Sidebar Sidebar
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

Exactly .... Greenpeace, please put a lid on it!

Isn't it funny the 3 biggest "offenders" in their opinion are also among the biggest 3 or 4 cloud-hosting services you could possibly name? Gee... *maybe* the deal is, if you're big enough and support enough customers, your data farms have power requirements that demand you source a decent sized chunk of your power needs from a coal powered plant?

Did they ever factor in the energy SAVINGS created by these cloud providers allowing businesses to shut down servers they used to maintain themselves?


StealthRider said:
I thought the world was done caring about these nut jobs and their moronic "studies". Guess not...
Click to expand...
 
While I agree with Greenpeace's motives about a cleaner Earth and whatnot, I think they should put their money where their mouth is. Instead of complaining, they should put in the time & money to find & implement better energy sources.
 
tomhut said:
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/technolo...reenpeace-over-dirty-iPhone-server-farms.html
Click to expand...

Notice the "will be" and "we are on track", meaning, they are not there (yet). While I applaud Apple for working with Greenpeace since 2006, their data center is not (yet) "green", thus Greenpeace is correct in their statements. Until Apple follows through on their claims, Greenpeace is in the green here.

Plus, how can some of you defend trashing this planet? Have you read about the island of plastic in both the Pacific and Indian oceans?

plastic-island.jpeg


090-0804113656-plastic-beach-03.jpg


Charles Moore - the Great Pacific plastic trash island
"Only we humans make waste that nature cannot digest"

WATCH THE ABOVE, I IMPLORE YOU

Or the amount of fossil fuels burned in China, a country that consists of most of the worlds population? Or the dangers of Nuclear Energy?

One solution not discussed yet: hydrogen fuel cell. Then Sen Hillary Clinton worked with GM to produce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for the Army, which they currently use. Many advancements have been made and are still being made (R.I.T. was given a $500 million grant in researching the mass production of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles). With less moving parts than the combustion engine, and now less flammable than gasoline vehicles (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Ford especially are all testing hydrogen vehicles in California, Florida, etc), with a byproduct of fresh water or water vapor through the chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen, and now using new solar panels in fueling stations coupled with improvements in separating hydrogen from water, there is little to no tax on other power sources to obtain hydrogen. More research and usage will only lead to better implementation of this tech.

Instead of spouting nasty remarks about an organization you may not agree with, they are doing good for the only planet we call home. Already we have record breaking temperatures, tornadoes in the midwest alone this year have caused billions worth of damage, and with the freshly melted ice caps moving down the oceanic belt through the Atlantic and pushing down the warmer, denser salt water near the equator, our ecosystem is being greatly compromised as the oceanic belt is a huge determinant of how our planet functions. I am very passionate about environmental issues and have worked with NY State and California along with other organizations in educating people on facts regarding the 7+ billion people that all negatively impact our planet. Please, instead of blindly hating others for trying to help, why not educate yourself and make a difference? I recycle 70% of our garbage, use biodegradable garbage bags, compost (which is now law in San Francisco), and drive only when I need to and make use of my nav system for the shortest routes. My point: it takes very little for each of us to make a difference.

I applaud MacRumors for engaging a dialog on a very important issue. I wish only some of you would be willing to open your minds to the facts regarding energy usage and not simple condemn others for their efforts. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Xeem said:
Wikipedia says:
"Coal power in the United States accounted for 42% of the country's electricity production in 2011."

I don't think it's Apple's fault that almost half of America's energy come from coal, for better or for worse. If you're really anti-coal and looking to blame someone for Apple using some coal-generated power, blame the U.S. energy system.
Click to expand...

If Apple creates a new demand for energy (e.g. a service that users didn't know they needed), then yes, Apple has its share of responsibility. And this is not the John's Cloud, a startup business with a single server that wants to dispute its market share from the scratch. This is Apple's iCloud, a service that started with millions of users in the very first day.
 
pdjudd said:
Read the OP, Greenpeace acknowledged it but is obvioulsy downplaying it since they say it only covers 10% of the energy needs.
Click to expand...

Perhaps one needs to count how many greenpeace activists own cars, use planes, and how many greepeace ships are wind powered.

Everything can be achieved by walking or sail, and yet the greenies look to speed and convenience.
 
CFreymarc said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just look at all the damage Greenpeace has done to Apple as evidence, right?
 
Solar is really just a small piece of a solution ....

Sure, once a solar panel is built, it has a "near zero" ongoing cost of operation, UNTIL it wears out. They don't last forever.... I believe the panels I looked at once, sold commercially to place on one's roof in a home, had a rated life expectancy of about 25 years. That's still ok, if the panel is inexpensive enough to begin with. But going by current electric rates here in the midwestern USA, it takes over 18 years for a typical solar installation on a home to pay for itself. That assumes nothing goes wrong prematurely with the panel -- and they do require basic cleaning every so often, at the very least, so efficiency isn't reduced. (That's a task you'd probably have to pay someone to do, if you have a 2 story home and aren't real comfortable getting up on your roof and messing around with it.)

The big problem with solar is, the sun's rays simply don't pack a whole lot of wattage per square foot. Even a (physically impossible to build) 100% efficient solar panel wouldn't generate the kind of power you need to run your air conditioner and other major appliances. You need them to take up LOTS of space to accomplish that. Land is expensive and generally considered a valuable resource too .... so that has to be factored in to all these ideas of putting solar farms everywhere.

I'm not advocating coal as the "best option" either ... but I'm just saying solar sounds the best on paper, until you take a closer look and realize it has severe limitations that will probably always make it a "secondary" power option.


Supermacguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
guzhogi said:
While I agree with Greenpeace's motives about a cleaner Earth and whatnot, I think they should put their money where their mouth is. Instead of complaining, they should put in the time & money to find & implement better energy sources.
Click to expand...

Yes, NGOs have their flaws and they're not immune to criticism. However, this doesn't exempt Apple from being criticized.
 
Didn't Apple plan to add solar panels to their data centers? Did they look into that as well?

Edit: Geez people, I was surprised to find this, that is all. Given that there have been multiple threads here about the solar farms. I realize that a data center uses a lot of power per se, but in relation to other places and divided per user?

It's very easy to be environmentally friendly if all it takes is to buy a product, shift the responsibility to some third party. No personal sacrifice, and still left with a nice feeling of having "done" something.
 
Last edited:
jomuyo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I still don't see what all of this Apple stuff has to do with my Facebook comment.

You said I didn't read the article, but I keep feeling like you didn't read my post. I didn't say ANYTHING about Apple.
 
Wow, lotta fanboys upset that their religion was called out for being less than environmentally clean. I always enjoy reading threads like this one because of its predictable posts.
 
sir1963nz said:
Perhaps one needs to count how many greenpeace activists own cars, use planes, and how many greepeace ships are wind powered.

Everything can be achieved by walking or sail, and yet the greenies look to speed and convenience.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with my post? I was just pointing out something in the OP to another poster - they do acknowledge Apple using solar and fuel cells. I was not making any statement about Greenpeace other than they downplayed that fact.

I have no affiliation with nor do I take any side regarding Greenpeace.
 
It is never enough for them

It is never enough for them , they are so good at twisting things GreenPeace , they need to stick with whales .
 
Wow.. what a narrow-minded assumption to make!

I couldn't care LESS if Apple gets called out for doing something wrong. To be completely honest about it? I'm more and more suspicious of them as they grow in popularity. History tells us the most successful businesses almost invariably become the "bad guy" when they get big enough to stop innovating so well. Like a giant cruise ship, they're just too big to change their course quickly when it's called for.... They've been headed in a general direction, for a while now, of hiring people from completely different industries to head up various parts of Apple, and IMO, it usually just serves to dilute their original vision. (EG. Apple stores used to hire more "tech geek" type folks. As soon as they hired a guy away from T.J. Maxxx stores to run that part of things for them, they changed to a focus on hip, trendy people and became almost allergic to hiring people with deep computer knowledge.)

My problems with Greenpeace and this whole "Green agenda" have nothing to do with Apple. It's just that in general, the public is being scammed with this stuff. We're getting taxed so Federal govt. can pay out huge grants to new companies promising environmentally friendly solutions they aren't even equipped to deliver on. We've got flawed ideas like "carbon credits" being floated around, which solve absolutely nothing except lining the pockets of people running the carbon credit fee collection organizations. Progress is slowed down and suffers, as people who don't even understand the science of what they're talking about call all the shots.... It's just a bad deal.


scottsjack said:
Wow, lotta fanboys upset that their religion was called out for being less than environmentally clean. I always enjoy reading threads like this one because of its predictable posts.
Click to expand...
 
CFreymarc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Huh? Economic energy production provides freedom? This is what US government argues when starts wars against oil producer countries. Therefore, this is a very poor argument. "War implies on obtaining cheaper energy which implies on greater individual freedom." Nice reasoning!

And individual freedom can't be more important than people's well-being. Oh, I've forgot you're liberal, so you're not open to any action of altruism. Maybe Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is your bible.
 
Can't use coal. Can't use nuclear. Solar is too inefficient and wind harms birds. Can't use hydroelectric on dams because that stops fish from swimming. I guess we'll wait for a power source generated by Ed Begley Jr's sense of self satisfaction.
 
Apple either better change their ways or make their warranty include water damage. Because if they don't become more clean the entire Earth is going to be submerged in water due to the global warming they caused.
 
MacRumors said:
[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]



Update: In a statement issued to The New York Times, Apple discloses for the first time that the current data center in Maiden, North Carolina consumes roughly 20 megawatts of power, meaning that the 25 megawatts of power planned for the solar farm and fuel cell facility at that location should be sufficient for at least this phase of the project. Apple's long-term plans include eventually doubling the size of the data center with a second building, and it seems unlikely that the 20-megawatt number includes those plans.

Article Link: Greenpeace Takes on Apple and Other Tech Companies over Coal-Powered Data Centers
Click to expand...

The update makes absolutely no sense. 20-megawatts of peak usage says nothing about power consumed. Power consumed is measured in megawatt hours (MWh) not megawatts (MW).

(Think of MWs as the size of a water pipe and MWh the amount of water flowing through the pipe if you are having trouble with a visualization.)

Same problem with the solar plant and fuel cell complex but you also need to take into account the capacity factor (a generous capacity factor would be 50% for the solar and 85% for the fuel cell).

This is why PR people need to learn some science....
 
I honestly still cannot comprehend why photovoltaics aren't mainstream. (I know there are problems with efficiency, but still)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back