Data centers use an awful lot of power and any steps taken to minimize electricity consumption is surely a good thing. Clearly everybody here feels that GP is the devil incarnate but be that as it may, does anybody know what if anything Apple has done to minimize the reliance on fossil fuels, now that somebody has brought it up.
Data centers use an awful lot of power and any steps taken to minimize electricity consumption is surely a good thing. Clearly everybody here feels that GP is the devil incarnate but be that as it may, does anybody know what if anything Apple has done to minimize the reliance on fossil fuels, now that somebody has brought it up.
What is Green Peaces stance on the mercury in the Federally mandated Compact Fluoresce Light bulbs?
Their stance is the mercury in the bulbs is more than offset by their reduced energy consumption, which causes less coal to be burned. Coal produces mercury as well.
This pretty much ignores the facts that the amount of coal being burned doesn't change when you switch bulbs and that coal plants can (and in fact, are required by law to) install mercury scrubbers to capture all mercury emissions.
They are always issuing reports, and only because they've engaged in terrorism does anyone report about them. (remember back when ramming a ships wasn't considered terrorism?)
Quote:
Trump gives business people a bad name. He's an insider who has dealt in political pull since the beginning -- rather than a entrepreneur who is innovative.
I hate him. I think he is a reprehensible human being.
That said, he's still an order of magnitude less evil than obama.
I think the point is Greenpeace would have preferred Apple located the datacenter somewhere else where there is hydroelectric or other green energy...
..Apparently Iceland is a really good place for data centers as it is close to both Europe and the US, has clean/cheap geothermal energy and the climate is cold which cuts down on the cooling bill.
And then some other group would get mad because they'd be taking good-paying jobs outside the country.
I wonder what quality of paper Greenpeace released its report on.
So I suppose the answer is that we should be driving ourselves (in our polluting cars) down to our local record store (a heated/cooled waste of space when you can do it electronically), and buy CD's (CD's and jewel cases manufactured out of petroleum products and shipped from manufacturer to distributor to retail store) -- or better yet, how about some nice, big vinyl LP's? No toxins in LP's, I'm sure. And the discs will all eventually end up in landfills.
Or, we could have one huge data center.
And it also helps the environment that devices need less flash memory to store data locally.
BTW, what were these Greenpeace folks typing their reviews on? Where did the power come from? And on what data centers are their webpages and emails stored?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
Sure, but wouldn't you prefer these datacenters be located where they make use of greener energy sources and therefore put Apple at the top of the list of "how clean is your data center" rather than at the bottom?
But when is enough, enough? Is it not enough that the ITS and the data center virtually eliminate all the toxic waste and energy that frugality mentions, plus created jobs through constructing the building, plus jobs to run the facility, thereby creating an ongoing economy in that area. Do we have to satisfy every item on a perfect wish list? It sounds like you are suggesting that Apple should lay out more money (assuming it would have cost more to locate near green energy) and increase their overhead (with higher property taxes) in the interest of being green.
How often to you voluntarily choose a more costly product or service in the interest of being green?
For instance, incandescents are no banned, meaning we'll be using must more toxic fluorescents going forward.
Quote:
What is Green Peaces stance on the mercury in the Federally mandated Compact Fluoresce Light bulbs?
The vast majority of the country gets its power from coal-fired power plants. The use of CFLs saves on mercury emissions when compared to the use of incandescent bulbs. It also saves you around $40 per bulb vs. incandescents.
For more information:
Quote:
In July 2008 the U.S. EPA published a data sheet stating that the net system emission of mercury for CFL lighting was lower than for incandescent lighting of comparable lumen output. This was based on the average rate of mercury emission for U.S. electricity production and average estimated escape of mercury from a CFL put into a landfill. Coal-fired plants also emit other heavy metals, sulphur, and carbon dioxide.
In response to the article, Apple will probably go where the tax incentives are greatest and the energy costs are cheapest. But it doesn't mean they should. This could have been a perfect way for Apple to show leadership in the tech industry on reducing the impact of big data centers. Google is currently the leader in this area.
I agree with the sentiment that criticizing without providing a valid alternative can be ineffective, futile, and in poor taste. At the same time, it's beneficial to at least put some pressure on Apple to do the right thing next time.
The use of CFLs saves on mercury emissions when compared to the use of incandescent bulbs.
Complete frickin poppy cock, as changing bulbs doesn't change the amount of coal being burned.
Also ignores the fact that scrubbers at coal plants can remove 90% of the mercury at the source rather than scattering it around in landfills all over the country. GAO report: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/10/...8041255030928/
Also ignores the fact that ~50% of America's electric isn't generated from coal.
How often to you voluntarily choose a more costly product or service in the interest of being green?
In case you were wondering, many people do this everyday. A good portion of this country actually cares about our current problems and future generations. But yes, go ahead and stick your nose up at anything related to "green." Those in the middle east will love you for it.
Of all the problems and causes to hate, I will never understand how people demonize the environmental movement.
In case you were wondering, many people do this everyday. A good portion of this country actually cares about our current problems and future generations. But yes, go ahead and stick your nose up at anything related to "green." Those in the middle east will love you for it.
Of all the problems and causes to hate, I will never understand how people demonize the environmental movement.
Mostly because of their poor reasoning abilities, their tendency to use statistics without an understanding of the context, and their complete lack of understanding of the incredible damage their movement is doing to both the economy _and_ the environment.
Complete frickin poppy cock, as changing bulbs doesn't change the amount of coal being burned.
Also ignores the fact that scrubbers at coal plants can remove 90% of the mercury at the source rather than scattering it around in landfills all over the country. GAO report: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/10/...8041255030928/
Also ignores the fact that ~50% of America's electric isn't generated from coal.
One bulb won't change a power plant's output, but as soon as a small portion of the population starts using them, the amount of energy needed decreases. CFLs use 25% of the energy of incandescents.
Yes, about 50 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. The EPA obviously factored that in when doing the study. In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air?the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled).
Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury?plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide?releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.
Also, you do realize an article citing a reduction of 90% means nothing, right? You don't provide units. The remaining mercury emissions are still greater than what is contained in a CFL.
Mostly because of their poor reasoning abilities, their tendency to use statistics without an understanding of the context, and their complete lack of understanding of the incredible damage their movement is doing to both the economy _and_ the environment.
One bulb won't change a power plant's output, but as soon as a small portion of the population starts using them, the amount of energy needed decreases. CFLs use 25% of the energy of incandescents.
Name 1 coal plant anywhere in the world that has reduced the amount of coal it burns because of people switching to CFLs.
And no, the EPA didn't factor in that 50% of America's energy doesn't come from coal. Read their documentation. It's available on the EPA web site.
Uh-oh. The door was opened a crack for everyone to thump their particular political drum. Irresistible isn't it? Having read the entire thread up to here, I come away not a whit more enlightened than when I started.
Name 1 coal plant anywhere in the world that has reduced the amount of coal it burns because of people switching to CFLs.
And no, the EPA didn't factor in that 50% of America's energy doesn't come from coal. Read their documentation. It's available on the EPA web site.
Energy demand has decreased across the US from the recession, so it's hard to tell how much of an effect CFLs have had so far. But even if the link hadn't yet occurred, that's no justification for not using CFLs. In fact, that's justification for the federal mandate. Obviously, widespread use of CFLs will reduce energy demand and reduce the output of coal plants. Not a hard concept to grasp. Not to mention the benefits to a reduction in carbon dioxide and many, many other pollutants.
I will actually humor you and assume the EPA didn't factor that in. 13.61mg / 2 = 6.58mg emitted by the average incandescent. 3.51mg / 2 = 1.755mg for the CFL they cite (though most are lower wattage). Most CFLs have around 3mg of mercury, with some as low as 1mg. Basic math reveals CFLs still have a lower net mercury output.
Comments
Data centers use an awful lot of power and any steps taken to minimize electricity consumption is surely a good thing. Clearly everybody here feels that GP is the devil incarnate but be that as it may, does anybody know what if anything Apple has done to minimize the reliance on fossil fuels, now that somebody has brought it up.
Apple has environment PR stuff scattered around their web site. Here's a link to their mac mini info: http://www.apple.com/macmini/environment.html
Edit:
General overall improvements they've made include:
● Using aluminum for their computers. Highly recyclable.
● Not using mercury or arsenic to produce their screens. Those are both extreme toxins.
● Non-replacable batteries to reduce the number of batteries in landfills.
● Smaller packaging
What is Green Peaces stance on the mercury in the Federally mandated Compact Fluoresce Light bulbs?
Their stance is the mercury in the bulbs is more than offset by their reduced energy consumption, which causes less coal to be burned. Coal produces mercury as well.
This pretty much ignores the facts that the amount of coal being burned doesn't change when you switch bulbs and that coal plants can (and in fact, are required by law to) install mercury scrubbers to capture all mercury emissions.
They are always issuing reports, and only because they've engaged in terrorism does anyone report about them. (remember back when ramming a ships wasn't considered terrorism?)
Trump gives business people a bad name. He's an insider who has dealt in political pull since the beginning -- rather than a entrepreneur who is innovative.
I hate him. I think he is a reprehensible human being.
That said, he's still an order of magnitude less evil than obama.
Holy shit! I'm in fruit cake land!
Apple could just build a few wind turbines, take the power when there is wind and feed from the public system when needed. Its not hard.
Doesn't work. You still have to keep the coal plant running at 100% for when it's needed. You can't just flip a switch and turn coal power on and off.
The same basic flaw applies to solar power as well. Neither does anything at all to reduce coal consumption.
I think the point is Greenpeace would have preferred Apple located the datacenter somewhere else where there is hydroelectric or other green energy...
..Apparently Iceland is a really good place for data centers as it is close to both Europe and the US, has clean/cheap geothermal energy and the climate is cold which cuts down on the cooling bill.
And then some other group would get mad because they'd be taking good-paying jobs outside the country.
I wonder what quality of paper Greenpeace released its report on.
So I suppose the answer is that we should be driving ourselves (in our polluting cars) down to our local record store (a heated/cooled waste of space when you can do it electronically), and buy CD's (CD's and jewel cases manufactured out of petroleum products and shipped from manufacturer to distributor to retail store) -- or better yet, how about some nice, big vinyl LP's? No toxins in LP's, I'm sure.
Or, we could have one huge data center.
And it also helps the environment that devices need less flash memory to store data locally.
BTW, what were these Greenpeace folks typing their reviews on? Where did the power come from? And on what data centers are their webpages and emails stored?
Sure, but wouldn't you prefer these datacenters be located where they make use of greener energy sources and therefore put Apple at the top of the list of "how clean is your data center" rather than at the bottom?
But when is enough, enough? Is it not enough that the ITS and the data center virtually eliminate all the toxic waste and energy that frugality mentions, plus created jobs through constructing the building, plus jobs to run the facility, thereby creating an ongoing economy in that area. Do we have to satisfy every item on a perfect wish list? It sounds like you are suggesting that Apple should lay out more money (assuming it would have cost more to locate near green energy) and increase their overhead (with higher property taxes) in the interest of being green.
How often to you voluntarily choose a more costly product or service in the interest of being green?
For instance, incandescents are no banned, meaning we'll be using must more toxic fluorescents going forward.
What is Green Peaces stance on the mercury in the Federally mandated Compact Fluoresce Light bulbs?
The vast majority of the country gets its power from coal-fired power plants. The use of CFLs saves on mercury emissions when compared to the use of incandescent bulbs. It also saves you around $40 per bulb vs. incandescents.
For more information:
In July 2008 the U.S. EPA published a data sheet stating that the net system emission of mercury for CFL lighting was lower than for incandescent lighting of comparable lumen output. This was based on the average rate of mercury emission for U.S. electricity production and average estimated escape of mercury from a CFL put into a landfill. Coal-fired plants also emit other heavy metals, sulphur, and carbon dioxide.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact...ercury_content
In response to the article, Apple will probably go where the tax incentives are greatest and the energy costs are cheapest. But it doesn't mean they should. This could have been a perfect way for Apple to show leadership in the tech industry on reducing the impact of big data centers. Google is currently the leader in this area.
I agree with the sentiment that criticizing without providing a valid alternative can be ineffective, futile, and in poor taste. At the same time, it's beneficial to at least put some pressure on Apple to do the right thing next time.
The use of CFLs saves on mercury emissions when compared to the use of incandescent bulbs.
Complete frickin poppy cock, as changing bulbs doesn't change the amount of coal being burned.
Also ignores the fact that scrubbers at coal plants can remove 90% of the mercury at the source rather than scattering it around in landfills all over the country. GAO report: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/10/...8041255030928/
Also ignores the fact that ~50% of America's electric isn't generated from coal.
How often to you voluntarily choose a more costly product or service in the interest of being green?
In case you were wondering, many people do this everyday. A good portion of this country actually cares about our current problems and future generations. But yes, go ahead and stick your nose up at anything related to "green." Those in the middle east will love you for it.
Of all the problems and causes to hate, I will never understand how people demonize the environmental movement.
In case you were wondering, many people do this everyday. A good portion of this country actually cares about our current problems and future generations. But yes, go ahead and stick your nose up at anything related to "green." Those in the middle east will love you for it.
Of all the problems and causes to hate, I will never understand how people demonize the environmental movement.
Mostly because of their poor reasoning abilities, their tendency to use statistics without an understanding of the context, and their complete lack of understanding of the incredible damage their movement is doing to both the economy _and_ the environment.
Complete frickin poppy cock, as changing bulbs doesn't change the amount of coal being burned.
Also ignores the fact that scrubbers at coal plants can remove 90% of the mercury at the source rather than scattering it around in landfills all over the country. GAO report: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/10/...8041255030928/
Also ignores the fact that ~50% of America's electric isn't generated from coal.
One bulb won't change a power plant's output, but as soon as a small portion of the population starts using them, the amount of energy needed decreases. CFLs use 25% of the energy of incandescents.
Yes, about 50 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. The EPA obviously factored that in when doing the study. In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air?the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled).
Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury?plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide?releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.
Also, you do realize an article citing a reduction of 90% means nothing, right? You don't provide units. The remaining mercury emissions are still greater than what is contained in a CFL.
Mostly because of their poor reasoning abilities, their tendency to use statistics without an understanding of the context, and their complete lack of understanding of the incredible damage their movement is doing to both the economy _and_ the environment.
[citation needed]
One bulb won't change a power plant's output, but as soon as a small portion of the population starts using them, the amount of energy needed decreases. CFLs use 25% of the energy of incandescents.
Name 1 coal plant anywhere in the world that has reduced the amount of coal it burns because of people switching to CFLs.
And no, the EPA didn't factor in that 50% of America's energy doesn't come from coal. Read their documentation. It's available on the EPA web site.
[citation needed]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d24b56MmIts
Includes references at the end of the video. Would suggest you read those references as well. They're all from "green" sources.
Name 1 coal plant anywhere in the world that has reduced the amount of coal it burns because of people switching to CFLs.
And no, the EPA didn't factor in that 50% of America's energy doesn't come from coal. Read their documentation. It's available on the EPA web site.
Energy demand has decreased across the US from the recession, so it's hard to tell how much of an effect CFLs have had so far. But even if the link hadn't yet occurred, that's no justification for not using CFLs. In fact, that's justification for the federal mandate. Obviously, widespread use of CFLs will reduce energy demand and reduce the output of coal plants. Not a hard concept to grasp. Not to mention the benefits to a reduction in carbon dioxide and many, many other pollutants.
I will actually humor you and assume the EPA didn't factor that in. 13.61mg / 2 = 6.58mg emitted by the average incandescent. 3.51mg / 2 = 1.755mg for the CFL they cite (though most are lower wattage). Most CFLs have around 3mg of mercury, with some as low as 1mg. Basic math reveals CFLs still have a lower net mercury output.
Better luck next time.