Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I find it funny how you left out Solar. No I am not a child. I always assume anyone who brings up age in a forum without knowing for sure usually is the child. I know you are probably not though which is more scary

I left out solar because I discredited in a previous post. It is toxic to produce, and impossible to recycle.

Why is that scary? Because I refuse to buy the neo-militant environmentalism you have bought hook-line and sinker? I would imagine I am way more eco-friendly than you. I drive a fuel-efficient (non hybrid), I recycle, and try to purchase products that can be recycled when I cannot use them anymore.

Have fun recycling your 400lb nickel-cadmium Prius battery. . . . oh wait . . . you can't.

----------

Why does it matter what their motivation for building the solar farm was? I have zero problem with companies using green technologies to improve their "image", decrease their operating costs, or increase redundancy. In then end, the result is the same: Companies are increasingly realizing that there are major costs associated with relying on antiquated, dirty energy.

The sooner we ALL realize the same thing, the better for the planet, our future, and the economy.

No I agree. I have no problem with Apple doing this. I was just pointing out it was probably done more for "marketing" than it was for "environmentalism"

and +1 on the dirty energy. I have yet to understand why we are still almost completely dependent on coal to power this country, when nuclear is available . . . pro tip --- don't build it on a fault line.
 
I left out solar because I discredited in a previous post. It is toxic to produce, and impossible to recycle.

Why is that scary? Because I refuse to buy the neo-militant environmentalism you have bought hook-line and sinker? I would imagine I am way more eco-friendly than you. I drive a fuel-efficient (non hybrid), I recycle, and try to purchase products that can be recycled when I cannot use them anymore.

Have fun recycling your 400lb nickel-cadimum Prius battery. . . . oh wait . . . you can't.

I ride a bike, sold the car. I only buy recyclable products. I am a major sponsor of the WWF organization. I profit from my power bill through my 10 solar panels on the roof (even through winter), I have 3 massive rain water tanks for filling the pool and gardening. All of my appliances have 3-5 star energy ratings. I have a big back yard full of trees and plants.

I do respect what you do though.

----------

I left out solar because I discredited in a previous post. It is toxic to produce, and impossible to recycle.

Why is that scary? Because I refuse to buy the neo-militant environmentalism you have bought hook-line and sinker? I would imagine I am way more eco-friendly than you. I drive a fuel-efficient (non hybrid), I recycle, and try to purchase products that can be recycled when I cannot use them anymore.

Have fun recycling your 400lb nickel-cadimum Prius battery. . . . oh wait . . . you can't.

----------



No I agree. I have no problem with Apple doing this. I was just pointing out it was probably done more for "marketing" than it was for "environmentalism"

and +1 on the dirty energy. I have yet to understand why we are still almost completely dependent on coal to power this country, when nuclear is available . . . pro tip --- don't build it on a fault line.

Nuclear station would be a great target for a suicide bomber and an extremely easy way to wipe out america in a couple of hours. Fault line or not. Earth quakes are not the only natural disaster than can occur. Nuclear is too risky. Plus you get nuclear wastage that has a half life of around 20,000 years.

If you want to evolve into a toad if not die be my guest but please go to another planet to do it
 
Someone at Apple has gone nuts. I am glad Apple is so rich they can waste time on stuff like this, but it is a bad sign when a company leaves its core compentencies to waste time and resources on trendy political fads.

"Going green" is a rich person first world fad that is mostly harmless, unless Apple starts to lose focus. Often this sort of thing means a company is losing focus. I like Apple stuff, so prefer they stay focused on what they know, not appesing a few oddball organizations with "going green".

However, I guess this also ties in with modern expectations. Rich first worlders like feeling good about going green and want to feel good about the "morality" of their products as well as their functionality - so maybe this will help the bottom line by appealing to other green fadists, who on average probably are a larger buying percentage of Apple products than non-fadists. I think this is probably exceptional popular among age groups Apple sells to. Heck, my daughter comes home from public school all the time telling me fairy tales about the green fads - I suspect this sort of thing would induce her to buy more products and think more positively about Apple.

Yes, what if creating and operating sustainable products, less dependence on unstable foreign governments for energy, clean water and air, and an understanding of how we impact the very environment we depend on is all for nothing?!?!?!
 
Yes, what if creating and operating sustainable products, less dependence on unstable foreign governments for energy, clean water and air, and an understanding of how we impact the very environment we depend on is all for nothing?!?!?!

relax, his name sounds redneck. Teaching is impossible.
 
A) Producing a solar cell is one of the most environmentally toxic things one can produce on the planet.

B) Solar cells are more like the Prius . . .those who are self-righteous purchase them to show how "environmentally friendly" they are.

C) Maybe you missed the oil discovery off the coast of Brazil, or the new find in Canada, or Siberia . . . . plus all the untapped oil fields in the United States . . . you and I will be long gone by the time the world runs out.

A) That's simply not the case... some early panels (from the '70s...) and some experimental production processes do produce toxic waste, but modern production of solar panels is actually quite clean (ESPECIALLY compared to the alternative of harvesting carbon-based fuels). We can help keep the industry clean by supporting companies that make panels in the US under US regulations.

B) Who cares what the motivation is? Every Prius sold is better for the environment than an equivalent traditional car. The end result is the same... fewer emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle. Don't believe everything you read on content-farm websites...

C) Some of us care about leaving the world in a better place than we found it. There are no perfect solutions, but I think we can agree that continued dependance on oil is, in the long term, not good for anyone. Why continue to do irreparable damage to our environment when we can start down the path to alternatives?
 
Funny how in amongst all this arguing nobody has mentioned how a solar farm creates a fine source of power for when the power lines get hit.

Power lines go down all the time in NC for a variety of reasons, but there is sun almost every day. No need to refill generators or wait for power companies to fix blown transformers.

And all those complaining that Apple are wasting tree land. Why not direct your anger at the hundreds of strip malls, Walmarts, grocery stores etc. that proliferate? Most of the time they are built within a couple of miles of each other and the only thing they offer is environmental damage and traffic chaos.

If you don't live in NC, your opinion doesn't really matter.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I seen this long time ago in apple.com
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Other companies doing this: none.
Other tech companies inviting the media into their factories: none.
Company getting all the flak: Apple.

I don't know if other companies are doing exactly what Apple is doing, but both HP, DELL and Nokia are considered greener than our beloved Apple.

And that's just not good enough.

http://www.greenpeace.org/internati...-change/cool-it/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/

EDIT: Ooops, just saw that several of you already referred to the same chart.
 
Last edited:
I ride a bike, sold the car. I only buy recyclable products. I am a major sponsor of the WWF organization. I profit from my power bill through my 10 solar panels on the roof (even through winter), I have 3 massive rain water tanks for filling the pool and gardening. All of my appliances have 3-5 star energy ratings. I have a big back yard full of trees and plants.

I do respect what you do though.

----------



Nuclear station would be a great target for a suicide bomber and an extremely easy way to wipe out america in a couple of hours. Fault line or not. Earth quakes are not the only natural disaster than can occur. Nuclear is too risky. Plus you get nuclear wastage that has a half life of around 20,000 years.

If you want to evolve into a toad if not die be my guest but please go to another planet to do it

I have to disagree with your last point...While I'm not a physicist, I do have some elementary knowledge of nuclear reactors, and they are quite different than nuclear or thermonuclear (hydrogen) warheads. (Not sure if you were implying that someone could initiate a nuclear detonation, but this isn't possible). Sure, a terrorists could somehow gain access to fissile (I guess, distinct from fissionable; maybe someone can explain the difference in further detail than what Wikipedia can provide) material or spent fuel rods and make a dirty bomb (conventional explosive wrapped in radioactive material, which, when detonated, spreads radiation everywhere), but the likelihood of this happening, I think, is slim. France relies on nuclear power for 75% of their electricity and we have a number of reactors that haven't (or at least we don't know) been subject to any planned attack. The Navy has been using reactors since 1958. And I think it would be far easier to access this material outside the United States.

These reactors are very secure and they're encased in massively thick concrete, steel, and lead enclosures. Of course, nuclear waste is a problem, but you can recycle spent Uranium 235 rods into usable Plutonium (I think France does this). You do still have to deal with the Plutonium, but maybe it's easier to contain than the tons of lead, mercury, arsenic, and other toxic materials released by burning coal and the coal ash itself (which is toxic, despite what the EPA says about it).

Sure, Japan should give us pause, but if we can implement thorough safety measures, then I think we have a pretty good chance of operating these things safely.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

KingJosh said:
jimbobb24 said:
Someone at Apple has gone nuts. I am glad Apple is so rich they can waste time on stuff like this, but it is a bad sign when a company leaves its core compentencies to waste time and resources on trendy political fads.

"Going green" is a rich person first world fad that is mostly harmless, unless Apple starts to lose focus. Often this sort of thing means a company is losing focus. I like Apple stuff, so prefer they stay focused on what they know, not appesing a few oddball organizations with "going green".

However, I guess this also ties in with modern expectations. Rich first worlders like feeling good about going green and want to feel good about the "morality" of their products as well as their functionality - so maybe this will help the bottom line by appealing to other green fadists, who on average probably are a larger buying percentage of Apple products than non-fadists. I think this is probably exceptional popular among age groups Apple sells to. Heck, my daughter comes home from public school all the time telling me fairy tales about the green fads - I suspect this sort of thing would induce her to buy more products and think more positively about Apple.

wait you mean that saving the Earth is not good for a company? Are you sure Apple will be able to sell products when no one can leave their houses because of the air pollution or the world turns to chaos when oil runs out?


Oil runs out a long time from now. That is over a hundred years from now (and really economical impossible - things don't run out the price rises to unacceptable levels). Who cares about oil? We have so much natural gas that we can use it for the next 300 years. Gas is the future- everywhere we go we find it. And it is so cheap in north Dakota they are just burning it off. Gas is the foreseeable future, and it looks very clean.
 
re original article

"... renewable tapioca paper foam in iPhone packages. "

i'm glad tapioca is used more practicaly than those silly tapioca ball drinks
 
Greenpeace? ROFLMAO. Sorry, but the're a joke. :apple:

Greenpeace... Aren't they the group up in arms about the imminent destruction of the Gulf after BPs incident? And the same thing off the coast of Italy last month? They keep proving what idiots they are over and over, and the media keeps publishing them. More idiots.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Wilder said:
Someone at Apple has gone nuts. I am glad Apple is so rich they can waste time on stuff like this, but it is a bad sign when a company leaves its core compentencies to waste time and resources on trendy political fads.

"Going green" is a rich person first world fad that is mostly harmless, unless Apple starts to lose focus. Often this sort of thing means a company is losing focus. I like Apple stuff, so prefer they stay focused on what they know, not appesing a few oddball organizations with "going green".

However, I guess this also ties in with modern expectations. Rich first worlders like feeling good about going green and want to feel good about the "morality" of their products as well as their functionality - so maybe this will help the bottom line by appealing to other green fadists, who on average probably are a larger buying percentage of Apple products than non-fadists. I think this is probably exceptional popular among age groups Apple sells to. Heck, my daughter comes home from public school all the time telling me fairy tales about the green fads - I suspect this sort of thing would induce her to buy more products and think more positively about Apple.

I hope there aren't too many people like you on this planet. I'd hate for the selfishness and arrogance of a minority to ruin this planet for everyone, and for what?

There are billions of people like me all over the world who have bigger concerns like housing, clean food, warm clean water and access to cheap reliable energy.
 
For me, as a behaviorist, all that counts is behavior (actions). The best motivations without concomitant behavior is meaningless.

If the behavior is laudatory, that, for me, is all that counts. The motivation may be selfish, profitable, self-promoting, and otherwise less than pure. But if the behavior is positive - that, for me, is the story.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

KingJosh said:
Nice straw-man. I never said oil wasn't toxic, however CO2, the thing that has you all hot and bothered is converted into oxygen by a process called photosynthesis by every green plant on the planet.

They have trees and plants in the atmosphere?

What? There is so much ignorance wrapped into that question I cry for my fellow citizens.

But the answer is yes.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Omg really?!?!! You mean it's either going to be in summer time frame or sept.-oct. time frame?!?? Wow that's so prophetic!
 
Nuclear station would be a great target for a suicide bomber and an extremely easy way to wipe out america in a couple of hours. Fault line or not. Earth quakes are not the only natural disaster than can occur. Nuclear is too risky. Plus you get nuclear wastage that has a half life of around 20,000 years.

Chernoble only cleaned out a state-sized area, not the country. But a large enough earthquake caused disaster might reduce the population enough to lower global CO2 emissions. And a large enough volcanic eruption will make anthopogenic global warming look like a tiny blip in planetary history.
 
I left out solar because I discredited in a previous post. It is toxic to produce, and impossible to recycle.

Why is that scary? Because I refuse to buy the neo-militant environmentalism you have bought hook-line and sinker? I would imagine I am way more eco-friendly than you. I drive a fuel-efficient (non hybrid), I recycle, and try to purchase products that can be recycled when I cannot use them anymore.

Have fun recycling your 400lb nickel-cadmium Prius battery. . . . oh wait . . . you can't.

----------



No I agree. I have no problem with Apple doing this. I was just pointing out it was probably done more for "marketing" than it was for "environmentalism"

and +1 on the dirty energy. I have yet to understand why we are still almost completely dependent on coal to power this country, when nuclear is available . . . pro tip --- don't build it on a fault line.

From Wikipedia

Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) and 118 pounds.


Battery
Battery pack from the second generation Prius

A sealed 38-module nickel metal hydride (NiMH) battery pack providing 273.6 volts, 6.5 A·h capacity and weighing 53.3 kg (118 lb)[80] is supplied by Japan's Panasonic EV Energy Co. They are normally charged to 40–60% of maximum capacity to prolong battery life as well as provide a reserve for regenerative braking. Each battery pack uses 10–15 kg (22–33 lb) of lanthanum, and each Prius electric motor contains 1 kg (2 lb) of neodymium; production of the car is described as "the biggest user of rare earths of any object in the world."[81]
[edit] Battery life cycle

As the Prius reached ten years of being available in the U.S. market, in February 2011 Consumer Reports decided to look at the lifetime of the Prius battery and the cost to replace it. The magazine tested a 2002 Toyota Prius with over 200,000 miles on it, and compared the results to the nearly identical 2001 Prius with 2,000 miles tested by Consumer Reports 10 years before. The comparison showed little difference in performance when tested for fuel economy and acceleration. Overall fuel economy of the 2001 model was 40.6 miles per US gallon (5.79 L/100 km; 48.8 mpg-imp) while the 2002 Prius with high mileage delivered 40.4 miles per US gallon (5.82 L/100 km; 48.5 mpg-imp). The magazine concluded that the effectiveness of the battery has not degraded over the long run.[82] The cost of replacing the battery varies between US$2,200 and US$2,600 from a Toyota dealer, but low-use units from salvage yards are available for around US$500.[82] One piece of research indicates it may be worthwhile to rebuild batteries using good blades from defective used batteries.[83
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Other companies doing this: none.
Other tech companies inviting the media into their factories: none.
Company getting all the flak: Apple.

Not true. Check out Sierra Nevada Brewery. They are doing some amazing stuff.
 
Other companies doing this: none.
Wrong!
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/toplists/top50.htm
(and this are just the U.S.)

Other tech companies inviting the media into their factories: none.
Wrong! Use Google!

Company getting all the flak: Apple.
Wrong! Use Google!

----------

Quite normal.

----------

So wrong.

----------

I think this "green" kick is nothing but marketing.
Correct.
 
Rare earth materials are a HUGE polluter !

So, you buy the PRIUS - because it's sooooo green, but in China there is radioactive pollution - but China you don't care about ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/b...aysia-refinery-expects-to-open-this-year.html

HONG KONG — Malaysian regulators granted an initial operating license late Wednesday for a giant rare earth metals refinery that has been at the center of a dispute over radioactive waste management


From Wikipedia

Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) and 118 pounds.


Battery
Battery pack from the second generation Prius

A sealed 38-module nickel metal hydride (NiMH) battery pack providing 273.6 volts, 6.5 A·h capacity and weighing 53.3 kg (118 lb)[80] is supplied by Japan's Panasonic EV Energy Co. They are normally charged to 40–60% of maximum capacity to prolong battery life as well as provide a reserve for regenerative braking. Each battery pack uses 10–15 kg (22–33 lb) of lanthanum, and each Prius electric motor contains 1 kg (2 lb) of neodymium; production of the car is described as "the biggest user of rare earths of any object in the world."[81]
[edit] Battery life cycle
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.