Greepeace stages protest on roof of Apple's European HQ in Ireland - Page 2

You left out the part where I said it doesn't have to.

I'll take your words as gospel:

You can take my words as factual. Gospel implies I speak for Apple.

Leaving the bizarre definition of gospel aside, I'll take your words as factual:



I'll go further, and I will concede that if a fuel cell is powered with a renewable, it can be said that the fuel cell produces renewable energy. But that is not the case with Apple's fuel cells, and so for Apple to include their fossil fueled cells as renewable is just plain wrong.

I don't think my definition is anywhere near as bizarre as declaring that fuel cells aren't renewable energy, like you did...

Apple's fuel cells should not be called renewable energy, given your claim:



Listen - any gas fueled power plant could run on biogas. But nobody would call the output of gas turbine plants "renewable energy".

And Apple should not call the output of its natural gas generators "renewable energy".

Still wrong. It may or may not be the case with Apple fuel cells. They haven't even built them yet!

Interesting that Apple has a European HQ in Ireland but no Apple Store.

Then why did you claim:

"Our data center in North Carolina will draw about 20 megawatts at full capacity, and we are on track to supply more than 60 percent 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..."

You're the one who called them "renewable energy", not me, and not Apple.

Because most large scale fuel cells do presently. Perhaps I'll be wrong.

Your reed is getting thinner.

But given that
it follows that the fossil fueled cells will NOT be supplying electricity from renewable sources.

Sad, ZZZ. You need to learn how to lose an argument more gracefully.

No, you are likely correct that Apple is calling natural gas a "renewable source". Give yourself some credit.

Dig deeper. Or stop digging. Your choice.

"Likely" isn't the same as incontrovertably.

Good point. And much better than your definition of "gospel".

Kudos.


And hey - maybe, against all odds, you will be wrong. Congrats.

It's been fun. We'll have to do this again sometime....

I accept your concession of defeat.

Yeah, yeah. I heard that "get a room" comment...

Don't feed the troll

It's important to keep the facts straight going forward. ZZZ did make some concessions. You need to give him that.

Thank you. But the main point is that Apple is calling the natural gas it will be using a "renewable source".

If Apple built a traditional natural gas power plant, would it still call it a source of renewable energy?

They should laud the good aspects of using fuel cells, and not say untrue things.

Fuel cells configured in the manner Apple plans cut down on transmission losses, which are otherwise significant. They require much less infrastructure compared to traditional centralized plants.

They also release much less greenhouse gas than other methods of burning fossil fuels. They are relatively clean.

But they are not powerd by a renewable source (despite the fact that they could be).

I love how Greanpeace admitted their 100+MW number was probably bullshit after Apple stated it only uses 20 at peak, but that the goal was to 'bring attention' to the issue and 'start a conversations'.

Yeah, go fuck yourself you lying tardfaces Grossly misrepresenting the truth is never a legitimate way to 'start a conversation' especially when you're such self-righteous, lying dickfaces about it.

There might be some validity to your arguments - IF Greenpeace were using accurate data. In fact, Greenpeace flat out lied about the amount of energy Apple is using as well as how much of that came from renewables. So their whining is wrong.


Incorrect. A fuel cell is renewable if the source of hydrogen (or methane which is where the hydrogen is commonly derived) is from a renewable source.



That's called doubling down on your error. And you're wrong.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/19753...h_solar_biogas

The reputation of Greenpeace is completely trashed. They are a bogus "charity" trying to get attention to raise money is all. Any enviro credibility they once had has gone up in smoke.

Why not protest coal fired power at the energy companies' headquarters? Because Apple is the worlds #1 global brand and that will get these attention whores more notice in the mass media.

Cleaning up our air is FAR too important (with implications from coastal flooding to disease to birth defects) not to leverage the largest company in the world for awareness-building.

Its also FAR too important to damage your ow cause by making up or cherry-picking facts. We need a Greenpeace that is consistently credible with their facts. Then they can pull every stunt in the book for all our benefitjust prioritize facts first. Theres no other approach that wont backfire.

The ends justify the means? Kill the population in order to save it? That's a slippery slope you're on.

Wow, a lot of people don't get it.

In order for Greenpeace to follow their mission, they need to be publicity hounds. Protesting Apple gets them a lot of media coverage.

That's reality. Sure, they could protest United Technologies, ABB, or RR Donnelley, but that's not going to get them front page coverage. Heck, even protesting Microsoft, Google, or Amazon.com isn't going to get them half as much media coverage.

They can't apply even attention to all corporations on this planet, so they need to stragetically focus their efforts.

I support Greenpeace's basic mission, although I don't care too much for how they go about doing it. Thus, I give my emotional support, but not any dollars from my wallet. But there are enough Apple haters who I hope are giving generously to Greenpeace.

This is just part of the game when you're a major worldwide corporation.

So it's OK for them to lie?

Apple is far ahead of the competition in most cases. Greenpeace fabricated numbers in order to attack Apple.

Wouldn't they be more honest (and probably more effective) if they based their complaints on facts and went after the REAL polluters?

You lose all credibility when you post something so patently silly.

(I am not talking about nuclear, which is, not just in its operations but also its entire life cycle -- even leaving scalability issues aside -- by far the 'cleanest' energy source).

1. Fuel Cells are not a mean of generating energy as you and others have put it (its purpose here is to store the overhead energy made by the solar cells)!

2. Fuel Cells are used to store energy and manage extra electricity production

3. The Fuel Cells are used to store the extra energy generated by the Solar Cells throughout the day so they can use them at night or at peak times!

4. This is common practice to regulate energy made by renewable sources (like sun or wind) and many companies are undertaking trials in the field of energy storage! This is just one method.

Does anyone really care what Greenpeace has to say?

To me, they're just one more liberal whacko bunch of demonstrators like the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

I give them a big yawn.

For anyone interested in more information on this issue have a look at this presentation by a company called Hydrogen Horizons

http://www.nanomicroclub.com/events/...ge-systems.pdf


Otherwise please do a search on Google Books for Fuel Cell Energy Storage!

It's too bad that none of them accidentally slipped and fell from the roof. That at least would have made for a more interesting and entertaining news story.

Hopefully the dirty little buggers will be charged with illegally trespassing.

If greenpeace wants to make a cleaner earth why don't they put their time and money into finding an alternative for these companies to use?

Whoever runs greenpeace is making a fortune off these clueless tree huggers and their donations.

Funny that for staging this protest they drove from the Netherlands with a long Landrover Defender (not exactly the smallest carbon footprint), used a power generator on the entrance roof to make floating soap clouds (yes that really helps the environment), and the pictures they made on their iPhone 4s was synching via Photostream to the cloud (we like using your Apple products and services, oooops). The flyers, well at least they were recycled paper, but the free rubberized mouse pads looked a lot like those very cheap ones that are made in China (You must of heard of that country were coal is the main source for electricity 2/3)
I think that making people aware of such things is good, but the means do not always justify. But I guess staging something like this outside Microsoft in Sandyford wouldn't even garner a blip on the news.

I just love this whole renewable fuel/power debate, face it people no power generation today is clean. Anyone who say so has not ideal what they are talking about. What people do not factor into all this is the simple fact of how much energy was consumed or use to product the item that is harnessing the so called free sun or wind or water.

The only way to cut waste it to cut what we use. Even though car and computer all use less fuels these days we just have more of them so the total consumption has not gone down but up.

I am not sure why anyone even listens to Greenpeace anymore and not even sure why Apple or any company even response to them. I keep saying this, until they are naked in the woods living off the land, they should stop throwing stones at everyone's glass houses. Greenpeace has never fixed a think in many cases they make the situation worse.

I giving this example in the past, back in the 70's the protested McDonald's in CA about using paper and card board to put hamburgs in they told the store owner to was better to use Styrofoam since it did not destroy forests, so they did use it only to have Greenpeace come back in the 90's and say Styrofoam was killing the ozone go back to paper.

Everyone know our power consumption is bad and our use of fuel is destroying thing stop telling us what we already know come up with a solution and BTW, telling apple to use more solarcell is not the solution since most are built in China (you know the whole labor issue) and the chemicals use to fabricate them are really nasty stuff. and it takes lots of power to make one and they only last about 10 yrs before you have to replace them considering most coal plant have been running 50 yrs along with Nuclear.

By state law, a certain percentage of the gas supplied to Apple (everyone) is required to be sourced from something other than natural gas. So in effect, the fuel cells are run from renewable fuel, just not 100%.

So Apple's claims are true. Apple doesn't have a huge pile of crap to draw all the necessary methane from to power the data center. Although, I'm sure they'd be willing to take some off your hands, since you seem to be overflowing with it.


Personally, I think we need to build (and update) more nuclear plants until more efficient and inexpensive "green" methods can be developed.

No, fuel cells do not store energy. Instead, they convert energy from one type of fuel to another, i.e. from gasses into into electricity.