Is it me or it's a bit harsh to take issue with Apple using electricity from coal?
What is Apple suppose to do? Build their own power grid from Solar and Wind? Really Greenpeace?
Greenpeace has bad blood with Duke Energy which operates the power grid for the area of North Carolina where the data center is located. That's one of Greenpeace's main beefs, that Apple chose to locate their data center in a place where the grid was so "dirty" because a lot of Duke's plants are coal fired.
Of course North Carolina has the Appalachians and plenty of coal. Greenpeace would spaz out if they chose to build a nuclear plant, NC isn't exactly a state known for being well setup for wind generation. Solar can be done, but it still doesn't generate enough. How else are they supposed to power the state?
Yeah, what we really need is for everyone to stop asking questions, stop asking for accountabity, stop caring about things and proceed through life as half-witted slaves to the labor lords that command there every action. That would be just GRAND.
Green Peace is far from perfect, but they're about the only counter ballast we have going, and they're a big step up from the terrorists at the Sierra Club. Only a complete fool would think Green Peace were the bad guys, with some evil, hidden agenda. You Glenn Beck hystericals make me cringe.
I have to agree. The Green Peace hatred in this forum is very unlike the generally intelligent tone here. It is like the Juvenile Microsoft and Apple bashing that goes on over at Cnet. Apple and the rest of the big cloud service providers, and people generally will only benefit from Greenpeace making a fuss about this. I don't understand why people here are defensive to the point of infantile belligerence. So what if Greenpeace is not all wonderful, their point is still valid.
So much vitriol against Greenpeace. You'd think Apple fanboys would be more forgiving of the occasional bit of hyperbole, exaggeration and truth stretching giving some of the nonsense that gets spouted during Apple launch events.
Greenpeace aren't claiming that renewable energy is magical, they're just trying to effect change, and they do that by putting pressure on the most high profile targets. No one at Apple is in pain or suffering because of Greenpeace's actions, and if Apple is "the most environmentally friendly tech company" then they should be reading Greenpeace's publications with interest, as they're clearly on the same side.
And yet Green Peace gets around in fossil fuel ships, cars, and planes.
Greenpeace offered a list of steps that the organization believes would "indicate if (Apple) is truly on the path to meet its ambitious goals." They are:
Choose a renewable-powered local utility for its Oregon data centre, not buy renewable energy credits from coal-powered Pacific Power.
Use renewable electricity from onsite generation to directly power its North Carolina facility, and use grid power solely for backup, rather than selling its renewable electricity to Duke Energy.
Secure a sustainable source of biogas to directly power its fuel cells for North Carolina.
Retire renewable energy credits from electricity generated onsite in North Carolina
Invest directly in new renewable energy generation in North Carolina rather than buying renewable credits to "green" Duke Energy;s dirty electricity.
Demand Duke Energy eliminate its mountaintop coal removal operations from Apple?s electricity supply chain, and demand that Duke invest in new renewable energy generation capacity, not retrofitting and extending the lifetime of dirty coal plants.
Adopt a data center siting policy that prioritizes access to renewable energy for any future iCloud data centers.
In what world do these steps indicate if Apple is on a path to meet it's ambitious goals? Why on earth shouldn't Apple sell it's renewable electricity to Duke Energy? Wouldn't that actually make Duke Energy less "dirty?" It sounds like Greenpeace doesn't want to lose its "Great Satan" energy company punching bag. Why shouldn't Apple buy renewable credits? Isn't that what Al Gore does to offset his huge electric bills in his giant Tennessee mansion? Why should Apple retire renewable energy credits from electricity generated onsite in North Carolina? How is that more green? Shouldn't they benefit from having the solar farm?
I have to agree. The Green Peace hatred in this forum is very unlike the generally intelligent tone here. It is like the Juvenile Microsoft and Apple bashing that goes on over at Cnet. Apple and the rest of the big cloud service providers, and people generally will only benefit from Greenpeace making a fuss about this. I don't understand why people here are defensive to the point of infantile belligerence. So what if Greenpeace is not all wonderful, their point is still valid.
If their point is valid please help me with a few answers to my questions in post #27. Thanks!
Greenpeace still sucks. Who cares about what they say?
Hopefully the next time that they decide to illegally occupy and invade Apple's roof, a few of them slip and fall off. Now that would be a real feel good news story of the day.
Greenpeace still sucks. Who cares about what they say?
Hopefully the next time that they decide to illegally occupy and invade Apple's roof, a few of them slip and fall off. Now that would be a real feel good news story of the day.
Then Apple would get sued and have huge liability lawsuits. Is that really what you want? Doesn't matter if they were there illegally, Apple could still easily be found liable in court.
When Greenpeace gives the most environmentally friendly tech company a "D" it tells me that they are crying wolf.
Yeah I can't help wondering if they got so much flack for dissing Apple over not fitting some very specific condition so they are basically recanting by saying "well they are improving a little" so they don't look bad.
Not unlike EPEAT or the 'sources' that come up with some supply issue etc to explain why something isn't happening that they said was a done deal
Then Apple would get sued and have huge liability lawsuits. Is that really what you want? Doesn't matter if they were there illegally, Apple could still easily be found liable in court.
Maybe you're right, but that sounds outrageous. Imagine somebody getting sued because a criminal got injured during the process of committing a crime on your property.
And even though I hold a microscopic stake in Apple as a tiny shareholder, I would say that even if Apple were to get sued and they lost, then I'd almost say that the satisfaction would be worth it. Money isn't everything in life, though it's quite important of course.
The "Coal" plant in that image is a Nuclear power plant, and the massive amounts of "smoke" going into the air? That's water vapor.
I could be wrong, but I think you are mistaking the shape of those smoke stacks with those of a nuclear power plant. Many coal and natural gas powered power plants use a similar smoke stack. I've driven by one many a time in Michigan City and it's a very cool water scrubber stack that looks just like a nuclear stack.
Then Apple would get sued and have huge liability lawsuits. Is that really what you want? Doesn't matter if they were there illegally, Apple could still easily be found liable in court.
"Your honor it was ALL APPLE'S FAULT!! There I was, minding my own business scaling this 50 foot ladder on their property, when I slipt and fell. Apple should not have built their buildings so high so I had to climb them to properly protest them. I want money"
Any sane judge would throw that shit out and demand the Greenpeace member pay Apple's attorney fees Also, is Apple's campus public property? I don't think so. Anyone injured in a protest in their campus would be injured while trespassing.
BTW, still amazed no response from Greenpeace over EPEAT and APple.
Why on earth shouldn't Apple sell it's renewable electricity to Duke Energy?
A couple of reasons. Distributed Generation is a worthy goal for a number of reason - grid stabilization, fault tolerance, and many more. Likely Greenpeace is a fan, just as many others are.
There is less transmission loss when the electricity is used "behind the fence". transforming it to grid voltage alone results in increased losses, much less wheeling it long distances.
Excellent point. Don't rely on Greenpeace for technical information.
You might want to check your facts before throwing darts.
Hydro (well regarded as a renewable energy source) already accounts for a significant percentage of our energy - certainly many times a traditional coal or nuke plant.
Even renewables like wind and solar are generating more power than a traditional coal or nuke plant.
Now, it's true that it's unlikely that renewables are unlikely to replace a large portion of coal or nuclear power any time soon, but don't understate their value.
Maybe wrong adjective. Of course Hydro produces a ton of power without waste. Look at Hoover Dam's output. There would be no Las Vegas without it. On the other hand, these eco nerds have no idea what they are talking about.
"Even renewables like wind and solar are generating more power than a traditional coal or nuke plant."
Huh? No way this is true. Show me data and then I'll change my mind.
"Your honor it was ALL APPLE'S FAULT!! There I was, minding my own business scaling this 50 foot ladder on their property, when I slipt and fell. Apple should not have built their buildings so high so I had to climb them to properly protest them. I want money"
Any sane judge would throw that shit out and demand the Greenpeace member pay Apple's attorney fees Also, is Apple's campus public property? I don't think so. Anyone injured in a protest in their campus would be injured while trespassing.
BTW, still amazed no response from Greenpeace over EPEAT and APple.
From a law firms webpage
TRESPASSER INJURIES: Would I be legally responsible if a trespasser were injured (premise liability) on my San Diego county property? I am talking about a slip or trip and fall injury, or any injury for that matter?
A:
It depends. Under California law, your generally are not liable for any injury to a trespasser on your property. Suppose, however, that you know certain people continually trespass on your property, perhaps using it as a shortcut; then a court might find that you should have notified these regular trespassers about any hidden artificial conditions of which you were aware that could seriously injure them. It is all about whether or not you had prior knowledge of the trespassing going on - if not, then you generally risk no legal responsibility.
So, if Greenpeace is consistently going on their roof and Apple doesn't say 'It's dangerous up there, you could fall" and someone fell then it's possible that they could be found liable. I don't agree with it, but I was just pointing out to Apple ][ that he probably doesn't want to wish that situation upon the company.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant
Is it me or it's a bit harsh to take issue with Apple using electricity from coal?
What is Apple suppose to do? Build their own power grid from Solar and Wind? Really Greenpeace?
Greenpeace has bad blood with Duke Energy which operates the power grid for the area of North Carolina where the data center is located. That's one of Greenpeace's main beefs, that Apple chose to locate their data center in a place where the grid was so "dirty" because a lot of Duke's plants are coal fired.
Of course North Carolina has the Appalachians and plenty of coal. Greenpeace would spaz out if they chose to build a nuclear plant, NC isn't exactly a state known for being well setup for wind generation. Solar can be done, but it still doesn't generate enough. How else are they supposed to power the state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanSolecki
Yeah, what we really need is for everyone to stop asking questions, stop asking for accountabity, stop caring about things and proceed through life as half-witted slaves to the labor lords that command there every action. That would be just GRAND.
Green Peace is far from perfect, but they're about the only counter ballast we have going, and they're a big step up from the terrorists at the Sierra Club. Only a complete fool would think Green Peace were the bad guys, with some evil, hidden agenda. You Glenn Beck hystericals make me cringe.
I have to agree. The Green Peace hatred in this forum is very unlike the generally intelligent tone here. It is like the Juvenile Microsoft and Apple bashing that goes on over at Cnet. Apple and the rest of the big cloud service providers, and people generally will only benefit from Greenpeace making a fuss about this. I don't understand why people here are defensive to the point of infantile belligerence. So what if Greenpeace is not all wonderful, their point is still valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
So much vitriol against Greenpeace. You'd think Apple fanboys would be more forgiving of the occasional bit of hyperbole, exaggeration and truth stretching giving some of the nonsense that gets spouted during Apple launch events.
Greenpeace aren't claiming that renewable energy is magical, they're just trying to effect change, and they do that by putting pressure on the most high profile targets. No one at Apple is in pain or suffering because of Greenpeace's actions, and if Apple is "the most environmentally friendly tech company" then they should be reading Greenpeace's publications with interest, as they're clearly on the same side.
And yet Green Peace gets around in fossil fuel ships, cars, and planes.
Hypocrites are the bottom rung for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Greenpeace offered a list of steps that the organization believes would "indicate if (Apple) is truly on the path to meet its ambitious goals." They are:
Choose a renewable-powered local utility for its Oregon data centre, not buy renewable energy credits from coal-powered Pacific Power.
Use renewable electricity from onsite generation to directly power its North Carolina facility, and use grid power solely for backup, rather than selling its renewable electricity to Duke Energy.
Secure a sustainable source of biogas to directly power its fuel cells for North Carolina.
Retire renewable energy credits from electricity generated onsite in North Carolina
Invest directly in new renewable energy generation in North Carolina rather than buying renewable credits to "green" Duke Energy;s dirty electricity.
Demand Duke Energy eliminate its mountaintop coal removal operations from Apple?s electricity supply chain, and demand that Duke invest in new renewable energy generation capacity, not retrofitting and extending the lifetime of dirty coal plants.
Adopt a data center siting policy that prioritizes access to renewable energy for any future iCloud data centers.
In what world do these steps indicate if Apple is on a path to meet it's ambitious goals? Why on earth shouldn't Apple sell it's renewable electricity to Duke Energy? Wouldn't that actually make Duke Energy less "dirty?" It sounds like Greenpeace doesn't want to lose its "Great Satan" energy company punching bag. Why shouldn't Apple buy renewable credits? Isn't that what Al Gore does to offset his huge electric bills in his giant Tennessee mansion? Why should Apple retire renewable energy credits from electricity generated onsite in North Carolina? How is that more green? Shouldn't they benefit from having the solar farm?
This whole report is a flaming pile of BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
I have to agree. The Green Peace hatred in this forum is very unlike the generally intelligent tone here. It is like the Juvenile Microsoft and Apple bashing that goes on over at Cnet. Apple and the rest of the big cloud service providers, and people generally will only benefit from Greenpeace making a fuss about this. I don't understand why people here are defensive to the point of infantile belligerence. So what if Greenpeace is not all wonderful, their point is still valid.
If their point is valid please help me with a few answers to my questions in post #27. Thanks!
Greenpeace still sucks. Who cares about what they say?
Hopefully the next time that they decide to illegally occupy and invade Apple's roof, a few of them slip and fall off. Now that would be a real feel good news story of the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Greenpeace still sucks. Who cares about what they say?
Hopefully the next time that they decide to illegally occupy and invade Apple's roof, a few of them slip and fall off. Now that would be a real feel good news story of the day.
Then Apple would get sued and have huge liability lawsuits. Is that really what you want? Doesn't matter if they were there illegally, Apple could still easily be found liable in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
When Greenpeace gives the most environmentally friendly tech company a "D" it tells me that they are crying wolf.
Yeah I can't help wondering if they got so much flack for dissing Apple over not fitting some very specific condition so they are basically recanting by saying "well they are improving a little" so they don't look bad.
Not unlike EPEAT or the 'sources' that come up with some supply issue etc to explain why something isn't happening that they said was a done deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
Then Apple would get sued and have huge liability lawsuits. Is that really what you want? Doesn't matter if they were there illegally, Apple could still easily be found liable in court.
Maybe you're right, but that sounds outrageous. Imagine somebody getting sued because a criminal got injured during the process of committing a crime on your property.
And even though I hold a microscopic stake in Apple as a tiny shareholder, I would say that even if Apple were to get sued and they lost, then I'd almost say that the satisfaction would be worth it. Money isn't everything in life, though it's quite important of course.
I could be wrong, but I think you are mistaking the shape of those smoke stacks with those of a nuclear power plant. Many coal and natural gas powered power plants use a similar smoke stack. I've driven by one many a time in Michigan City and it's a very cool water scrubber stack that looks just like a nuclear stack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
Then Apple would get sued and have huge liability lawsuits. Is that really what you want? Doesn't matter if they were there illegally, Apple could still easily be found liable in court.
"Your honor it was ALL APPLE'S FAULT!! There I was, minding my own business scaling this 50 foot ladder on their property, when I slipt and fell. Apple should not have built their buildings so high so I had to climb them to properly protest them. I want money"
Any sane judge would throw that shit out and demand the Greenpeace member pay Apple's attorney fees
BTW, still amazed no response from Greenpeace over EPEAT and APple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant
Is it me or it's a bit harsh to take issue with Apple using electricity from coal?
What is Apple suppose to do? Build their own power grid from Solar and Wind? Really Greenpeace?
They should (and likely will) replicate what they have started in NC in their other data centers.
WRT "What is apple supposed to do?", the articles has a series of bullet points.
Here's the full report - it is short and contains an Executive Summary:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Climate-Reports/Apple-Clean-Energy-Road-Map/
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
Why on earth shouldn't Apple sell it's renewable electricity to Duke Energy?
A couple of reasons. Distributed Generation is a worthy goal for a number of reason - grid stabilization, fault tolerance, and many more. Likely Greenpeace is a fan, just as many others are.
There is less transmission loss when the electricity is used "behind the fence". transforming it to grid voltage alone results in increased losses, much less wheeling it long distances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Excellent point. Don't rely on Greenpeace for technical information.
You might want to check your facts before throwing darts.
Hydro (well regarded as a renewable energy source) already accounts for a significant percentage of our energy - certainly many times a traditional coal or nuke plant.
Even renewables like wind and solar are generating more power than a traditional coal or nuke plant.
Now, it's true that it's unlikely that renewables are unlikely to replace a large portion of coal or nuclear power any time soon, but don't understate their value.
Maybe wrong adjective. Of course Hydro produces a ton of power without waste. Look at Hoover Dam's output. There would be no Las Vegas without it. On the other hand, these eco nerds have no idea what they are talking about.
"Even renewables like wind and solar are generating more power than a traditional coal or nuke plant."
Huh? No way this is true. Show me data and then I'll change my mind.
In other news, Greenpeace still hasn't removed the polluting diesel engines powering its boat fleet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
In other news, Greenpeace still hasn't removed the polluting diesel engines powering its boat fleet.
Ecohypocrites. That is all. Most of them don't have jobs. They're essentially homeless.
Wow, I can sleep now /rollseyes
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
"Your honor it was ALL APPLE'S FAULT!! There I was, minding my own business scaling this 50 foot ladder on their property, when I slipt and fell. Apple should not have built their buildings so high so I had to climb them to properly protest them. I want money"
Any sane judge would throw that shit out and demand the Greenpeace member pay Apple's attorney fees
BTW, still amazed no response from Greenpeace over EPEAT and APple.
From a law firms webpage
TRESPASSER INJURIES: Would I be legally responsible if a trespasser were injured (premise liability) on my San Diego county property? I am talking about a slip or trip and fall injury, or any injury for that matter?
A:
It depends. Under California law, your generally are not liable for any injury to a trespasser on your property. Suppose, however, that you know certain people continually trespass on your property, perhaps using it as a shortcut; then a court might find that you should have notified these regular trespassers about any hidden artificial conditions of which you were aware that could seriously injure them. It is all about whether or not you had prior knowledge of the trespassing going on - if not, then you generally risk no legal responsibility.
So, if Greenpeace is consistently going on their roof and Apple doesn't say 'It's dangerous up there, you could fall" and someone fell then it's possible that they could be found liable. I don't agree with it, but I was just pointing out to Apple ][ that he probably doesn't want to wish that situation upon the company.