Lol true. If there website is hosted by a coal powered data center then just visiting there website is contributing to pollution
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
Lol true. If there website is hosted by a coal powered data center then just visiting there website is contributing to pollution
They are. All my European servers are powered 100% by hydroelectric energy from the Rhine in Germany.
See http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/unternehmen/umweltschutz
Hetzner are one of the biggest datacenter providers in Europe - totally green.
So what.... were they supposed to either build their own nuclear power plants or build a state-sized solar farm to power those data centers?
I don't know how you guys roll in the US, but we in Europe can choose what kind of electricity we want to use. Nuclear, Wind, Water. We're getting billed accordingly. You don't need to build your own clean power plant to use power from a clean power plant.
Apple is American.
America doesnt care about the environment hence its huge gas guzzling cars - but it has great food, places to visit, and Apple products!!
Coal produces smoke.
Smoke makes clouds.
Clouds are good!
Better than no clouds cos people would then complain about the UV rays and global warming etc...
I guess Greenpeace didnt have much to complain about before this new Cloud technology.
America doesnt care about the environment hence its huge gas guzzling cars - but it has great food, places to visit, and Apple products!!
Coal produces smoke.
Smoke makes clouds.
Clouds are good!
Better than no clouds cos people would then complain about the UV rays and global warming etc...
I guess Greenpeace didnt have much to complain about before this new Cloud technology.
Doesn't Greenpeace have bigger fish to fry? Of course frying fish might be out of the question if the frying oil is heated by fossil fuels....
So what are the better alternatives?
Ruining of the rivers through hydroelectric damming? Wait, there are activists who are pro-dam destruction because it allows biomes to regenerate!
Wind power? Wait, there are activists who are anti-wind power because turbines kill birds (see the troubled California Condor population who just can't seem to stay away from the turbine blades)! And it's inefficient...
Solar power? Wait, there are even activists against this (biome destruction and geothermal equilibrium problems)! And it's expensive and inefficient...
I'm personally for increased use of nuclear power, but it looks like whatever we do we're screwed. But complaining about one thing without suggesting a solution is pointless.
We have more coal than we have petroleum. It's a MASSIVE natural resource in the united states.
We should be using it instead of burning oil. I'd much rather see us transition to burning coal, than to keep using oil, raising its price going forward.
We should be using it instead of burning oil. I'd much rather see us transition to burning coal, than to keep using oil, raising its price going forward.
Simple. They've only got to convince one CEO who has a huge datacenter using a huge amount of energy than convince millions of home owners to have a major effect on non-green energy usage.
Potentially, "the cloud" could be a major saving in energy usage. If everyone shifted from desktop PCs to iPads and low power laptops with major computing resources stored in a datacenter that ran on 100% green power, you could reduce energy consumption as a whole and secondly manage the carbon production in the data center.
So, Greenpeace are definitely targeting the right people - major consumers of energy that could make a radical change in usage patterns.
Wake up fella, the real world is calling your ignorant brain to engage itself before you post such nonsense again.
The argument is as ridiculous as Greenpeace's complaint. It doesn't matter where _your_ electricity comes from; by using hydroelectric energy for your servers, you prevent others from using the same energy. Instead of one "totally green" data centre you could have 1,000 "totally green" private homes. The only thing that is really "green" is using less electricity, or creating new sources for "greener" energy.
There are serious statistics claiming that wind turbines are about the most dangerous sources of energy if you count the number of people killed in construction, during maintenance, and through accidents. Apparently there are statistically a lot more deaths per MWh produced than for example with nuclear energy, including situations like Three Mile Island, Tchernobyl and Fukushima.
So what.... were they supposed to either build their own nuclear power plants or build a state-sized solar farm to power those data centers?
Doesn't Greenpeace know that AAPL's NC data center will be solar powered, and will use Fuel cells for backup??
Last edited:
Several problems with nuclear energy as well...
Nuclear Energy is not renewable. It is a finite resource that can and will be exhausted.
Much of the commercial grade uranium comes from foreign sources outside of the United States.
Mining uranium involves conventional diesel-burning mining equipment.
Refining uranium involves energy intensive processing plants.
Building nuclear power plants is resource intensive.
Decommissioning and burying nuclear facilities (processing plants, power plants, etc.) is energy intensive.
Shipping uranium from source to processor to generator to permanent storage is done by conventional diesel burning equipment powering ships and trucks.
Nuclear power plants require enormous amounts of fresh water to function properly, far more than most other forms of power generation.
Nuclear power plants are susceptible to heat waves and can be forced to shut down when the weather gets too hot.
The full cost of designing, building, running, decommissioning, shipping, and storing a nuclear power plants costs more than any other form of commercial scale power generation.
Only a series of lopsided risk-reward contracts written in the 1940's and 1950's on the backs of the American taxpayer allow nuclear power operators to claim a net positive balance sheet.
In many cases today's nuclear power operators did not actually fund or build the plants. They merely purchased what was left after the original owner was unable to fully recover from the enormous cost of the original build.
And then there's always this...
The most persistent forms of nuclear waste will outlive global warming by about a million years.
Last edited:
The good ol' days...
Remember when paper was the big evil in the world? Or were you too young? Ah, such a gentler more innocent time... If we all just started using computers and stop clipping coupons, reading books, ordering magazines we could save Mother earth and all would be sweetness and light....
What? We do all that and there is still evil in the world? Why those nasty, dirty, greedy, flat earth, birther, biggoted, raceist, sexist, homophobic, bible thumping, conservative republicans! Just get rid of them, then we will all be happy... Right?
</end sarcasm>
Remember when paper was the big evil in the world? Or were you too young? Ah, such a gentler more innocent time... If we all just started using computers and stop clipping coupons, reading books, ordering magazines we could save Mother earth and all would be sweetness and light....
What? We do all that and there is still evil in the world? Why those nasty, dirty, greedy, flat earth, birther, biggoted, raceist, sexist, homophobic, bible thumping, conservative republicans! Just get rid of them, then we will all be happy... Right?
</end sarcasm>
Maybe Greanpeace would be willing to pay to setup a solar array the size of Canada to power these datacenters.
Please.
Please.
You should not proudly proclaim that there are scrubbers to clean up the emissions and in the next sentence complain that EPA is shutting down plants that refuse to install such equipment.
Besides, many coal plants are shutting down, because the wide availability of shale gas has reduce the price of natural gas in the US so much that it makes more sense for operators to close down coal fired power plants and build gas fired ones instead of installing those scrubbers.
What part of NC are you looking at? Seems that Maiden, NC falls right in the national avergage (near the bottom of the page).
Prineville, OR? Looks like they are right there with the average, too, so wouldn't claim they are WARMER than they are.
Maiden, NC is in the foothills of the mountains, so cooler than state averages.
It's easy. Apple = page views and discussion. They know by attacking Apple, the army will come out in defense, and the news will pick it up, thus, more eyes to their cause.
river power not practical
You can't just drop a turbine into a river and expect it to turn. To generate energy, you need a mountain to dam where the downhill potential energy of moving water is high. Although hydroelectric sources are considered green, putting in a dam anywhere has other issues on the local wildlife habitats. Personally, I think its a shame that nuclear power has been largely ignored for decades. Certainly a modern nuclear power plant can be much more efficient and safer than the stuff built in the 60's and 70's that the US operates today.
You can't just drop a turbine into a river and expect it to turn. To generate energy, you need a mountain to dam where the downhill potential energy of moving water is high. Although hydroelectric sources are considered green, putting in a dam anywhere has other issues on the local wildlife habitats. Personally, I think its a shame that nuclear power has been largely ignored for decades. Certainly a modern nuclear power plant can be much more efficient and safer than the stuff built in the 60's and 70's that the US operates today.
I don't know where or you got your information, but you've got some fact checking to do.
The LEED Platinum rating on that data center is a lot more significant and credible than anything Greenpeace has to say.
The MAIN complaint from Greenpeace is that Apple is not telling Greenpeace all their plans. Greenpeace theorizes that apple will only get 10% of their power from solar and fuel cell. But Apple says they will only use the grid for emergency backup.
The MAIN complaint from Greenpeace is that Apple is not telling Greenpeace all their plans. Greenpeace theorizes that apple will only get 10% of their power from solar and fuel cell. But Apple says they will only use the grid for emergency backup.
Apple is in the data business not the power business. At some point they could add natural gas powered turbines to their own facilities which would incidentally act as a full scale backup to grid power.
But even this sensible direction would require new engineering and plan directions for the firm. It needs to be producing revenue from full-scale installations before they head down the path to locally generated power.
If I had a magic wand I would have them invest a portion of their considerable cash hoard in safer 4th gen nuclear which is the greenest power of all, and sell excess power back to the grid to replace some coal volumes.
When that happens, short the railroads.
Rocketman
But even this sensible direction would require new engineering and plan directions for the firm. It needs to be producing revenue from full-scale installations before they head down the path to locally generated power.
If I had a magic wand I would have them invest a portion of their considerable cash hoard in safer 4th gen nuclear which is the greenest power of all, and sell excess power back to the grid to replace some coal volumes.
When that happens, short the railroads.
Rocketman
Hows about using traditional, low thermal control, buildings?
Under the Waxahachie area there are some 15 miles of MASSIVE tunnels.
Temps are cooler underground.
Texas has a lot of sun and wind (that is, more sun exposure over year), such installations have more solar / Sq Ft then VA.
Still, on one hand GP is being annoying, on the other the do help drive the push for more efficiency and less pollution.