 'problem' spreads to different countries... so do your 'military actions'.

TheColtr said:
Not arguing against you but how would it not? Electric plants are subject to government oversight. Here in California PG&E has to go through the state before it can change almost anything. Even the amount of profit they can take.

For the sake of argument say they were able to produce cheaper energy, I don’t think the state would let them just take a bigger profit.
Click to expand...
In an ideal world the state could provide incentive with price measures to gain a share in profits, or reduce taxes provided they continue with producing cleaner and cheaper methods of energy production.


kingtj said:
For a competitive free market to function properly, the "for profit" businesses competing with each other NEED to focus on maximizing their profit margins. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Click to expand...
The thing is the competitive free market only cares about profit.

kingtj said:
What you're talking about is also completely valid ... but the problem is that pollution is an "externality". Nobody really owns the atmosphere or the ocean as a whole. These shared resources need to be there for the benefit of everyone on the planet. Sometimes, that might even include polluting them a bit, if it results in a product that's a net benefit to society.
<snip>
Maybe someday, we'll come up with a universally agreed upon way to be more proactive.... calculating a true cost of whatever pollution a business does and adding that as an expense they pay to cover, so it's properly added into the cost of the end product? It just seems like that's going to be REALLY difficult to do in a fair way that everyone will agree on.
Click to expand...
Calculating externalities is a big issue (See Pigouvian taxes), and determining what is of a net benefit to society sometimes includes unknowns. For example from the start of the industrial revolution, had we known about the true scope of using fossil fuels on a unprecedented rate of consumption there would have been some sort of Pigouvian tax to take care of the ill effects of the use of fossil fuels. It must be done (fairness will always been a point of contention), as a pure capitalist market only concerns themselves with production costs and sales. Anything outside of the production and sales is of no concern... unless the corporation determines that it is profitable to have a conscious.
 
big-ted said:
China is pushing for renewable in a big way, with that incentive Chinese companies will invest and develop better renewable systems, meanwhile without the incentive in the US, US companies won't bother developing and will fall further and further behind and will lose out against competition from China
Click to expand...

This fundamentally is the tragedy of what passes for energy policy in the Trump administration. Whether one "believes" in climate change or not, it will still be the case that renewable energy is one of, if not the top, technology stories of the early 21st century. The shift away from hydrocarbons is happening faster than anyone expected, to the point where it is shocking both the fossil fuel and energy production industries. When those kinds of tectonic forces are at work, you have to make a choice: either lead or follow. While other nations lead, Trump and his cronies are pushing us hard not just to follow, but to stand at the end of the line, facing the wrong way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tzm41
2010mini said:
Doesn’t an increase in renewable energy and more efficient power plants indirectly affect our petrol based dollar?
Click to expand...

No. US is not even in the top 10 of global petrol exporters, and US dollar is certainly not "petrol based".
 
Last edited:
shk718 said:
what are you talking about? The US is the number one or two oil producers in the world.
Click to expand...
Producers? Not even close...actually they were #3 in 2016, but I think that figure includes shale gas. you might be thinking consumption (US is #2 IIRC in that regard)
 
Raid said:
The truth lies in between... as the US dollar is positioned as the exchange currency for oil. See here
Click to expand...

The articles you linked to states at the very top: "The term petrodollar refers to the money received from the sale of oil."

Yhe message I was replying to implied that strength of US dollar is somehow tied to US oil production. It is not, as the value of US dollar is tied to strength of US economy, which is not a petrol economy by any measure.
 
ctyrider said:
The articles you linked to states at the very top: "The term petrodollar refers to the money received from the sale of oil."

Yhe message I was replying to implied that strength of US dollar is somehow tied to US oil production. It is not, as the value of US dollar is tied to strength of US economy, which is not a petrol economy by any measure.
Click to expand...
Read the whole thing.
 
shk718 said:
what are you talking about? The US is the number one or two oil producer in the world.
Click to expand...

Below is a list of the top 10 oil exporting countries as of August 2016, which account for two-thirds of global oil exports:
  • Angola. ...
  • Kuwait. ...
  • Nigeria. ...
  • Canada. ...
  • United Arab Emirates. ...
  • Iraq. ...
  • Russia. ...
  • Saudi Arabia.
 
Raid said:
Corrected my post, the difference between my info and yours is apparently a year.
Click to expand...
the difference isn't a year - we've been the number 1 producer for the past 4 years and we've been in the top three much longer than that. Opec screwed up miserably when they increased production and lowered oil prices. Many US companies went out of business (Fracking) but the ones that survived learned how to produce oil extremely efficiently and pushed us to the top spot. That's why protectionism is not good for America. And, as far as deficits go, we export more oil than we import. Trump is extremely wrong (or purposely lying) about the import/export situation in America. One more point - trade deficits are neither good nor bad for an economy - America's economy is on fire, so, that means the current trade deficit (which doesn't really exist) is good.
 
X38 said:
So how does EPA not requiring Apple to use wind & solar power prevent Apple from using wind & solar power if they want to? It's not like the EPA is proposing a rule change that says anyone is prevented from using wind & solar power. If Tim likes his windmills, Tim can keep his windmills.
Unless there is some implicit corporate welfare gift for using wind & solar power in the current EPA rule that Apple will loose if the rule changes?
Click to expand...

It costs money for Apple to use clean energy, money that Apple has a lot of and has no trouble paying.

Apple wants the competition to also have to spend money, money they don't have, on clean energy.

Apple feels it is having a hard time competing in the free market with others so they want to use the government to add restrictions and regulations to keep the little guys out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huck and toddzrx
ctyrider said:
Below is a list of the top 10 oil exporting countries as of August 2016, which account for two-thirds of global oil exports:
  • Angola. ...
  • Kuwait. ...
  • Nigeria. ...
  • Canada. ...
  • United Arab Emirates. ...
  • Iraq. ...
  • Russia. ...
  • Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about who exports a larger % of the oil they produce - maybe your list is correct - i don't know. but as far as who's producing the most oil - the US is number 1. of the countries on your list only Russia and Saudi Arabia are in our league - the others are a rounding error in terms of production. https://www.investopedia.com/investing/worlds-top-oil-producers/
 
This isn't about protecting the environment, this is about rebates on power.
[doublepost=1523043459][/doublepost]
macduke said:
So a 32% reduction over 25 years is too much? Really? Honestly?? Only evil men would consider profits above the well-being of their offspring and fellow man.
Click to expand...
I think you read that wrong. The final version of the plan wasn't unraveled until 2015. The plan reads: reduce emissions by 2030 to 32% less than allowable levels in 2005. But they are achieving this in 15 years.
 
X38 said:
And no way to individually have their own power routed to them independently of the rest of the building and the local power grid they are located in. It's all just a feel-good paperwork game in the electric billing. Same thing as getting one of those electricity contracts for your house that says you use 'X' type of power but you are still connected to the same power lines as everyone else on your street and which are powered by the same grid and the same power plants. It's not like the electric company can tell which electrons to go to which house or business over the same wires.
Click to expand...

HOWEVER....if I am correct Apple can choose which energy supplier to go for. in the UK I can choose and we have some that ONLY supply renewable energy. Even in the US I am sure that the same is true.
 
What people are missing is that the development of utility-scale solar power projects drives the price of solar power down, but the elimination of the Clean Power Plan removes one of the biggest incentives companies have to investing in solar power technologies and generation. Allowing coal-fired generation to continue to operate (possibly with DOE mandated subsidies) will make solar power more expensive and will slow developments of solar and energy storage technologies. A user like Apple isn't relying on rooftop solar panels. It needs to develop or buy power from huge, 100 MW+ solar farms.
 
MarkB786 said:
Totally irrelevant what Apple thinks about this. This rule is applicable to power plants, not ivory tower companies like Apple. I very much doubt Apple really spends time understanding this rule or its impacts. And if they do, those resources should be spent thinking about Apple products or perhaps environmental rules that actually are relevant to them. This is very obviously an opportunistic statement by Timmy and company.

Total bunk and nonsensical language: "Repealing the Clean Power Plan will subject consumers like Apple and our large manufacturing partners to increased investment uncertainty," the California-based company said in a filing to the agency.Apple, which says it runs its U.S. operations fully on renewable energy such as wind and solar power, added that repeal of the plan would also threaten development and investments that have already been made in renewable power."
Click to expand...

This is absurdly cynical, and deeply depressing. Campanies are allowed to have values and guiding principles. If yours don't align, take your money elsewhere. Pretty simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: citysnaps
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back