Apple Paves Way Towards Carbon-Free Aluminum Smelting Process as Latest Environmental Pledge

[KeanosMagicHat]

Releasing Oxygen instead of CO2 - superb!

Hope it's a great success and is concurrent with similar initiatives in other areas of Apple's business and that of their partners.

 

[dwaltwhit]

I know that, but thank you anyway. The sarcasm implies the criticism to which I was responding. I read the subtext right the first time.

Sorry. I fell into a sarcasm inception and answered semi-sarcastically!

 

[Weaselboy]

Moderator Note:

Several comments discussing politics were removed from the thread. Just a reminder that political discussions are limited to the Politics, Religion, and Social Issues forum.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

Carbon is the most abundant element on the planet. with no carbon, there is no life.

the problem we have is that we're burning trapped carbon for many different reasons. This trapped carbon when burned goes directly into the atmosphere. The unfortunate side affect is that Carbon also helps trap heat in the atmosphere. THe more Carbon that's floating around in it, the more heat it traps. THe more heat that gets trapped, the warmer the planet overall will become.

A great example of a run away "green house affect" caused by insanely high carbon numbers in the atmosphere is earth's sister planet, Venus. Venus is almost identical to earth in makeup, size and gravity. However, where Earth carbon eventually balanced itself and much of it got trapped, the same didn't happen on Venus. Venus became the hottest planet in the solar system due to the trapped energy of the sun in a runaway carbon based green house (95% of it's atmosphere is CO2)

A few things:
1. Carbon is not the most abundant element on Earth. Not even close, but in total composition and on the crust. Iron, Oxygen, Slilca (forms of Silicon), Magnesium, Sulfur, Nickel, and Calcium are. If you want to talk just the crust, then Carbon (in the form of CO2) comes in at 1.2-1.4% (land/ocean).
2. The cause for Venus' incredibly hot temperatures are cause by a number of factors, including:

• As you mentioned, the atmosphere, which is 93 times the mass and yes, made of 96.5% CO2
• It being 0.7 times the distance to the sun than Earth
• The Venusian day being 114 earth days (lesser heating and cooling cycles)
• No plants taking all of that CO2 and turning it into O2. They'll catch up.

3. Much less of a magnetic core, which, on earth deflects solar wind and energy, which would strip off the O3, making life (see point #4 above) much more difficult to achieve.

So, while I see your point on CO2 being the latest bogeyman, I really don't think that it's that big of a deal, and throwing Venus in there as an example of the consequence of runaway CO2 use and nothing to mitigate it (plants), along with this planet's natural creation and consumption of CO2 (700 GT vs. 29 GT), begs the next question:
If rampant CO2 is an issue, why isn't Mars warmer? It is 96% CO2.

 

[OlliFlamme]

This commitment to renewable energy and reducing the "carbon footprint" is basically a religious stance, like certifying food as halal. That said, I am not Muslim but I still eat a lot of halal food.

P.S., global warming is a hoax.

And your grand father is Santa? Sure dude, you are so funny. We cannot all have the ambition to really use the content of our skull...

 

[Edsel]

I don't know why, but I love the word smelting.

So do Maine fishermen!
https://www.seagrant.umaine.edu/blog/smelt-breakfast

 

[velocityg4]

Great but even if you completely converted all primary Aluminum production to this process, that would only reduce the current annual human production of CO2 by about 0.25% !
(24 million tons CO2)
Total world human production of CO2 annually is about 10 billion tons.

Fossil Fuel & Cement accounts for 90% or so of the total.
The variation in this number from year to year is greater than the total from aluminum production.

From another source, has the cement manufacturing CO2 production at 5% of the total. I've seen various proposals about making cement carbon neutral, that would have a much bigger impact.

Of course, even a slight drop in CO2 production from fossil fuel would also have a bigger impact.

So this news story is mainly feel good and little else.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
- Laozi

While it would be great if we could accomplish it all in one fell swoop. It can take years or decades to develop alternative processes people will accept.

Even when we do have good options. Such as molten salt reactors. They have to overcome the stigma of their progenitors. Such as various water type reactors.

 

[AngerDanger]

That has to be the dumbest logic ever.

We can’t make every possible little part of our business environmental friendly so why bother potentially reducing 6.5 million metric tons of CO2....

Come on and educate us more. What are you actually talking about?

I know few or no company the scale of Apple that is likewise environmentally consentious, so blow my mind, please!

DING DING DING... we have a loser! I mean winner. I was wondering just how many comments in on a positive conservation story it would take for someone to find a negative slant. the answer is 4. Congrats, you can collect your bah humbug award on the droid page.

Uh, we're all on the same page, folks…

 

[Laird Knox]

I'm kidding. I don't know a thing about smelting.

http://theworldlink.com/lifestyles/...cle_faff7f8d-3726-5670-bc41-fa6f60c4dca7.html

 

[coolfactor]

Apple: Leaving the world better than we found it.

 

[SeattleMoose]

nonsense..... and why are you on a computer anyways? aren't you afraid of the electric fields?

Well look what electric fields did to you...."Mr. Science".
I have an ostrich hole for sale.

 

[Arthur123]

Currently there is over 400ppm of CO2. It will be at least a few lifetimes before that is possible assuming people get their heads out of their A$$ and change environment policies.

If it drops below 200ppm we can, you know always start burning fossil fuels again. We are light years away from starving plant life. We will more likely drown plant life or over-forest it before we starve it.

Plants grow bigger, faster and stronger at 1,500 ppm, so we have a long way to go before we "drown plants"


If it drops below 200ppm we can, you know always start burning fossil fuels again. We are light years away from starving plant life. We will more likely drown plant life or over-forest it before we starve it.[/QUOTE]

Plants grow bigger, faster and stronger at 1,500 ppm, so we have a long way to go before we "drown plants"
The notion that our climate is simply controlled by a CO2 knob is totally false and does not consider how complex our climate system is. For example the period from January thru April 2018 has been the coldest 4 month period since 1962. So during the 66 years that past since 1962 we have seen CO2 levels rise from about 330 ppm to the present 405 ppm. Yet we still experienced this very cold 4 month period. This is what natural variability is all about. In addition, the global trend since the end of the last IL Nino has been downward. So lowering the CO2 levels will do nothing to our climate. Land use change with an ever growing world population is the largest indication that local climates are warmer in very urban areas than non-urban areas. Companies like Apple pretend they care about the environment, but like someone else mentioned the production of cement and other building materials requires a lot of energy and therefore CO2 byproduct. Also each human born in this world adds about 2 pounds of CO2 per hour just breathing. How many more people we have now versus 1962?? Answer: several billions and they all breath.

 

[Wanted797]

Uh, we're all on the same page, folks…

View attachment 761465

Nothing to click on iPhone.

 

[jhende7]

Ahhh the old carbon myth. You know who are sad about this new process.....trees....you know the things that breath CO2

 

[goldbuffalo]

All I know is if smelt it you dealt it.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

(deleted double-post, but left the end of the point I was making...)

I believe that life will solve this apparent problem. Plant life (especially the cyanobacteria in the oceans)creates the oxygen, and I believe life to be a lagging indicator. Melted ice caps, more ocean; more ocean, more places for oxygen to get produced; more oxygen, less CO2, since the plants take the CO2, make more plants, and O2 as a byproduct.

It's a good thing I live 5 miles from the beach, so at least I can see it coming...

 

[Keirasplace]

Plants grow bigger, faster and stronger at 1,500 ppm, so we have a long way to go before we "drown plants"


If it drops below 200ppm we can, you know always start burning fossil fuels again. We are light years away from starving plant life. We will more likely drown plant life or over-forest it before we starve it.

Plants grow bigger, faster and stronger at 1,500 ppm, so we have a long way to go before we "drown plants"
The notion that our climate is simply controlled by a CO2 knob is totally false and does not consider how complex our climate system is. For example the period from January thru April 2018 has been the coldest 4 month period since 1962. So during the 66 years that past since 1962 we have seen CO2 levels rise from about 330 ppm to the present 405 ppm. Yet we still experienced this very cold 4 month period. This is what natural variability is all about. In addition, the global trend since the end of the last IL Nino has been downward. So lowering the CO2 levels will do nothing to our climate. Land use change with an ever growing world population is the largest indication that local climates are warmer in very urban areas than non-urban areas. Companies like Apple pretend they care about the environment, but like someone else mentioned the production of cement and other building materials requires a lot of energy and therefore CO2 byproduct. Also each human born in this world adds about 2 pounds of CO2 per hour just breathing. How many more people we have now versus 1962?? Answer: several billions and they all breath.[/QUOTE]

All I hear is blah blah blah blah blah. Oh, and blah.
You proved nothing but continue thinking it huh.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

The problem is we have an overabundance of CO2 in the atmosphere. Far more than the existing plant / forests are capable of absorbing (Due to non stop deforestation)

This extra CO2 is a leading factor towards climate change and we need to figure out a way of pulling more CO2 out of the atmosphere. CO2 levels are now at the highest known concentration ever in human history. This is mostly carbon that we, human's have put back into the atmosphere as it was previously trapped underground.

Yes, there's always a possibility that we invent some technology that pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere and we somehow go too far the other way (creating an overabundance of oxygene which does have it's own problems), but with how far we've gone with CO2 (over 400pp in 2016, which many scientists believe is already past the point of no return), we've got a LONG way to go to be in danger of too little CO2 in the atmosphere.

Truly, the least compelling reason to do anything, as the point of no return means that whatever we do, it's too late. If it's too late, then no matter what we do, it won't work, so might as well enjoy the rest of the trip!

 

[647156]

If the classic method of aluminium smelting produces carbon, Apple will surely swiftly make their next step - what next, aluminium made from nothing but cocoa beans? That would be worthy of a rhapsody indeed!

 

[Rojaaemon]

OK, fine. They may just be doing this virtue signaling because Al Gore is on their board, and I'm 'Greener Than Gore' (TM) without even trying. However, if Apple's ever greener hardware doesn't get upgraded, I won't be buying anything from Apple.

The MacRumor's Buyer's Guide is showing 3 out of 19 product lines as "Buy Now" and one of them is the HomePod. Twice as many product lines, 6 out of 19, are "Don't Buy."

 

[wigby]

Apple is luxury brand, traditionally luxury brands did value heft
if something feels cheap people believe it is cheap
I think of repair ability when I buy thousands of dollars worth of Apple equipment I've been an Apple customer for over 20 years do I not exist ?
Even if your premise that I don't exist is correct
Do they only not think of it because they have no other choice?

Remember Apple has a monopoly on macOS same with iOS

If you want repairability, you have AppleCare. If you want to repair it yourself, you have other platforms although most of those are following Apple's lead.

No one is saying you don't exist just like no one is saying that the Mac Mini doesn't exist. But Apple can only pay attention to a smaller and smaller marketshare of customers which cuts out customers of Mac Mini for example. That is why they're a luxury brand and not a monopoly. But every company is a monopoly of their own products so calling Apple a monopoly over MacOS and iOS has no meaning.

If you think Apple will still be embracing the Mac platform 5 years from now, you are in for an upset.

 

[Anarchy99]

If you want repairability, you have AppleCare.

AppleCare isn't repair at best its replace.
thats if they help with your issue, AppleCare doesnt cover many issues.
I have moral issues with the waste and Anti-Environment & Anti-Competitive stance apple has taken.

that said i still get AppleCare on Macbooks but ive been screwed by applecare before, i just dont find it that expensive on the off chance it may help but i dont expect it to help.

If you want to repair it yourself, you have other platforms although most of those are following Apple's lead.

sweet tell me the companies selling other PCs that run OSX officially

last i heard Steve Jobs killed the clones in the 90's
it turns out I just wasnt asking wigby

In all seriousness its my right as there customer to complain if they are abusing me.
if every one of their customers did that they would change, now my only hope is right to repair legislation.

its sad auto are the only industry that has protected the existing rights we have rather then slowly stealing those rights due to so many users being complacent

Apple can only pay attention to a smaller and smaller marketshare of customers which cuts out customers of Mac Mini for example. That is why they're a luxury brand and not a monopoly.

I allways find it funny and sad that 5Million+ units a quarter is too small to bother for apple

anyway I call BS, how could apple with less than $100 billion in the bank be able pay attention to all the productlines they sell but Apple with $900 billion in the bank can't
the only logical explanation is they dont care

its unwilling not unable.

That is why they're a luxury brand and not a monopoly.

Apple is a luxury brand True
that has nothing to do with them being a operating system monopoly/anti-competitive.

the fact is they are the only legal way to get iOS or MacOS they are a monopoly in the MacOS (dont confuse that with a PC hardware monopoly)

they just haven't been forced to change. (and probably will never be the US is to Anti-user pro business)
It would be too costly to litigate regardless, I secretly hope the EU does something like they did with Microsoft and IE/WMP but im not holding my breath.

they would argue that MacOS isnt the Only PC operating system unfortunately they would win, it doesnt mean its right but some old law maker might not unsertand that Windows is different from MacOS

But every company is a monopoly of their own products so calling Apple a monopoly over MacOS and iOS has no meaning.

True I suppose, thats why Monopoly laws shouldnt never have existed ever

but since they do im just arguing apple uses commodity parts (intel CPUs,Nvidia/AMD GPUs etc. samsung flash) but limit there OS artificially (hackintosh's are possible, dell couldnt sell one despite wanting to because Apple is maintaining its OS Monopoly)

I guess im basically bitter its ilogical.

technically Im arguing monopoly laws either shouldnt exist at all or they should apply the law evenly and any monopoly no matter how niche should be subject to them.

if you look at classic examples of a monopoly you get things like American Tobacco
if the argument for Apple not being a monopoly is "you can run windows or buy a PC laptop"
maybe the Tobaco industry should have used that logic
"you can smoke pot, its still smoking it must be the same as tobaco"

regardless this is getting to ranty because neither of us control laws

If you think Apple will still be embracing the Mac platform 5 years from now, you are in for an upset.

LOL
I dont believe they're embracing the Mac platform now.

-2013 mac pro is the most recent pro mac (5 years old) but had old parts when it was 2013 let alone now
-2012 mac mini's that outperform the latest model, oh and the latest mac mini is 2014
-macbook pros without I/O people need, form over function choices like the keyboard etc.

but your right I'm upset but i criticize Apple because i love and need them, i just hope enough people complain like me so we can see apple change for the better

 

[fuchsdh]

Yeah, sure, but there are other ways in which Apple isn't environmentally conscientious, so who cares? When it comes to sustainable business practices, it has to be all or nothing!

/s

The reality is while Apple could boost the longevity of its products with easier upgrades, repairs and the like, the inexorable arc of technology has been fairly rapid replacement, and most people don't upgrade their old kit, they just get new stuff. Reducing the environmental cost of new products is likely to have a far bigger impact than extending the lifespan of old stuff on a global scale, especially since there are plenty of developing markets out there.

 

[wigby]

AppleCare isn't repair at best its replace.
thats if they help with your issue, AppleCare doesnt cover many issues.
I have moral issues with the waste and Anti-Environment & Anti-Competitive stance apple has taken.

that said i still get AppleCare on Macbooks but ive been screwed by applecare before, i just dont find it that expensive on the off chance it may help but i dont expect it to help.


sweet tell me the companies selling other PCs that run OSX officially

last i heard Steve Jobs killed the clones in the 90's
it turns out I just wasnt asking wigby

In all seriousness its my right as there customer to complain if they are abusing me.
if every one of their customers did that they would change, now my only hope is right to repair legislation.

its sad auto are the only industry that has protected the existing rights we have rather then slowly stealing those rights due to so many users being complacent




I allways find it funny and sad that 5Million+ units a quarter is too small to bother for apple

anyway I call BS, how could apple with less than $100 billion in the bank be able pay attention to all the productlines they sell but Apple with $900 billion in the bank can't
the only logical explanation is they dont care

its unwilling not unable.




Apple is a luxury brand True
that has nothing to do with them being a operating system monopoly/anti-competitive.

the fact is they are the only legal way to get iOS or MacOS they are a monopoly in the MacOS (dont confuse that with a PC hardware monopoly)

they just haven't been forced to change. (and probably will never be the US is to Anti-user pro business)
It would be too costly to litigate regardless, I secretly hope the EU does something like they did with Microsoft and IE/WMP but im not holding my breath.

they would argue that MacOS isnt the Only PC operating system unfortunately they would win, it doesnt mean its right but some old law maker might not unsertand that Windows is different from MacOS




True I suppose, thats why Monopoly laws shouldnt never have existed ever

but since they do im just arguing apple uses commodity parts (intel CPUs,Nvidia/AMD GPUs etc. samsung flash) but limit there OS artificially (hackintosh's are possible, dell couldnt sell one despite wanting to because Apple is maintaining its OS Monopoly)

I guess im basically bitter its ilogical.

technically Im arguing monopoly laws either shouldnt exist at all or they should apply the law evenly and any monopoly no matter how niche should be subject to them.

if you look at classic examples of a monopoly you get things like American Tobacco
if the argument for Apple not being a monopoly is "you can run windows or buy a PC laptop"
maybe the Tobaco industry should have used that logic
"you can smoke pot, its still smoking it must be the same as tobaco"

regardless this is getting to ranty because neither of us control laws



LOL
I dont believe they're embracing the Mac platform now.

-2013 mac pro is the most recent pro mac (5 years old) but had old parts when it was 2013 let alone now
-2012 mac mini's that outperform the latest model, oh and the latest mac mini is 2014
-macbook pros without I/O people need, form over function choices like the keyboard etc.

but your right I'm upset but i criticize Apple because i love and need them, i just hope enough people complain like me so we can see apple change for the better

I hear you. For me, Apple has moved on and I decided to go with them when possible. But you have to understand that they are making many more people happy that are customers now and will be customers in the coming decades then they are abandoning. The computer industry has changed so much so it's not fair to expect Apple to stay complacent. They are designers, first and foremost, so I respect them so long as they don't screw their customers intentionally. It's kind of like the battery throttling issue. If you honestly believe that Apple cooked up a scheme to sell more iPhones by screwing customers into buying new phones because their 2 year old phones were artificially slowed down, I don't know what to tell you except that you shouldn't be an Apple customer because you don't understand them. If you believe that they just wanted the best experience for customers and didn't do the best job of communicating their intentions, then you can probably understand their dilemma of always pushing consumer tech into the future and making hard choices along the way to cut off stragglers.

 

[kironin]

You gotta start somewhere

Well, this isn't the place to start.
[doublepost=1527181507][/doublepost]

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
- Laozi

While it would be great if we could accomplish it all in one fell swoop. It can take years or decades to develop alternative processes people will accept.

Even when we do have good options. Such as molten salt reactors. They have to overcome the stigma of their progenitors. Such as various water type reactors.

You aren't getting it. It's so tiny, that it's buried deep in the noise.
This isn't even a single step.
It's more like a partial step and then at random the world takes 5 steps back.

At this rate the journey takes longer than the lifetime of the Sun and that's being optimistic.

Pure PR gimmick.