Your post probably shows more thought than all of the Greenpeace people together put into this series of events.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Greenpeace Activists Protest at Apple's Irish Offices over Data Center Energy Use
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You don't understand. These servers have far more capacity than anyone's local server would ever have, because their industry is measured in storage size. A single large capacity server uses less energy per GB than a bunch of smaller servers would. I think this is a safe assumption when you understand how the industry works.
I didn't understand the highly negative score to your post. How can we live so nearby, watch the same movies and most tv series (although subtitled, dubbed) but think so different?
Is it patriotism, a kind of nostalgy from the time when Apple was a true american company? Let's face it, in the long term Apple tends doing nothing for americans and more for its stockholders. So defending Apple when it does something in the wrong way doesn't pay any dividend to americans in general.
That guy is an absolute idiot. He assumes that delivery of energy is 100% efficient towards charging an EV (from coal/nuclear/the lord himself), and bases his calculations of that. Give me a break.
Also, by the very EPA study he links to, rail transportation is the most efficient. On top of that, BTUs used at the vehicle doesn't equal total BTUs used. I could drive a car that uses 1 BTU per mile, but it won't make a difference if it takes 10,000 BTUs to deliver that to the car.
Last edited:
the best bit about this is the Cork Apple site is up on a hill, out of the Cork city centre, and across the road from a traveller's (gypsy) campsite.
it's not going to be the most visually effective protest they've ever done
it's not going to be the most visually effective protest they've ever done
The only thing their efforts benefit for is filling the pockets of those who developed the so-called new "green energy".
Bet you anything those are the guys behind all those "green movements" around the globe.
And I thought the general population was finally getting smart...
LOL! That's the insanity of this whole mess.
If people are really worried about contamination, they should stop using Pampers and use regular cloth diapers and wash these by hand.
As you are from Germany, you should ashamed of yourself for such a ridiculous comment. Here we have Germany, running scared because of last year's, tsunami shuttering nuclear power plants. What a joke.
Michael
Completely agree with you on this one.
They know Apple is in the press limelight, so they focus on them. Greenpeace wants to bring focus on this issue. Ok, I get it, that's fine, but at least include other companies in your list, instead of making it appear like Apple is the worst company in the world... just like all the Foxconn press...
Greenpeace - an auto immune disease on the body politic
Thats Greenpeace for you in fact the whole green/left movement nothing will ever satisfy them. Theyre some kind of auto immune disease on the body politic.
Their good intentions are based on mistaken beliefs and ignorance and their tactics show they are not good people.
Thats Greenpeace for you in fact the whole green/left movement nothing will ever satisfy them. Theyre some kind of auto immune disease on the body politic.
Their good intentions are based on mistaken beliefs and ignorance and their tactics show they are not good people.
Perhaps you may think of it as a joke, but honestly being concerned a nuclear catastrophe could happen in your country is not especially funny. The nuclear cloud of Chernobyl went west and affected much a western Europe when it happened.
As for his comment about Americans and environmentalism, I agree to a certain extent that the US has some work to do in reducing its energy use and its promotion of green power.
It's ironic really. It has a started to have a lead in green technology (like fuel cells), but on the other hand, politicians and many other people still don't believe in global warming or reducing reliance on oil.
Yes, their heads are filled with coal.
Could you possibly be more cryptic? Who are you replying to?
Nuclear Power - Generation IV - is the way to go
We seem to have wandered off-topic, but here goes.
That link you supplied says, "...most of those affected received relatively low doses of radiation; there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain.". It's thought the total number of deaths from Chernobyl is 61 people (including 31 from the initial explosion). Remember, this is by far the worst nuclear accident.
Of course there were other effects. Somewhere from 100,000 to 200,000 abortions were carried out on women from Scandinavia to Italy, who were worried about the effects of the radiation on their unborn children. This is the well known media panic effect.
Worldwide, no other power source is as safe as nuclear, the record is clear. For the amount of electricity produced nothing comes close, not wind power, not hydro power not solar power and certainly not coal or oil. Look it up. And we're talking about the old technology of second generation nuclear power which has problems - though nothing as bad as what's commonly thought.
Third generation plants are coming into use and fourth generation plants such as IFR, see here, promise to solve all of the problems of nuclear power and provide incredibly cheap electricity.
Anybody who's serious about Man-Caused Global Warming (I'm not, BTW) should want nuclear power. At least it will get rid of those dirty coal fired plants.
We seem to have wandered off-topic, but here goes.
That link you supplied says, "...most of those affected received relatively low doses of radiation; there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain.". It's thought the total number of deaths from Chernobyl is 61 people (including 31 from the initial explosion). Remember, this is by far the worst nuclear accident.
Of course there were other effects. Somewhere from 100,000 to 200,000 abortions were carried out on women from Scandinavia to Italy, who were worried about the effects of the radiation on their unborn children. This is the well known media panic effect.
Worldwide, no other power source is as safe as nuclear, the record is clear. For the amount of electricity produced nothing comes close, not wind power, not hydro power not solar power and certainly not coal or oil. Look it up. And we're talking about the old technology of second generation nuclear power which has problems - though nothing as bad as what's commonly thought.
Third generation plants are coming into use and fourth generation plants such as IFR, see here, promise to solve all of the problems of nuclear power and provide incredibly cheap electricity.
Anybody who's serious about Man-Caused Global Warming (I'm not, BTW) should want nuclear power. At least it will get rid of those dirty coal fired plants.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
How many have gas using SUVs, buy food they didn't grow themselves etc
----------
They tried to make an app for that.
But Apple wouldn't approve it
Care to elaborate more on that statement?
This quote can be found here https://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/02/apples-options-for-north-carolina-fuel-cell-installation-point-to-bloom-energy/. Now I'm not saying that I believe it as I cannot think of many places around Cork that Apple can draw it's power from except the hydroelectric dam, but that fact that a large multinational corporation like Apple says it should hold some truth, as what would they gain from the lies.
and what a truly sad reflection on the community as a whole. Whether you agree with greenpeace or not, the personal attacks on them and others here is astonishing. It makes me lose faith in humanity, if we can't even discuss important issues with open minds without resorting to insults and childish name calling, what hope do we have at anything?
I'm sure the Germans will be thrilled to be compared to cold war era Soviet Union. What's next, a Yugo to Mercedes comparison?
There is actually a new Yugo coming out. It adds a rear window defroster. Keeps your hands warm when you push it.
Mike
Well, they're an American public company. I'm a stockholder. I've been an Apple user since 1990. From that day I got it. It didnt matter how bad things got, I believed that better ideas and design must prevail in the end. They did. And I'm sorry if you couldn't see it that way and you didn't throw a few dollars at them and buy some stock when you could. They owe YOU nothing. You And Apple have had a series of mutually beneficial transactions. I have invested heavily in them and have been rewarded.
If Apple has harmed someone or stepped on someone's rights to pursue their own happiness then by all means lets go get em because they're a menace. But until then let's quit drinking the kool aid from GreenPeace. They have no agenda?
sure green peace should be stirring up other people but targeting the most successful company in the world is bound to get you on the front page everywhere. Can't be too clean.
----------
Put money infront of the air you breathe and eventually your money will be the death of you.
----------
it's called redneckism lol. The only way to teach those kind is for them to experience the destruction first aka too late. I usually relate it to this. Tell a redneck to kill themselves for a million dollars and they would do it.
Put money infront of the air you breathe and eventually your money will be the death of you.
When Apple screws up, they need to be held to account. But these days it seems like Apple is a choice target because you'll get your publicity out.
More specifically, when it comes to GreenPeace, I've got two major complaints.
The first is that they have assumed the mantle of judge and jury on environmental goodness, and the fact that companies aren't dropping their pants and opening the kimono to show them absolutely everything is proof, to them, that the companies are evil. Worse, very often they give high grades to "talks to us and promises to do good stuff" and low grades to "they won't talk to us so we're going to assume they'll do the worst." Take the toxic chemical in parts issue from a few years back. Every chemical analysis was saying Apple was among the best at reducing the use of these chemicals, but because they weren't setting forth grand plans to GreenPeace and making unrealistic promises, they got rated low.
On this specific issue - there are places where electricity is generated by solar, places where electricity is generated by wind, places by hydroelectric. And yes, places where most of the electricity is generated by coal. Sometimes, it's because there's no real practical solution. Other times, it's because the coal plant is there and the area isn't flowing with investment to justify new power plants. As near as I can tell, GreenPeace's position is that nobody should open a business in those places - meaning the economy won't get any investment to make it possible to build new non-coal power plants and leaving the people living there in poverty. But those are just people, and the welfare of people has never been a concern of GreenPeace.
Is it worthwhile raising issues of how efficient plants are, what they can do about reusing the heat given off by the servers and what it can do to generate its own energy? Yes it is. (And by all reports, Apple is setting a good example.) But instead, they use their own simplistic yardstick, and it's worse than useless. And they approach it, not by telling companies "hey, let's see what you're doing, what others are doing, maybe we can find ways of doing it better so everyone benefits" but as "you guys are all evil and we're gonna scream at you until you become not evil", which is not a good way to win friends and influence people.
This reminds me of PETA trying to get Hamburg, Germany to change their name. It's just a media stunt, that's what these lunatics do. A lot of the time they're not even serious, they're just trying to get attention to their issues, thus money for their organization, thus more attention to their issues. Since they are incredibly ineffective at actually changing anything, they do what they can to fight the good fight and maintain a morally superior position, regardless of how absurd it actually is. Facts are irrelevant, only attention matters. They'd rather have an emotional victory than a real one.
Those who actually do care about the environment, but from a scientific standpoint, are repulsed by this attitude, of course. Considering those more scientifically and factually-inclined tend to be in better positions to actually change things for the better, that's too bad.
Those who actually do care about the environment, but from a scientific standpoint, are repulsed by this attitude, of course. Considering those more scientifically and factually-inclined tend to be in better positions to actually change things for the better, that's too bad.
Last edited: