They do do that, at least in the UK.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/about/measuring-our-own-carbon-footprint-20101201
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 Takes on Apple and Other Tech Companies over Coal-Powered Data Centers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They do do that, at least in the UK.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/about/measuring-our-own-carbon-footprint-20101201
Impact of millions
Since a lot of numbers have been thrown out in this discussion, I thought I'd a few more and give my humble personal opinion afterwards.
Jan 2012 - Apple shipped 50 million iPads. http://ipod.about.com/od/ipadmodelsandterms/f/ipad-sales-to-date.htm
2012 - Annual income of $11,170 for a US family/household with 1 person is at the poverty threshold. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml
Jan 11 2012 - Indiana University study says 46 million Americans live BELOW the poverty line and that number will increase. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/11/poverty-america-likely-worse-report
All I know is that clean or not, energy costs money. So, calculate how much you spend on feeding yourself every year. Add your annual electricity bill to that. And don't forget your annual mortgage or rent payments. Does that add up to more than $11,170? or if you're a family of 4, does that add up more than $23,050?
There are 46 million who are making LESS than the poverty threshold - that's less than $11,170/yr for a household of 1 and less than $23,050/yr for a household of 4.
It would be a safe bet that the top worries for these households include where's my next meal coming from? how am I going to feed my children? can I make rent/mortgage payment this month?
And just to add to the numbers, if 46 million individuals (households of 1) were to make an annual income at the poverty threshold of $11,170, that would be $513+ billion dollars of the national economy flowing into their pockets.
As a Californian, I painfully remember when the state did not have enough energy resources to power the entire state so that it had to purchase power from the state of Texas for more money than I care to remember.
This year, as well as last year, our state can't balance it's budget. I really would hate to see what would happen to our state if we find ourselves both short of energy resources and the money to buy more energy from other states.
And to add to the percentages, 46 million is about 6.5% of the American public that's living below the poverty threshold.
And don't forget our national unemployment rate is 8.2% as of this past March.
That's 46 million Americans who:
don't pay income taxes
are on the power grid in some form or another unless you believe there are that many people living in cardboard boxes
more than likely have more pressing matters than what Apple is doing with energy at it's data centers anywhere
So what's my point?
46 million Americans (and counting) can't afford any "clean" energy solutions (mentioned in this thread) individually. And they will not contribute towards paying for any government "clean" energy solutions.
What's the environmental impact then of these 46 million people? And what does Green Peace or anyone else suggest we do about that?
Since a lot of numbers have been thrown out in this discussion, I thought I'd a few more and give my humble personal opinion afterwards.
Jan 2012 - Apple shipped 50 million iPads. http://ipod.about.com/od/ipadmodelsandterms/f/ipad-sales-to-date.htm
2012 - Annual income of $11,170 for a US family/household with 1 person is at the poverty threshold. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml
Jan 11 2012 - Indiana University study says 46 million Americans live BELOW the poverty line and that number will increase. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/11/poverty-america-likely-worse-report
All I know is that clean or not, energy costs money. So, calculate how much you spend on feeding yourself every year. Add your annual electricity bill to that. And don't forget your annual mortgage or rent payments. Does that add up to more than $11,170? or if you're a family of 4, does that add up more than $23,050?
There are 46 million who are making LESS than the poverty threshold - that's less than $11,170/yr for a household of 1 and less than $23,050/yr for a household of 4.
It would be a safe bet that the top worries for these households include where's my next meal coming from? how am I going to feed my children? can I make rent/mortgage payment this month?
And just to add to the numbers, if 46 million individuals (households of 1) were to make an annual income at the poverty threshold of $11,170, that would be $513+ billion dollars of the national economy flowing into their pockets.
As a Californian, I painfully remember when the state did not have enough energy resources to power the entire state so that it had to purchase power from the state of Texas for more money than I care to remember.
This year, as well as last year, our state can't balance it's budget. I really would hate to see what would happen to our state if we find ourselves both short of energy resources and the money to buy more energy from other states.
And to add to the percentages, 46 million is about 6.5% of the American public that's living below the poverty threshold.
And don't forget our national unemployment rate is 8.2% as of this past March.
That's 46 million Americans who:
don't pay income taxes
are on the power grid in some form or another unless you believe there are that many people living in cardboard boxes
more than likely have more pressing matters than what Apple is doing with energy at it's data centers anywhere
So what's my point?
46 million Americans (and counting) can't afford any "clean" energy solutions (mentioned in this thread) individually. And they will not contribute towards paying for any government "clean" energy solutions.
What's the environmental impact then of these 46 million people? And what does Green Peace or anyone else suggest we do about that?
Also, load on the servers drops off overnight. They don't spin down the disks or anything like that but certainly CPU load and temperature inside the server drops.
The update makes perfect sense. If you use 20MW for an hour, you've used 20MWh. Therefore, if *peak* power demand from the facility is 20MW, it is going to consume 20MWh or *less*.
Last edited:
Good point.
Interesting, though, is that North Carolina isn't really that hot - the chart shows average daytime high and low temperatures in Maiden.
From: http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USNC0413
Attachments
Maybe you don't exist! You're just a butterfly! What color are your wings?! Ahhhh!
Undergrouns Nuclear Plants
Why not just build nuclear reactors 2 miles underground, so if there is an incident, no toxins would be blown out into the atmosphere, it would all be contained in a small area underground. Not a perfect solution, I know, but much better than the air and everything around for miles being contaminated.
Why not just build nuclear reactors 2 miles underground, so if there is an incident, no toxins would be blown out into the atmosphere, it would all be contained in a small area underground. Not a perfect solution, I know, but much better than the air and everything around for miles being contaminated.
I think this is a good point here.... the fact that Apple is moving people away from super power hungry computers to super low power devices. My iPad 3 barely uses ANY electricity and I spend a majority of my time on that. I got a Macbook Air this year to replace my Dell Latitude D830 (went through 3 batteries in 8 hours) laptop.
I used to run my custom built PC 24/7. Now with my Macbook and iPad - I use those for everything while my computer is off - lowering my electric bill from $90/month to $50/month. Same for my wife with her iPad and her gaming system I built her.
There's a lot more to the Cloud than most people realize. Because of the "Cloud" a lot of us don't have to use devices we did before.
10% of the amount Greenpeace made up. Just so happens that number is 10x the amount Apple will actually use.
Green peace's response is even funnier. They clearly are not working with anyone who has actually built a large data center.
----------
They will blame Apple. Why? Donations are down and they needed to get their name out there. Apple stories get press coverage.
----------
It is kind of like you read an explanation somewhere and failed to grasp what it meant. Someone else already explained to you why your confused, so I will let it go. Suffice to say, all the information you need is in the update.
----------
It really depends what they mean by a 20MW solar farm and how it is designed. If they are using more efficient panels in a good location with automated aiming, it is possible to get 150+ MWh a day out of that. Clearly more than the 3-4 MW peak performance you predict. They can pretty easily drive the fuel-cell at full capacity and have some left over power to spare during the day.
No reason they can't cover 30-40% of there predicted average usage out of it. If the fuel cell is their only storage mechanism, how their load is distributed through the day will be important.
I honestly don't care what number Greenpeace came up with - that wasn't my point when I was replying to the poster on page one. My entire point was that Greenpeace had acknowledged (but downplayed) Apples use of Solar and fuel cells. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. Stop trying to say that I apply any validity to Greenpeace's numbers or that I am making some statement about Apple or Greenpeace. I was not commenting on that. I was correcting an incorrect statememt. I don't give a rip about what the numbers were. I just stated that Greenpeace factored in something that somebody said they didn't. I even pointed to the OP. You want to argue with that, don't drag me in. I never made a claim about the numbers. The OP did that.
There's no ambiguity in a 20 MW solar farm. 20 MW = nameplate capacity, which is the most it can generate in a given moment.
That 20 MW is scaled down over time by a variable called capacity factor, which accounts for the sun going down and clouds blocking the sky.
And I never said 3-4 MW peak. Peak = 20 MW. Problem is it will rarely generate peak. And a night it will generate 0. 3-4 is an average over time with a capacity factor of 15-20% (which I think is reasonable for solar).
They can definitely cover 30-40% of a 20 MW load.
--> 3-4 MW(solar) + 5 MW(fuel cell) = 8-9 MW = 40-45% of a 20 MW load
What I'm saying is they can't cover 60%, which is the number being thrown out in articles. And they definitely can't cover 100%, which is the number that was thrown out in the post on the front page.
Also a fuel cell isn't used for storage. It's used for converting chemicals into electricity.
Again, her "press conference" is misleading and full of errors. Disregarding any factual errors, someone taking an introductory logic class in college can easily break down the entire article into a stream of red herrings, straw men, and forced perspectives.
Her article is akin to someone saying "the existence of many Mac viruses, like the recent Flashback virus, is proof that everyone who has a Mac must get an antivirus software installed." While there is some truth to premise of the statement (that Macs aren't completely safe), and concern should definitely be addressed, the facts just aren't there to support the conclusion (that everyone needs an AV program).
It helps to sway people to your opinion if you give sources that are traceable and scientific in nature. She likely got her numbers from somewhere and did not make them up, but she is not going to provide sources in a speech (imagine how boring that would be). If you link to something she published where she shows her sources, then people can have an actual debate about the validity of the statements. As it stands, the article is nothing but a propaganda piece.
FYI, Googling a polar topic like this can be a huge pain. Its like Googling Mike Moore or Obama or Ron Paul, you get two direct polar opposite opinions of them and their work, both with a plenthra of facts and falsehoods (as you can tell from all these comments).
But I did look into her work. She is to be commended for her efforts in anti-nuclear proliferation and I respect her intentions, but she is misleading people with false numbers. I also disagree with your statement that "very few in the field" disagree with her; the World Health Organization, the U.N. Scientific Committee on Atomic Radiation, and the IAEA have all published contradicting papers on the analysis of nuclear energy hazards and the effects that radiation has on flora and fauna. She dismisses their papers to the point that she feels they have joined together in a conspiracy (read the transcript of the debate I linked to).
Obviously the NEI is a pro-nuclear source (I stated as such). However, you could say the same thing about how bias she is. She makes a living doing speeches and writing articles for anti-nuclear agencies. In the debates I heard her in, she name-drops all her books like a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman. (It stuck out like a sore thumb and honestly made me loose some respect for her.) Regardless, saying the other side is bias is a logical fallacy, an ad hominem. It doesn't matter how bias the other side is if their facts are correct. The NEI provides links and sources to their counterpoints.
I and others disagree with your statements and assertions, but you have maintained a cool demeanor in your responses. I appreciate that.
I will let Eric Cartman sum up this debate (just replace "War" with "Nuclear") http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103527/protestors-hug
As was pointed out earlier, it's also the primary source of mercury contamination into the environment. You can argue CO2 and climate change all you want, but the facts about mercury contamination from coal-fired plants aren't in dispute.
My issue with this, other than making up their own figures when Apple stated the solar farm WILL cover their demand, is that Greenpeace considers nuclear "unclean" when, in reality, nuclear is the cleanest electricity source we have. Cleaner than solar even, when the whole supply chain lifecycle is accounted for (solar panels are NOT a very green technology to produce). Wind might be better, maybe.
It can be and is used for storage of renewable energy.
If you're generating hydrogen (say by electrolysis) using renewable energy (say a large solar array) and storing it for use in a fuel cell (at night, for example), then how is that not storage? I'm assuming though that Apple intend to use green hydrogen where possible, but will need to suppliment with fossil hydrogen.
It's good that organisations like Greenpeace are questioning companies about their energy usage, but their "assumptions" are questionable to say the least.
If you put it like that then yeah. But you'd also be expanding the definition of fuel cell to include an electrolyzer, holding tank, and other things not in a standard fuel cell architecture.
I'm not a big fan of the whole "it runs off fuel, and fuel can be stored, therefore it's a storage system" logic. I don't think it's accurate. It's like arguing coal plants run off coal, I got some coal in a shed I can save for later, therefore coal plants are an energy storage system.
In this case though, the fuel cells aren't using hydrogen, they're using biogas. And with rare exception, the solar + fuel cells also won't cover the 20 MW load so it doesn't make financial sense for Apple to store anything - if they did, they'd be buying extra electricity from Duke Energy at a premium to make up for it.
Okay, I'll be happy to
Despite the large-scale events that have occurred, nuclear is clean and safe:Predicted TOTAL deaths from *radiation* as a result of the Fukushima disaster - scientifically credible sources vary, from none to immeasurably low. None is unlikely, but the number is expected to be very small.
Predicted TOTAL deaths including long term deaths from excess cancers caused by radiation as a result of the Chernobyl disaster: approximately 4,000. As of mid-2005, under 50 deaths were directly attribuable to Chernobyl. Source - http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html OTHER SCIENTIFICALLY CREDIBLE SOURCES DO PUT THIS NUMBER UP TO 10,000.
Number of people who die in coal mining accidents annually in China: Up to 20,000 (NOT including long-term health effects). Source - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595235,00.html
Death toll from the TSUNAMI and EARTHQUAKE that *caused* the Fukushima meltdown: over 25,000. Source - http://thenewamerican.com/tech-main...37-no-fukushima-radiation-deaths-no-surprises
As you can see, nuclear energy is very clean and very safe. The only byproducts are water vapor and a small amount of easily stored, compact, waste fuel. The entire country's waste fuel needs could easily be taken care of and handled safely in one mountain in Nevada. No other power source gives us that small of waste and environmental footprint.
How long will it be before those towns and farms will be habitable?Okay, I'll be happy to
Clean? Safe? You have to be kidding me! Would you accept a triple reactor core meltdown in your city or town? Get real...
No of course I wouldn't want a meltdown to occur in my city or anywhere else. But as for habitable - much of the Chernobyl exclusion area would be perfectly safe to re-populate today. But who could you convince to move there? Safety and environmental damage aren't the same, but you must look at all the land destroyed in every other form of power generation. Nuclear has an excellent safety record - fewer total deaths THROUGHOUT HISTORY including long term health problems can be attributed to nuclear than the annual death rate of coal miners in a single country! I am not claiming nuclear is perfect, it's not. But it's the cleanest safest energy source we have except possibly wind.
You do realise you just said 4000 people died because of chernobyl and then declared nuclear safe, right?
Also, are you aware of nuclear waste?
Are you aware of the half-life and radioactivity of nuclear waste?
Are you aware that we do not have any proper means of disposing of nuclear waste?
Are you aware of the obscene cost of nuclear material and plant maintenance?
Nuclear is a lot of hype.