Greenpeace Takes on Apple and Other Tech Companies over Coal-Powered Data Centers

[carlgo]

I also wonder about geothermal. Always seemed like the best idea. Also, isn't natural gas taking over from coal and oil in many places?

Lots of corporations are going to the South because that is the closest thing to China that we have.

 

[ArdMR]

some alternative views

Dear Dino12,
no offense, but I would like to offer some alternative views to your statements:

People should know that these windmills never pay for theirselves, ever.

I would not call 10 years "never"...and for the ones that are near the coast its often 6 years. One turbine costs more than 1 million $, you do the maths. I'd love to have one for myself any day.

Also, for every Megawatt produced by wind and solar it has to be backed by either coal or nuclear.

For Coal and nuclear they need a good amount as a backup anyways, mostly a huge windfarm can be added with no more backups.

Alternative energy is not that reliable.
How many times have you driven by a wind farm with hundreds of windmills and only seen 15 or 20 operating?

6% unscheduled downtime plus 6% scheduled downtime a year for the average coal plant vs. 2% total for wind turbines. Plus if a wind turbine is down you lose less than 10MW, compared to a full coal or nuclear PP drop of 500MW in average.
We are also talking about a smart energy grid, not the locally limited system we have today. Somewhere you have wind and somewhere you have sun.
It won't be possible to replace every coal/nuclear PP by these variable resources, but it is possible to do a lot better as we do now. Today when we have a lot of wind the windparks are often limited in power output by more that 50%, because the grid cannot transport it far enough, and coal/nuclear is too slow to adapt and therefore kept on maximum.

Over the next 4 to 5 years over 21,000 Megawatts are being shut down across the US as a result from the EPA's regulations that have been set forth. Thousands of jobs will be lost. I was at a power plant the other day and 90 people were laid off because of the repercussions from the regulations. People will start bitching when they lose power everyday and their bills double. Coal is not as bad as the public is led to believe.

As I always say: People should not live with their eyes closed about what happens tomorrow... In the US you guys have 174.000 people working in the coal industry, in germany we already have 90.000 working in the wind power sector alone...thats even we are only 81million germans compared to 313million americans (numbers according to wikipedia). I guess coal dust is not very healthy either...but I'm not an expert in this area.

Btw, I chose to change my job towards the wind sector a few years ago and couldn't be happier about the decision, as the last thing I worry about is to find work anywhere on the planet ;-)

I actually found the article very interesting, as I didn't worry about the energy consumption of those data centers at all, I thought they could cover it easily with the solar farms they build. If its really only 10%, they should try to do better, although I would consider some other posts that mentioned energy savings by the move of data from local servers to the cloud.
As for groups like Greenpeace, I believe without them many good changes would have taken much longer in the past, as people & industry take the way of least resistance possible. C'mon we're all lazy sometimes, even if its only that we're too lazy to worry about windows problems

And yes, I receive green energy at home, it's a lazy contribution, but I sleep better

Have a good day everyone.

 

[aegisdesign]

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.

What the 1000 private homes do for their energy needs is up to them. Perhaps, like me, they'll demand 100% green energy for their homes too creating demand for new sources of greener energy instead of using fossil fuels.

Supply and Demand remember. If demand increases for greener energy, supply follows.

 

[redwing88]

Huh!

Let me get this straight. GreenPITA and other nut job groups stopped the building of nuke plants, and now they are whining that someone isn't using the ones we have left. Green jerks, please get real jobs and stop wasting the donated money you mooch off of people that have too much and let it go to groups that deserve it.

 

[Supermacguy]

In North Antelope Rochelle mine in Wyoming they have approx 250 years of coal left in this area at the same rate that they are pumping it out today. Coal is here to stay.

Really? In your first quote you give coal a limited supply. So even if it's more than your lifetime, it's still a LIMITED resource. You just contradicted yourself.
Wind and solar are UNLIMITED. The sun will (for all intents and purposes) shine forever (billions more years) and the wind will likely continue so long as the planet supports life.
Once solar panels are built, their cost is near zero. Large turbines, maybe need some maintenance. But effectively both have little post-production costs once the unit is made. Coal on the hand, continues to need to be mined, processed, and degrades the land and water where plants operate.
Now, no intelligent person thinks that solar will power 100% of everything all hours of the day. Of course there are backups needed for cloudy days, windless days, night, peak use etc. Renewables should be a majority of power production wherever possible.

 

[aegisdesign]

Nuclear power is clean energy.

So, how is the Irish Sea after all those spent nuclear fuel rods are processed at Sellafield? ;-)

 

[28Gauge]

Greenpeace gives me tired head.

 

[WvB22]

I'm a big Apple fan but oh boy can we handle criticism badly. Stop defending Apple on these kind of things. Really you shouldn't. Sure they make some efforts and it's being acknowledged. But with 100 billion in cash apple should lead in innovative ways to do business in a responsible way. Apple should make bigger efforts. We all know that Apple is always proud that their products are non-toxic and recyclable but just a few weeks ago we learned that the new iPad is not that friendly is advertised. I don't think Apple is evil but they could and should do its utmost best (while still taking costs into account).

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Today on Macrumors,

Person/company/organization x says/does thing y about company z.

If x=Apple, then y=virtuous and true, and z=bad/evil

If z=Apple, and y=anything at all, then x=bad/evil conspiracy, climate change fraud, evolution myth, heliocentric theory, the holocaust denial, new world order conspiracy.

Repeat 1000x

Living up to the stereotype that the most brash and opinionated are the most scientifically illiterate I get, but pledging blind loyalty to a friggin brand or company, and continually restructuring your ethics around what's good for them is a fascists wet dream.

 

[iKitten]

So, how is the Irish Sea after all those spent nuclear fuel rods are processed at Sellafield? ;-)

Sh**ty power plants ≠ Modern power plants

 

[Westyfield2]

Having a go against Coal energy is fair enough, but having a go against Nuclear? Nuclear is the cheapest low-carbon energy source!

Anyways, given that Greenpeace are against Sea Shepherd I am therefore against Greenpeace.

 

[LT1FirebirdSLP]

Give me a break. The earth is not going to burst into flames. My lungs are not going to spontaneously hemorrhage. Electric cars are a joke.

Burn coal. Go Apple!

 

[Daveoc64]

Today on Macrumors,

Person/company/organization x says/does thing y about company z.

If x=Apple, then y=virtuous and true, and z=bad/evil

If z=Apple, and y=anything at all, then x=bad/evil conspiracy, climate change fraud, evolution myth, heliocentric theory, the holocaust denial, new world order conspiracy.

This is quite possibly the best post I've read on here.

 

[3282868]

Having a go against Coal energy is fair enough, but having a go against Nuclear? Nuclear is the cheapest low-carbon energy source!

Anyways, given that Greenpeace are against Sea Shepherd I am therefore against Greenpeace.

Wrong. Read post 118. Thanks.

(Excerpts from my post, detailing article "Nuclear Power Is The Problem, Not A Solution"):

In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.

In summary, nuclear power produces, according to a 2004 study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations.

Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so

Plutonium 239, one of the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so toxic that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 200kg is made annually in each 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant. Plutonium is handled like iron in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver, where it causes liver cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone cancer and blood malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can cause severe congenital deformities. Plutonium has a predisposition for the testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic diseases in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000 years, living on to induce cancer and genetic diseases in future generations of plants, animals and humans.

- Yup men, your swimmers could be toxic, or better yet, you could very well become sterile. Fun huh? -

 

[jomuyo]

You act like that's a 'gotcha.' How does that fact have anything to do with what I said?

I said Facebook was building a datacenter in a colder environment. They are. Does the NC center somehow cause the other one to not exist or something?

Building a data center in a colder environment would be a better idea, but that realistically shouldn't be your only consideration for building a multi-billion dollar data center. There are a number of reasons why North Carolina was chosen over a more colder region. I mean Apple must have negotiated an incredible tax deal in North Carolina, the land there is probably cheaper, and the labor force might the cheaper there as well. Apple is trying to make their data center in North Carolina greener. They could of used the extra land they bought, and built another data center like a lot of people thought at the time. Yet they decided to build a solar and fuel cell generation plant instead.

Could Apple have done more to be more environment friendly? Well of course they can, and they probably will do so in the future. But lets be realistic here, Apple is a publicly traded for profit company. So Apple will have to balance their environmental initiatives with their obligations with their share holders. Apple could spend its billions paving the state with solar panels and windmills, but I would rather have them spend more time and money on improving Siri and iCloud.

 

[lostngone]

Anyways, given that Greenpeace are against Sea Shepherd I am therefore against Greenpeace.

They are BOTH nut-ball organizations...

----------

Greenpeace gives me tired head.

WOW! I had no idea they did that kind of thing. Tired or not, it is no wonder their meetings are so popular.

 

[3282868]

Nuclear Power Is The Problem, Not A Solution

(and don't bother with the "TL;DR", if you're posting on here, educate yourself, for the love of god, it'll take you five minutes to read one of the best scientific analyses to date, and this tidbit should catch the attention of many of you:
[/B])



- and WOW, a negative vote on a scientifically published and highly regarded FACTUAL analysis on nuclear energy on MacRumors, interesting that FACTS are ignored or hated on here LOL

People on this thread need to read your post, Dr. Helen Caldicott is one of the most respected and world renowned medical doctor and activist. She has done great work in cancer research with Harvard and working with the U.S., E.U. and Australia in educating people on the facts regarding nuclear energy. It's imperative people know these facts before spouting erroneous rhetoric.

thank you sir!

 

[kurosov]

So one of the biggest proponents for solar/clean power is complaining that a huge solar-farm can't generate enough power to run a data centre.

Hurts their own argument for more than anything.

 

[mytdave]

I'll take more coal, thanks

Greenpeace = zero credibility. Go away.

Coal fired power plants use clean burning technology these days. Coal is not an environmental problem. I'd like to see the number of coal power plants quadruple, helping to improve energy independence for this country.

I would only encourage Apple to build more data centers, and place them smack dab in the middle of coal powered centers of the country. Go get 'em!

 

[Daveoc64]

Hurts their own argument for more than anything.

No it doesn't.

An AA battery isn't going to power an aeroplane - it doesn't make Duracell look bad.

Apple's technical solution is only capable of supplying ~10% of their energy needs. They need to augment it with other options.

 

[3282868]

Greenpeace = zero credibility. Go away.

Really? This AMAZES me. If that is true, why did Apple invite them into their company in 2006, and work WITH THEM in eliminating mercury and arsenic, transition away from more plastic to aluminum (which also facilitates in cooling components), initiate a recycling program, lower emissions from transportation, lessen more pollution as a byproduct of the Mac App Store (selling app's online eliminates production of DVD's, packaging, and transportation of said products while lowering overall production costs), AND still continues to work for a so-called "zero credibility" organization that has done more GOOD for the ONLY PLANET we live on while you type comfortably in your chair using the very same hardware that Greenpeace helped Apple in pushing to become one of the greenest electronics company's without going red?

It's easy to be blissfully ignorant and an armchair activist than it is to educate yourself before making such ridiculous comments.

 

[BaronStein]

Concept of Green for Greenpeace

This whole report seemed very biased and unrealistic to me. So I went through and made some research.

What Greenpeace calls as a renewable energy is the electricity that is gathered through hydroelectric plants. Ener though it is considered as "green" it could have worse effects for the area compared to anything else.

Basically, most hydroelectric plants work with a dam that holds the water. The unnatural lake that is created through that hydroelectric power generating Dam kills the local flora. It floods the area where animals, plants and insects habit and drastically changes the nature. Even in some cases, certain plants and animals get extinct.

Greenpeace considers Facebook as "using 100%" renewable energy in Sweden but if we look at the data, Sweden has almost %50-50 distribution between nuclear and hydro. There is very little "true" renewable energy such as solar and wind. So in this case, we can assume that the renewable energy is based on the hydro for Facebook, which means that actually, it is working on an energy that causes animals to go extinct. But there is nothing in the report about this case.

On the other hand, google has the highest overall ratings about transparency and energy efficiency initiatives. But, it turns out that google has a subsidiary called google energy which does the exact sme thing Enron does as a business model: "trade energy". which means that, theoretically, they have the capacity to go for whichever energy is the cheapest available. So even though a google server in the cloud is feed by a "renewable energy" source, it doesn't mean that actually they pay for that energy. But they go for the fluctuations in the wholesale price in the region. Thus, google has the biggest servers on the world in total, it means that they consume hell of A lot more energy than any other tech company. Well, guess what, there is nothing about this aspect in the report.

I think there should be a collaboration between companies and NGO's for energy and overall sustainability. However, this report that greenpeace brought up is so ridiculous and flawed, I don't think any serious corporation would take them serious. This is not a good thing for the world.



I

 

[tomhut]

Apple have issued a statement. Looks like Greenpeace were wrong.

"Apple responded that the data centre would in fact consume a peak of only 20MW, of which 60 per cent would come from renewable sources such as a 171-acre solar array it is building nearby.
“Our data centre in North Carolina will draw about 20 megawatts at full capacity, and we are on track to supply more than 60 per cent of that power on-site from renewable sources including a solar farm and fuel cell installation which will each be the largest of their kind in the country,” an Apple spokesman said.
“We believe this industry-leading project will make Maiden the greenest data centre ever built, and it will be joined next year by our new facility in Oregon running on 100 per cent renewable energy." "

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9209505/Apple-battles-Greenpeace-over-dirty-iPhone-server-farms.html

 

[Daveoc64]

Apple have issued a statement. Looks like Greenpeace were wrong.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...reenpeace-over-dirty-iPhone-server-farms.html

Very interesting.

It's good that Apple has released the information. Although I'm a little puzzled about why they wouldn't be more transparent in the first place. What they've achieved sounds impressive.

The only thing I do wonder is when they are at "full capacity". Presumably that refers to a time of day, potentially when they aren't getting much out of the solar cells (i.e. at night).

 

[CFreymarc]

Anyone that thinks Greenpeace & Sierra Club have good ideas should look into their ownership and the political background of their owners and managers. I was once a member of both until I found the truth.

No one that wants to work and provide for their family should give any thought to what they think. Don't trust me, look into it. Its really shocking.

Join the club! I have worked with a lot of ex-Greenpeace and they all have said that the upper level have serious Marxist / Socialist roots to where they just do their best to destroy any economic energy production to reduce individual freedom.