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

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post


    We all know you don't actually do research because it would always prove you to be the liar.



    http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/energy-server/



    Check out point 3...



    Yes, they are capable of running on stuff like cowshit-generated methane.



    But Apple is going to be using natural gas, which is not a renewable, but is instead a fossil fuel.



    My point stands. Apple's fuel cells are not "renewable energy". They run on fossil fuels.



    There are many good reaons to use them. But they do not include their being renewable energy.
  • Reply 22 of 122
    "If Apple can't take the heat it should get out of the kitchen.

    Apple wants to be industry leader so it, and its fanbois, shouldn't whine like kindergarten kids.

    I think invoking the word "fanbois" should automatically discredit one's arguments."



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wakko View Post


    I think invoking the word "fanbois" should automatically discredit one's arguments.



    It does.
  • Reply 23 of 122
    spacekidspacekid Posts: 163member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post


    Greenpeace who????



    Wonder how efficient their operation is...anyone care to investigate?



    I wonder how much coal power their headquarters in Amsterdam uses? What about the ships they use, are they modern fuel efficient ships or old clunkers?
  • Reply 24 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wakko View Post


    Fuel Cells are a means of converting hydrogen into electricity (and water). It tells you nothing about where the fuel comes from. You can generate hydrogen using a variety of means, from burning coal and oil, to geothermal, and harnessing tidal waves.



    And Apple will generate it using fossil fuel.
  • Reply 25 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    Not strictly true, so maybe I should accuse you of "lying".



    1. A fuel cell isn't a kind of energy, renewable or otherwise; it's a machine.

    2. A fuel cell is about the cleanest possible way to burn fuel.

    3. The fuel itself can be renewable.

    4. If the fuel itself is renewable, then the energy produced by the fuel cell is in fact "renewable energy".



    For whatever reason, various people have decided to attack Apple from the left. None of those reasons hold any water. The left needs to stop these attacks because it's just making itself look childish and snarky.



    Your point no. 4 is true. But given that Apple will NOT use renewable fuel, it is moot.
  • Reply 26 of 122
    spacekidspacekid Posts: 163member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    ...Apple's fuel cells are not "renewable energy". They run on fossil fuels.



    There are many good reaons to use them. But they do not include their being renewable energy.



    Also, some methods of hydrogen generation use coal as well. Producing batteries can also generate significant pollution. You really need to take it all the way back if you're really serious.
  • Reply 27 of 122
    sol77sol77 Posts: 203member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AlvarezLuis View Post


    Apparently you need to finish growing up first.

    It's a lot more disheartening to have grown up in a world where entire countries are dictated by what is very obviously an egotistic shareholder drive.



    Concerning what I wrote, you might be encouraged about my opinion a bit if you read it more literally. I'm probably on your side. Aside from that, I'm fairly confident in my level of maturity, an attribute of which is not resorting to personal attacks...I wasn't trying to provoke your indignation, though I understand it. On the other hand, it is not my political understanding that greed is "evil," as wealth is the fuel of life, whether you're trading in dollars or services, or deeds. Maybe we disagree, but I think you're overreacting a bit (or misunderstanding my intention). Anyway, don't see me as a proponent of abusing the earth. I'm on your team.
  • Reply 28 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spacekid View Post


    Also, some methods of hydrogen generation use coal as well. Producing batteries can also generate significant pollution. You really need to take it all the way back if you're really serious.





    If I'm really serious about what?



    That Apple should not call its natural gas burning fuel cells "renewable energy? That was my point.



    I think that these fuel cells are great. They have many benefits. I am in favor of distributed generation, and fuel cells are a good means to accomplish that. They are efficient and quiet and generate relatively little pollution compared to certain alternatives. If their use was expaned, we would realize many benefits, including a huge reduction in transmission losses.



    But they do not produce "renewable energy" in most cases, and certainly not in Apple's case.
  • Reply 29 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Yes, they are capable of running on stuff like cowshit-generated methane.



    But Apple is going to be using natural gas, which is not a renewable, but is instead a fossil fuel.



    My point stands. Apple's fuel cells are not "renewable energy". They run on fossil fuels.



    There are many good reaons to use them. But they do not include their being renewable energy.



    Apple is going to be using natural gas, but it isn't limited to natural gas. Also, our civilization can't instantaneously drop its reliance on fossil fuels - not does it have to. In order to halt global warming, it is not necessary to completely ban CO2 production. It is, however, necessary to move as quickly as practicable in that direction. Moving away from coal to natural gas is definitely a way to reduce the production of CO2.



    Besides that, nothing precludes a future move towards using methane produced from "recyclables", although even here the issue is still not uncomplicated. The use of grain alcohol as a fuel is not going anywhere because it relies heavily on the use of non-renewable energy for production and distribution.



    Even solar cells take energy to produce, construct, and distribute. So the bottom line is, there are no 100% truly renewable power plants. They ALL uses non- renewables in one form or another.
  • Reply 30 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    Apple is going to be using natural gas,



    Then they should not call the fuel cells a source of "renewable energy", because they are not. Instead, they use fossil fuel.
  • Reply 31 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Your point no. 4 is true. But given that Apple will NOT use renewable fuel, it is moot.



    All my points are true, not just Point 4. And it isn't moot. See my Post before this one.
  • Reply 32 of 122
    jumperjumper Posts: 34member
    I can't stand Greenpeace. They are just looking for some media time. Don't donate to them.
  • Reply 33 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    All my points are true, not just Point 4. And it isn't moot. See my Post before this one.



    Yes, all your points are true. Point 3 too is moot, as it is inapplicable to Apple's natural gas powered fuel cells.



    Apple seems to be lumping its natural gas powered generation into "renewable energy", but clearly it is not.
  • Reply 34 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by knightlie View Post


    Are we supposed to take them seriously when they target a single company out of the entire IT industry?



    Nope. I certainly don't see them consistently targeting Amazon or any of the other manufacturers and service providers on the list.



    I'm a pretty green-leaning individual, but even I see Greenpeace as nonsensical bunch of loons. They do FAR more harm than good.
  • Reply 35 of 122
    rbonnerrbonner Posts: 635member
    Arc reactor anyone?
  • Reply 36 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Then they should not call the fuel cells a source of "renewable energy", because they are not. Instead, they use fossil fuel.



    You're splitting hairs. If the source of fuel is renewable then the fuel cells make renewable energy. You don't know that their plans don't include making the source of fuel renewable.
  • Reply 37 of 122
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,141member
    People of Greenpeace's slanted focus I have lost all faith in them.



    Justice should be blind. When GP targets Apple it's clear they are doing it to

    gain notoriety and that to me sullies their goal.



    Plus the concept of using nutjob protesters went out over a decade ago as an effective strategy.
  • Reply 38 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    You're splitting hairs. If the source of fuel is renewable then the fuel cells make renewable energy. You don't know that their plans don't include making the source of fuel renewable.



    You yourself claimed that the fuel cells would run on natural gas. If Apple will be using cowshit gas, or landfill gas, or some other type of gas, then you might be wrong about what you claimed.





    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe

    Apple is going to be using natural gas,



  • Reply 39 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Yes, all your points are true. Point 3 too is moot, as it is inapplicable to Apple's natural gas powered fuel cells.



    Apple seems to be lumping its natural gas powered generation into "renewable energy", but clearly it is not.



    Seems to be is not the same as clearly not. If the fuel comes from renewable sources then the fuel cells make renewable energy. And you have no proof that the fuels won't eventually be from renewables.
  • Reply 40 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    You yourself claimed that the fuel cells would run on natural gas. If Apple will be using cowshit gas, or landfill gas, or some other type of gas, then you might be wrong about what you claimed.



    You left out the part where I said it doesn't have to.
Sign In or Register to comment.