Before mankind "got organised" the planet earth used to have ice ages on a regular cycle. Once man started farming crops this stopped the ice ages by warming the planet through changes in the atmosphere.
Now, that being so, there is no way back to the natural cycle other than to remove all of mankind. Whether we burn fuel or otherwise it will make zero difference to the planet as long as we have cultivation of crops and animals.
I have no support for green peace unless they start to destroy farms, animals and start wiping out humanity as this would show that they are dedicated to saving the planet.
<sarcasm>Thank god for Greenpeace, if they hadn't acted, Apple never would've gone clean.</sarcasm>
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.
Fantastic idea, start off your post with a blanket insult for everyone here. That's productive, really.
As for Greenpeace, no, they're not doing anything other than stroking their own egos (or maybe their buddies' egos too - there's an awful lot of stroking going on in there). They're not trying to do anything productive either. "Occasional hyperbole"? Greenpeace can't make a statement without it being hyperbole of the highest order. Greenpeace is nothing but a self-serving political outfit with no productive goal in mind. I can say that with the same absolute certainty that they make their statements because I have the same level of scientific proof that they use to back up their statements ... that is to say absolutely none ... so it must be true.
Defamation of character IS harmful, and that's Greenpeace' modus operandi. Their "report" served no purpose, it changed nothing. Apple is still doing what Apple does, and only the most naive mind would buy their argument that it was their report that prompted any change. They're not constructive, they're not productive. They're useless.
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.
Yeah, no hyperbole there, huh? And are you kidding me? Even some of the old-school Greenpeace warriors have gone on record to say the current Greenpeace leadership is a bunch of degenerate, attention-seeking, media-whores with no true "green" intentions, and that it's been that way for some time. Greenpeace is an ego-machine serving spoiled children, nothing more.
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.
1) Pretty sure greenpeace isn't regularly on Apple's campus
2) Willing to bet they cover their ass telling them something similar to that.
Conclusion>Greenpeace can pay for their own hospital bills. They aren't Mr Burns unleashing the hounds on Greenpeace at least
What's coming out of the stack isn't just steam. Depending on the plant, it could include a potpourri of toxins.
What Greenpeace did was give Apple props for trying. Not for actually doing anything. This is the equivalent of a participation award you kid gets for showing up. Meh.
What's coming out of the stack isn't just steam. Depending on the plant, it could include a potpourri of toxins.
Really? What potpourri of toxins come from a cooling tower?
The anti-corrsion chemicals used in a cooling loop are generally not toxic, at least at the levels that might be released. And even so, no significant amount of those chemicals evaporates from the cooling tower, anyway.
So which chemicals are you referring to? Hydroxlic acid, perhaps (also known as hydronium hydroxide)?
Really? What potpourri of toxins come from a cooling tower?
The anti-corrsion chemicals used in a cooling loop are generally not toxic, at least at the levels that might be released. And even so, no significant amount of those chemicals evaporates from the cooling tower, anyway.
So which chemicals are you referring to? Hydroxlic acid, perhaps (also known as hydronium hydroxide)?
Quote:
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.
First off they are promoting clean, renewable energy. Neither of which a nuclear power plant is. Just because water vapor leaves the stack that does not make it clean, did we forget the nuclear waste, not to mention the potential for disaster.
It did surprise me that they scored so low when they do a lot to be environmentally friendly, bu they do show how everything we do can affect our planet. Hopefully this will push for more sustainable technologies.
In other news, Greenpeace still hasn't removed the polluting diesel engines powering its boat fleet.
worse yet they still use two stoke marine engine on their smaller outboard motor boats... Clean up your own act before accusing others of not doing their part
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.
Pretty sure you are wrong about this.
I could only find a single instance of a coal fired plant that had "scrubber stacks" that look like this and I'm almost certain that particular image was just mislabelled. Photos from the air of this same plant show this "scrubber stack" to be empty inside and identical to the nuclear cooling towers, so even if it's part of some 'scrubbing" thingie, it's likely that it's still only spewing water vapour anyway.
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.
Hydro is on the environmentalist hit list. Many groups are lobbying to blow up dams and return the land to its natural state. Wind also causes issues for migrating birds according to environmental groups. Coal and nuclear are tools of the devil to these people. Natural gas is evil too. Solar takes up millions of acres if you scale it up to the level of hydrocarbon fuel. Nothing short of a complete return to the hunter/gatherer culture of 15,000 years ago will make them happy. Just ask any one of them.
Please don't get me going about "green" anything. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club et al are currently doing most of the damage to this country with their unrealistic goal of zero emissions of a non-polluting gas. We've gone from a 70 cent light bulb to a $40 light bulb that costs more to manufacture in materials and energy than the 70 cent one. Not to say that we don't need efficient technologies, but it needs to be balanced with some common sense. It's that common sense that is severly lacking from the 'greenies'.
I could only find a single instance of a coal fired plant that had "scrubber stacks" that look like this and I'm almost certain that particular image was just mislabelled. Photos from the air of this same plant show this "scrubber stack" to be empty inside and identical to the nuclear cooling towers, so even if it's part of some 'scrubbing" thingie, it's likely that it's still only spewing water vapour anyway.
Actually you are wrong.
Many coal fired power plants use these scrubber stacks.
All these conditioned rants about Greenpeace are very funny. I have nothing that bad to say about their rather altruist work as a third party monitor and activist, from remote whales to coal energy i can see their points and their 'agenda' which seems a bit more positive than those pushed daily by lobbyists for the big oil and coal industries, those individuals and their political 'donations'... My only grief would be the -mostly ideological- nuclear dislike among many of the greens, notably German ones, but otherwise some remain realists and as far as they don't enter real politics I fail to feel any hatred, lol.
Last time I check nuclear power plants (shown in the Greenpeace ad) do not generate grey clouds of smoke only water vapor clouds. Oh I get it, they can not tell the difference between a smoke stack of a coal plant to a cooling tower of a nuclear plant.
Good point. Yes, those are not smoke stacks but water cooling towers. They are used by both nuclear and coal power plants. The people in Greenpeace know that and that's what really bothers me. That illustration is clearly a lie. A lie, not exaggeration or hyperbole. A lie deliberately made and not an oversight. Greenpeace has lost its perspective and sense of ethics. IMHO, there are elements in the Greenpeace top leadership who will do or condone anything...lies, violence, etc, to promote their agenda. Greenpeace should concentrate on working at the state and local levels to use alternative energy sources, pass environmental legislation and regulations, and generally find positive ways to promote change. That's hard, nitty-gritty work. Instead, they have chosen to take the easy way, criticizing firms that, in their myopic opinion, don't do enough. That's the way taken by lazy, hypocritical, and probably highly overpaid, prima donnas.
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 Gm7Cadd9
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.
You beat me to it - there are many examples - here is a coal plant in China - http://trendsupdates.com/china-world’s-largest-co2-emitter-pledges-to-cut-greenhouse-gases/
I believe that all you can say for sure from the use of that style of Cooling Tower is that there is a massive amount of heat being generated that needs to be dissipated. They design is very commonly associated with Nuclear power largely because of the massive amount of heat generated by the nuclear process. WIth non-nuclear power plants getting ever larger the need for efficient cooling has increased. We likely don't see many examples of this style of cooling tower used for non nuclear purposes in the USA for two reasons - 1. if not associated with a nuclear plant or some proposed multi-megawatt coal plant its not news and 2. we may not have any non-nuclear plants on the same scale as they are building in China to warrant the use of such towers.
This diagram does clearly show there's nothing but water vapor coming out of the cooling towers. They are shaped funny for a reason and aren't smoke stacks.
All these conditioned rants about Greenpeace are very funny. I have nothing that bad to say about their rather altruist work as a third party monitor and activist, from remote whales to coal energy i can see their points and their 'agenda' which seems a bit more positive than those pushed daily by lobbyists for the big oil and coal industries, those individuals and their political 'donations'... My only grief would be the -mostly ideological- nuclear dislike among many of the greens, notably German ones, but otherwise some remain realists and as far as they don't enter real politics I fail to feel any hatred, lol.
I don't think people are objecting to Greenpeace's objectives. Rather, they're objecting to Greenpeace's disregard for the facts and their behavior as media whores. For example:
- Picketing Apple in Ireland, even though Apple is clearly the most environmentally concerned computer company out there.
- Their diatribe against Apple's NC data center, in spite of the fact that Apple has taken great pains to make it environmentally friendly.
- Their false information (which they never corrected) about how much energy the NC data center will use. They overestimated the power usage by a factor of 3 or 4 which means that the percent of energy coming from solar was underestimated by the same factor. Even after Apple issued correct figures, they continued to publish the incorrect ones.
- Nonsense like the press release in this thread. Apple hasn't changed a darned thing, but GP thinks they can make some political gains by issuing a press release. It's also a way for them to backpedal from their previous lies without admitting the they lied.
- Trespassing on private property - like climbing the roof of Apple's HQ in Ireland. Apple should have had them arrested.
There are many, more examples. GP is the classic example of a group that thinks that the rules shouldn't apply to them because "the world needs a watchdog". Sorry, but while I appreciate the idea of a watchdog, I'd prefer one who isn't deaf and blind and who doesn't attack people who don't deserve it.
Comments
Who cares?
Now, that being so, there is no way back to the natural cycle other than to remove all of mankind. Whether we burn fuel or otherwise it will make zero difference to the planet as long as we have cultivation of crops and animals.
I have no support for green peace unless they start to destroy farms, animals and start wiping out humanity as this would show that they are dedicated to saving the planet.
8-)
<sarcasm>Thank god for Greenpeace, if they hadn't acted, Apple never would've gone clean.</sarcasm>
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.
Fantastic idea, start off your post with a blanket insult for everyone here. That's productive, really.
As for Greenpeace, no, they're not doing anything other than stroking their own egos (or maybe their buddies' egos too - there's an awful lot of stroking going on in there). They're not trying to do anything productive either. "Occasional hyperbole"? Greenpeace can't make a statement without it being hyperbole of the highest order. Greenpeace is nothing but a self-serving political outfit with no productive goal in mind. I can say that with the same absolute certainty that they make their statements because I have the same level of scientific proof that they use to back up their statements ... that is to say absolutely none ... so it must be true.
Defamation of character IS harmful, and that's Greenpeace' modus operandi. Their "report" served no purpose, it changed nothing. Apple is still doing what Apple does, and only the most naive mind would buy their argument that it was their report that prompted any change. They're not constructive, they're not productive. They're useless.
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.
Yeah, no hyperbole there, huh? And are you kidding me? Even some of the old-school Greenpeace warriors have gone on record to say the current Greenpeace leadership is a bunch of degenerate, attention-seeking, media-whores with no true "green" intentions, and that it's been that way for some time. Greenpeace is an ego-machine serving spoiled children, nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
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.
1) Pretty sure greenpeace isn't regularly on Apple's campus
2) Willing to bet they cover their ass telling them something similar to that.
Conclusion>Greenpeace can pay for their own hospital bills. They aren't Mr Burns unleashing the hounds on Greenpeace at least
What Greenpeace did was give Apple props for trying. Not for actually doing anything.
This is the equivalent of a participation award you kid gets for showing up.
Meh.
Really? What potpourri of toxins come from a cooling tower?
The anti-corrsion chemicals used in a cooling loop are generally not toxic, at least at the levels that might be released. And even so, no significant amount of those chemicals evaporates from the cooling tower, anyway.
So which chemicals are you referring to? Hydroxlic acid, perhaps (also known as hydronium hydroxide)?
Quote:
Really? What potpourri of toxins come from a cooling tower?
The anti-corrsion chemicals used in a cooling loop are generally not toxic, at least at the levels that might be released. And even so, no significant amount of those chemicals evaporates from the cooling tower, anyway.
So which chemicals are you referring to? Hydroxlic acid, perhaps (also known as hydronium hydroxide)?
Quote:
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.
First off they are promoting clean, renewable energy. Neither of which a nuclear power plant is. Just because water vapor leaves the stack that does not make it clean, did we forget the nuclear waste, not to mention the potential for disaster.
It did surprise me that they scored so low when they do a lot to be environmentally friendly, bu they do show how everything we do can affect our planet. Hopefully this will push for more sustainable technologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
In other news, Greenpeace still hasn't removed the polluting diesel engines powering its boat fleet.
worse yet they still use two stoke marine engine on their smaller outboard motor boats... Clean up your own act before accusing others of not doing their part
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1
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.
Pretty sure you are wrong about this.
I could only find a single instance of a coal fired plant that had "scrubber stacks" that look like this and I'm almost certain that particular image was just mislabelled. Photos from the air of this same plant show this "scrubber stack" to be empty inside and identical to the nuclear cooling towers, so even if it's part of some 'scrubbing" thingie, it's likely that it's still only spewing water vapour anyway.
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.
Hydro is on the environmentalist hit list. Many groups are lobbying to blow up dams and return the land to its natural state. Wind also causes issues for migrating birds according to environmental groups. Coal and nuclear are tools of the devil to these people. Natural gas is evil too. Solar takes up millions of acres if you scale it up to the level of hydrocarbon fuel. Nothing short of a complete return to the hunter/gatherer culture of 15,000 years ago will make them happy. Just ask any one of them.
Please don't get me going about "green" anything. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club et al are currently doing most of the damage to this country with their unrealistic goal of zero emissions of a non-polluting gas. We've gone from a 70 cent light bulb to a $40 light bulb that costs more to manufacture in materials and energy than the 70 cent one. Not to say that we don't need efficient technologies, but it needs to be balanced with some common sense. It's that common sense that is severly lacking from the 'greenies'.
If all the coal fired power stations were shut down right now, the world would sink into chaos as most of the electricity would be gone.
Inescapable reality, there is no alternative at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Pretty sure you are wrong about this.
I could only find a single instance of a coal fired plant that had "scrubber stacks" that look like this and I'm almost certain that particular image was just mislabelled. Photos from the air of this same plant show this "scrubber stack" to be empty inside and identical to the nuclear cooling towers, so even if it's part of some 'scrubbing" thingie, it's likely that it's still only spewing water vapour anyway.
Actually you are wrong.
Many coal fired power plants use these scrubber stacks.
Examples
All these conditioned rants about Greenpeace are very funny. I have nothing that bad to say about their rather altruist work as a third party monitor and activist, from remote whales to coal energy i can see their points and their 'agenda' which seems a bit more positive than those pushed daily by lobbyists for the big oil and coal industries, those individuals and their political 'donations'... My only grief would be the -mostly ideological- nuclear dislike among many of the greens, notably German ones, but otherwise some remain realists and as far as they don't enter real politics I fail to feel any hatred, lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
Last time I check nuclear power plants (shown in the Greenpeace ad) do not generate grey clouds of smoke only water vapor clouds. Oh I get it, they can not tell the difference between a smoke stack of a coal plant to a cooling tower of a nuclear plant.
Good point. Yes, those are not smoke stacks but water cooling towers. They are used by both nuclear and coal power plants. The people in Greenpeace know that and that's what really bothers me. That illustration is clearly a lie. A lie, not exaggeration or hyperbole. A lie deliberately made and not an oversight. Greenpeace has lost its perspective and sense of ethics. IMHO, there are elements in the Greenpeace top leadership who will do or condone anything...lies, violence, etc, to promote their agenda. Greenpeace should concentrate on working at the state and local levels to use alternative energy sources, pass environmental legislation and regulations, and generally find positive ways to promote change. That's hard, nitty-gritty work. Instead, they have chosen to take the easy way, criticizing firms that, in their myopic opinion, don't do enough. That's the way taken by lazy, hypocritical, and probably highly overpaid, prima donnas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1
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 Gm7Cadd9
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.
You beat me to it - there are many examples - here is a coal plant in China - http://trendsupdates.com/china-world’s-largest-co2-emitter-pledges-to-cut-greenhouse-gases/
I believe that all you can say for sure from the use of that style of Cooling Tower is that there is a massive amount of heat being generated that needs to be dissipated. They design is very commonly associated with Nuclear power largely because of the massive amount of heat generated by the nuclear process. WIth non-nuclear power plants getting ever larger the need for efficient cooling has increased. We likely don't see many examples of this style of cooling tower used for non nuclear purposes in the USA for two reasons - 1. if not associated with a nuclear plant or some proposed multi-megawatt coal plant its not news and 2. we may not have any non-nuclear plants on the same scale as they are building in China to warrant the use of such towers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Actually you are wrong.
Many coal fired power plants use these scrubber stacks.
Examples
OMG, this is the first post that has shocked me in quite a while...SOMEONE USES BING!
LOL
This diagram does clearly show there's nothing but water vapor coming out of the cooling towers. They are shaped funny for a reason and aren't smoke stacks.
I don't think people are objecting to Greenpeace's objectives. Rather, they're objecting to Greenpeace's disregard for the facts and their behavior as media whores. For example:
- Picketing Apple in Ireland, even though Apple is clearly the most environmentally concerned computer company out there.
- Their diatribe against Apple's NC data center, in spite of the fact that Apple has taken great pains to make it environmentally friendly.
- Their false information (which they never corrected) about how much energy the NC data center will use. They overestimated the power usage by a factor of 3 or 4 which means that the percent of energy coming from solar was underestimated by the same factor. Even after Apple issued correct figures, they continued to publish the incorrect ones.
- Nonsense like the press release in this thread. Apple hasn't changed a darned thing, but GP thinks they can make some political gains by issuing a press release. It's also a way for them to backpedal from their previous lies without admitting the they lied.
- Trespassing on private property - like climbing the roof of Apple's HQ in Ireland. Apple should have had them arrested.
There are many, more examples. GP is the classic example of a group that thinks that the rules shouldn't apply to them because "the world needs a watchdog". Sorry, but while I appreciate the idea of a watchdog, I'd prefer one who isn't deaf and blind and who doesn't attack people who don't deserve it.