Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't get it.

Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple use the most nuclear power, the cleanest, safest, and most economical form of energy generation this planet has ever seen.

----------

I honestly still cannot comprehend why photovoltaics aren't mainstream. (I know there are problems with efficiency, but still)

I don;t get why photovoltaics would ever be mainstream.
 
[QUOTE
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.[/QUOTE]

Actually no, companies will not build more CCGT or other types of gas plants. The reason, the low price of gas means low prices of MW on the market. You can build an efficent CCGT but it has to be paid for. If MW are going for 8 to 15.00 a MW hour the company will not be able to afford to pay the mortgage on the plant. A CCGT goes for in the neighborhood of 800 - 900 million dollars. Investors want a payback pretty quickly.
 
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).

Presumably the power draw of the data center doesn't vary a great deal so the 20 MW draw is reasonably constant, leading to 20 MWh of energy (not "power") consumed each hour.
 
I honestly still cannot comprehend why photovoltaics aren't mainstream. (I know there are problems with efficiency, but still)

I don;t get why photovoltaics would ever be mainstream.

PV arrays seem to be mainstream in outer space (at least in earth-orbit space). ;)

I put PV panels on about ¼ of my roof. My electric bill last year was -$300.

As an individual, I can look at long-term ROI (my 8.5 kW array will take about 7 years to pay off if electric rates don't increase - if rates increase it will pay off faster).

Wall Street and the markets, though, have a 3 month window. That makes it harder for US companies to invest in long-term projects. (One of the factors that help Asian companies advance on the US is that their markets are friendlier to long-term strategies.)
 
Why won't Greenpeace tell me how to see what color my electrons are?! I'm electron colorblind! The horror! Won't someone tell me which electrons are green?!
There is a great book by a guy who tried to figure out exactly what the hell electrons "are." He failed, miserably, though I love his effort. He decided to call them "greenies." Well, they aren't. They aren't anything. They don't exist. They are a concept that arises from measurements of the world, but they are not things. And, worse (actually, from my perspective, better) there simply are no things. The universe is entirely mental (in your head, so to speak). My remark is not an idle thought: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436029a.html
 
Fact checking....

I'm a long term supporter (financial and volunteer) of GP but sometimes what they do seems knee-jerk. They aren't a news agency but still need to fact check. Throwing out claims, to have them proven incorrect or inaccurate later hurts the GP image.

With regards to Apple, there's the use of biogas Bloom boxes, the bad math about the energy consumption in Virginia (the solar farm will generate a 15% surplus of energy), and Prineville, Or is in the Columbia River Valley, noted for it's inexpensive hydroelectric power supplied by Pacific Power plus they recently approved plans for a large wind farm in Prineville.
 
Greenpeace and other "green" groups should be lobbying Washington to figure out how to bring down the high cost of solar power alternatives and other sustainable eneries, instead of griping about big companies that CAN afford it, and are actually doing something about it already.

As long as the price of these "green systems" are unatainable by the every day person, we will never see them adopted on a regular basis.

:D:D:D:D

But if they were actually effective... we might someday not need Greenpeace. :p
 
I don't get it.

Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple use the most nuclear power, the cleanest, safest, and most economical form of energy generation this planet has ever seen.


Again, read post 118, nuclear energy is the most DANGEROUS form of energy EVER.

Nuclear Power Is The Problem, Not A Solution

just an excerpt:

I will describe four of the most dangerous elements made in nuclear power plants.

Iodine 131, which was released at the nuclear accidents at Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the US, is radioactive for only six weeks and it bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body via the gut and the lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the neck, where it can later induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2000 children have had their thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation never before recorded in pediatric literature.

Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the human breast during lactation, and in bone, where it can later induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia.

Cesium 137, which also lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food chain, particularly meat. On entering the human body, it locates in muscle, where it can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma.

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.

Plutonium is also the fuel for nuclear weapons -- only 5kg is necessary to make a bomb and each reactor makes more than 200kg per year. Therefore any country with a nuclear power plant can theoretically manufacture 40 bombs a year.

Because nuclear power leaves a toxic legacy to all future generations, because it produces global warming gases, because it is far more expensive than any other form of electricity generation, and because it can trigger proliferation of nuclear weapons, these topics need urgently to be introduced into the tertiary educational system of Australia, which is host to 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the world's richest uranium.

Dr. Helen Caldicott is an anti-nuclear campaigner and founder and president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, which warns of the danger of nuclear energy.

You know, some of you sound like a bunch of paranoid lunatics. You act as though Greenpeace is some evil empire out to get Apple. Newsflash, Apple has been working WITH Greenpeace for the past few years. Also, Apple is the largest tech company with ~$100 Billion in cash, producing iDevices like it's going out of style. Of course Greenpeace is going to hold them to a higher standard, and they should, I want Apple to be a better company cause I like them. I give no company passes.

All this rhetoric and hate for an organization that has done more for this planet than the majority of you is astonishing, all because you need to defend Apple with blind allegiance. If anything, Greenpeace is nothing compared to some of the paranoid conspiracy theorists here that think Greenpeace is a "Marxist" and "Socialist" group of "felons" out to get Apple. Careful, Greenpeace might be tapping your phone's. Oh no! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who exactly is Greenfleece accountable to?
Who voted for them?
What authority or jurisdition do they have?
Who takes on Greenfleece and oversees them?
Who monitors a group of environmental fascists and vigilanties?
 
Update 2: Greenpeace has responded with a blog post questioning Apple's statements

While it is good to see Apple acknowledge it should reveal more details of the energy consumption of its data centers, the information they released today does not add up with what they have reported to be the size of the investment and physical size of the data center. [...] While Apple is well known for making more expensive consumer products, if Apple's plans for the $ 1Billion investment only generates 20MW in power demand, that would be taking the "Apple premium" to a whole new level.

The plot thickens :p
 
I'm all for cleaning up the the environment but if they're complaining about apple after they showed off their solar plans then they are pretty dumb


Also i'm tired of greenpeace complaining about nuclear energy. if he hadn't been so scared of nuclear energy in the 70s and 80s we'd wouldn't even have this global warming problem.
Tell that to everyone living in Japan. :(
 
While it is good to see Apple acknowledge it should reveal more details of the energy consumption of its data centers, the information they released today does not add up with what they have reported to be the size of the investment and physical size of the data center. [...] While Apple is well known for making more expensive consumer products, if Apple's plans for the $ 1Billion investment only generates 20MW in power demand, that would be taking the "Apple premium" to a whole new level.

Now they're just being jerks!
 
Who exactly is Greenfleece accountable to?

Never heard of Greenfleece.

Who voted for them?

Who cares? Who voted for the Cato Institute, MADD, the NRA, Doctors Without Borders, the Red Cross or the local animal shelter? Are you suggesting that because an organization isn't elected into public office it somehow renders their views false or unreliable?

What authority or jurisdition do they have?

They are not in a position of power and authority over others. They have no guns or arms. Do you worship power and authority? Are you defending the logical fallacy of appeal to authority?

Who takes on Greenfleece and oversees them?

Not sure about Greenfleece, but Greenpeace is governed by the same rules and laws pertaining to all nonprofit societies and charitable organizations. They file tax forms and annual reports. Anyone is free to 'take them on'. They are often criticiized in the MSM as well as here on MR.

Who monitors a group of environmental fascists and vigilanties?

Please cite credible sources and examples of fascism and vigilantism by GP without twisting the meaning of those terms to suit your spin. (And, no, knocking on doors for donations or placing themselves in harms way of harpoons do not count as fascism or vigilantism).
 
I don;t get why photovoltaics would ever be mainstream.

It's a kW per square meter, sunlight. Each 9 square feet section of your roof could provide you with (current technology) 150-200W of power. On average an American househould consumes 1000W. 40-50 square feet of roofspace could cover your electrical bill.

As another poster said, you can install some more, and earn cash to pay for your investment, and recoup the investment in 5-10 years. Over the (rated) lifetime of the installation your ROI could be as high as 15-20%. Have you looked at interest-rates recently?

Larger investments earn more. Many Dutch farmers have windmills. A 1MW windmill will cost 1.5 million euro's over it's 25 year lifespan, and earn, at current prices, 3 million euro's in electricity. If you're a 40 year old farmer with enough equity to secure the loan it's enough to pay for beer when your retire. And then some.

**** green and all that ****. (Censorbot kicking in..:) ) It's an easy way to make money, and you can start with investing as little as 5000 dollars to get rid of one monthly bill. For the better part of the rest of your life.
 
I'm all for cleaning up the the environment but if they're complaining about apple after they showed off their solar plans then they are pretty dumb


Also i'm tired of greenpeace complaining about nuclear energy. if he hadn't been so scared of nuclear energy in the 70s and 80s we'd wouldn't even have this global warming problem.

Jesus, some people have stupidly short memories...

Let me remind you: Fukushima (just you know, just over a year ago, and one of your reactors (GE) it seems..), Chernobyl and Three Mile island just to name a few more. There have been core meltdowns at numerous other places too.

Rarely have I seen such a bunch of brown-nosed fan-boys: you'll all defend apple to the end whatever they do. Fact is, and Greenpeace have rightly pulled them up on it, their solution is dirty in comparison to other solutions and that's that. It's not a big deal, but together with the other points such as transparency they are just confirming the image most people have anyway of :apple:...
 
Obama will tax coal production to death so we have to use expensive inefficient energy sources before they are efficient. Remember his attack on the coal industry during the election?
 
Jesus, some people have stupidly short memories...

Let me remind you: Fukushima (just you know, just over a year ago, and one of your reactors (GE) it seems..), Chernobyl and Three Mile island just to name a few more. There have been core meltdowns at numerous other places too.

Rarely have I seen such a bunch of brown-nosed fan-boys: you'll all defend apple to the end whatever they do. Fact is, and Greenpeace have rightly pulled them up on it, their solution is dirty in comparison to other solutions and that's that. It's not a big deal, but together with the other points such as transparency they are just confirming the image most people have anyway of :apple:...

Don't waste your time. This has become (as usual) a thread of personal attacks, fact distortion and Apple defensiveness. I'd like to see some of these people when the planet really goes to ****, maybe they can hail a passing gondola for work.
 
Ugh, Greenpeace. So often the delivery of your message dilutes the message. Why are they so over the top? I'm a green-conscious, new energy proponent and I can't stand the things they put out. So pompous. Their posture is assume everyone is lying to them, accuse them of it in public, and force them to scramble to either prove they were wrong or adjust their policy. It's play-by-shame and it's messed up. They ooze anti-corporation sentiment and it's annoying and outdated. Again, I'm pretty green, but these guys are way over the top the way PETA is way over the top.

The bottom line is that a data center hogs a lot of energy. Apple is trying to supply quite a bit of that through solar, which is AWESOME. But does Greenpeace consider the SAVINGS that cloud data provides to the environment? I'm sure this is ultra-difficult to pinpoint, but there has to be retail displacement benefits, along with changing long-term behavior trends.

If I displace a retail sale to the cloud, I:
- I didn't have to package the goods for retail, thus removing all the pollution and energy used in that cycle.
- I didn't have to transport the goods to retail, thus removing carbon consumption and pollution. This is even more prevalent when we consider overseas export.
- I didn't have labor engaged in retail.

Centralized hubs reduce inefficiency in a lot of ways. Cities are cleaner than the suburbs. Data centers– well, if they can push things away from retail and offer as much clean energy as possible, they can do it, too.

----------

Obama will tax coal production to death so we have to use expensive inefficient energy sources before they are efficient. Remember his attack on the coal industry during the election?

Yes, that's the point.

You have to promote more efficient and longer term strategies before they are profitable. You understand how profit works, right? The government supplements the economics around DEMAND until the scale is there to prove profitable. This isn't the asinine ethanol subsidies than nobody but corn farmers like. It's about forcing coal to be as economically ugly as it is environmentally ugly– pushing the economy to the threshold of profitability.

Put it this way– energy jobs can't be outsourced, regardless of technology (coal or clean.) The jobs don't disappear, but the energy produced from them does get cleaner.
 
Nuclear Power Is The Problem, Not A Solution

Completely off-topic, but relevant for what you say:

Chernobyl happened some time ago. Did you know that to this day sheep in certain hotspots in Wales, Scotland and the north of England are tested for radiation, and that 1-2% of sheep tested will fail and have to be disposed as radioactive waste? It's just a few millions of dollars of lamb and mutton which goes to waste, but most people have no idea this is still happening.

The same goes for nuts, mushrooms and wild boars in Germany and raindeer in Finland and Lapland.

Chernobyl might be 26 years ago, but for some the effects are still very real and something with a daily impact on their lives.
 
Greenpeace and Engineering...

If Greenpeace would have really the peace and environment in mind, then they would not pick Apple's datacenter but for example General Motors instead. Building heavy gas guzzling cars requires a HUGE amount of energy and the final product has the sole purpose of wasting/burning ( transform in smoke, noise and smell) even more of the very limited and UNIQUE fossil energy, which is our dwindling crude oil. Electrical energy for the data center however, can be produced from other sources which is nuclear, water, wind, sun and also a bit of coal. Whereas the nuclear energy is the one of the most clean form of large scale energy transformation which we have, which doesn't consume oxygen nor produces any exhaust gases and even the waste is in volume very minuscule in comparison to any fossil power plant. I would recommend to the greenpeace activists a few years of studying engineering in order to get the right perspective of our energy problem:D
 
If Greenpeace would have really the peace and environment in mind, then they would not pick Apple's datacenter but for example General Motors instead. Building heavy gas guzzling cars requires a HUGE amount of energy and the final product has the sole purpose of wasting/burning ( transform in smoke, noise and smell) even more of the very limited and UNIQUE fossil energy, which is our dwindling crude oil. Electrical energy for the data center however, can be produced from other sources which is nuclear, water, wind, sun and also a bit of coal. Whereas the nuclear energy is the one of the most clean form of large scale energy transformation which we have, which doesn't consume oxygen nor produces any exhaust gases and even the waste is in volume very minuscule in comparison to any fossil power plant. I would recommend to the greenpeace activists a few years of studying engineering in order to get the right perspective of our energy problem:D

How do you know they don't?
 
Jesus, some people have stupidly short memories...

Let me remind you: Fukushima (just you know, just over a year ago, and one of your reactors (GE) it seems..), Chernobyl and Three Mile island just to name a few more. There have been core meltdowns at numerous other places too.

Rarely have I seen such a bunch of brown-nosed fan-boys: you'll all defend apple to the end whatever they do. Fact is, and Greenpeace have rightly pulled them up on it, their solution is dirty in comparison to other solutions and that's that. It's not a big deal, but together with the other points such as transparency they are just confirming the image most people have anyway of :apple:...

Chernobyl is no longer valid. The technology is 100 times more advanced than it was in 1986. Three Mile island had zero (0) injuries or deaths. The worst disaster since Chernobyl killed six (6) people. How many people died in petroleum related accidents? A fluorine leak at an oil refinery would be worse than a nuclear meltdown. Coal kills 30 people a year in the United States. No contest nuclear is safer than oil or coal.

Back to the point, Greenpeace should perform a self-audit to find out if they use coal power in their homes. They are equally as responsible as Apple and Amazon for the use of coal.

It's foolish that they go after three companies, and none of them harvest the power, they just buy it. By putting apple in the spotlight, Greenpeace push the issue.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.