Nobody is advocating the things that you are suggesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Apple should release a special edition 24 core anti-green Mac Pro which uses way more energy than the current one and this in turn would also boost the performance to ridiculous and previously unheard of levels. The whole "Green" fad will soon fade away hopefully. Let's get back to raw power. ...
OK, I was referring to the comments made by a known troll--not useful. But you have to admit, there is an undercurrent of anti-environmentalism running through the comments on this thread as if environmental concerns are the problem...
Quote:
We are saying that Greenpeace should tell The WHOLE story. By omitting the things I mentioned, they are spreading nothing more than pure propaganda, plain and simple. They are not creating "dialogue" by omitting all the facts.
Seriously? You are missing the forrest for the trees here! (sorry for the Green cliche.)
Are we not talking energy use on an Apple fan/rumor site? Is this not some sort of dialogue? Is it not possible that Apple will be looking into some way to offset their dependency on coal power in NC. Might not other companies building future server farms consider their power sources as part of the equation?
Again, Greenpeace's publicity stunts are not the end--if so, they would be nothing more than noisy propaganda as you complain. Instead, this is more likely the beginning. You will see much more discussion in the future about the environmental footprint of enormous data centers as well as initiatives that mitigate their environmental impacts. This all takes time, and in the end most people will have forgotten that Greenpeace put the issue on the map...
Quote:
They are feeding the machine that does not give a crap what they think when they only present PART of the story.
I'm not sure what machine you are referring to here, so I cannot comment on that. But I think it is obvious that in any public discussion of heated issues, each party talks about the points they want to emphasize. Do you really think that Greenpeace is unique on this account?
I think the point is Greenpeace would have preferred Apple located the datacenter somewhere else where there is hydroelectric or other green energy rather than in a part of the country filled with coal mines.
Too bad that Greenpeace never learned to think things through.
During the summer, our power plants are all at or near capacity. So if Apple put their facility near a wind farm, then SOMEONE ELSE would be forced to use the coal and nuclear power.
During the winter when there's excess capacity, the grid ensures that people will generally use the least expensive power, so siting it near a wind farm wouldn't really change that.
And, more importantly, once the capital cost for wind and solar has already been spent, those are very, very cheap power sources on an out-of-pocket basis - so chances are that the grid is already using all the available wind and solar power - and there's nothing Apple can do about that.
Now, Greenpeace could argue that Apple should have built a solar facility to generate its own power, but even Greenpeace apparently understands how hypocritical it is to expect one company to spent hundreds of millions of dollars on solar panels when none of their competitors do.
If Greenpeace wants to have an impact, they should:
- Encourage additional incentives for use of renewable energy
- Fund R&D to reduce the cost of renewable energy
- Encourage the public to invest in energy conservation technologies
Demanding that one company should run their business to suit Greenpeace's desires is just absurd.
Right. Let's wait until five minutes before the Earth becomes uninhabitable.
Great, am I going to get a global warning lecture too? While I don't drag my feet and am prudent in most cases, I'm not about to panic because a bunch of tree huggers are screaming that the sky is falling. This great Earth has been going through temperature cycles and swings for billions of years and we just don't have enough data to come to definitive conclusions. I'm not being ignorant, just practical and not extreme. A solar flare, an asteroid collision or a massive nuclear war is going to kill us all way long before our lack of green decisions does.
I guess everyone needs to stand behind a cause to feel better about themselves and feel they're doing their part in giving back, rather than always taking. You hug trees, I donate blood and platelets.
One of the problems with energy is that a lot of it occurs at the wrong time. Nuclear produces at virtually a flat rate day and night, wind when there's wind, sun when there's sun (daytime). Apple is a leader in battery technology and so is working hard to ameliorate the inconveniences of 'green' energy.
Nuclear's other problem, along with many others, is the scale of it. Too much power in one place means that the potential for catastrophe exists.
There is however lots of truly green energy out there for example from water. Very small scale, very local, no need for big power stations, transmission cables, energy companies. It would also remove the need to project power in order to preserve energy supplies in the 'national interest'.
Whilst an explosion killing a few people will create headlines and provoke a reaction, pollution killing thousands of people a year or two early by prematurely degrading their physical and mental capabilities gets scant attention. Pollution can and does produce proportionately much greater harm whilst avoiding responsibility.
Greenpeace was taken over by the usual culprits a long time ago.
Waaah, waaah, waaah! What a bunch of whiners. Unfortunately this group of 'tards has no credibility. They lost any credibility they might once have had by pulling stupid stunts and criticizing organization that were clearly making good efforts to improve their environmental footprints.
All the companies shown in that little chart should continuously work to improve materials, recycle-ability, and reduce power consumption - because it's the right thing to do, but also it's in their best interests to conserve as doing so reduces their costs. But at the same time they should also collectively (or individually) tell Greenpeace to fcuk off.
Gunderson is a well-known anti-nuclear power fearmonger. If that's your source, then of course nuclear will seem scary. My grandfather studied TMI for the EPA and the supposed elevated cancer rates are clearly a result of bad data. The literature just does not support it. Researchers have even downgraded the estimates of deaths caused by Chernobyl, so I'm really not worried about Fukushima from a causing death/ pollution perspective. Economically, of course, it's a terrible disaster, but that's as much due to alarmists like Gunderson as to any real threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath
One of the problems with energy is that a lot of it occurs at the wrong time. Nuclear produces at virtually a flat rate day and night, wind when there's wind, sun when there's sun (daytime). Apple is a leader in battery technology and so is working hard to ameliorate the inconveniences of 'green' energy.
Nuclear's other problem, along with many others, is the scale of it. Too much power in one place means that the potential for catastrophe exists.
There is however lots of truly green energy out there for example from water. Very small scale, very local, no need for big power stations, transmission cables, energy companies. It would also remove the need to project power in order to preserve energy supplies in the 'national interest'.
Whilst an explosion killing a few people will create headlines and provoke a reaction, pollution killing thousands of people a year or two early by prematurely degrading their physical and mental capabilities gets scant attention. Pollution can and does produce proportionately much greater harm whilst avoiding responsibility.
Greenpeace was taken over by the usual culprits a long time ago.
I think the point is Greenpeace would have preferred Apple located the datacenter somewhere else where there is hydroelectric or other green energy rather than in a part of the country filled with coal mines.
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.
I'm sure you are correct. But it's not up to Greenpeace where Apple or anyone else locates a data center, or any other facility for that matter.
The NC site offers abundant power, good labor, direct access to high speed connectivity, and tax incentives. If Greenpeace thinks a company is not going to jump on that, then they're smoking more of whatever it is they smoke than usual.
On a side note, I say we open even more coal mines (I mean, there's plenty of the stuff in NC, SC, & WV), and start using the stuff up generating power and squeezing oil out of it, thereby reducing our dependence on foreign energy. Oh, and I'm sure Greenpeace hasn't noticed, or refuses to acknowledge the availability of clean coal burning technology. Maybe they should focus their attention on getting that technology used more.
Oh yea, btw, you can't have hydro-electric plants either, cause daming up rivers kills the fish and whatever else.
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?
Don't care about Greenpeace's list, it's irrelevant. There are lots of things to consider when building a data center. Apple's is likely to be one of the most efficient around. It doesn't matter that it's in NC coal country. Being close to a power source creates efficiencies. They're also close to water, not to mention other benefits.
Greenpeace never seems to see the big picture or understand how one thing makes an impact somewhere else (for example CFL bulbs - far more environmentally damaging than incandescents).
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?
Where exactly are the wind farms and/solar ranches that can support 500,000 - 1M square-feet of data center? given wind power's intermittancy and low capacity factor (where 25,000 MW of wind power only reduces local grid capacity demand by an actual 4,000 MW). Conversely, solar production, either locally or from solar ranches located where they are most effective, cost 4 times that of conventional modern coal-fired generating stations. Moreover, using a 1000MW standard for comparison a CSP facility requires 6000 acres of land, and photovoltaics require over 12,000 acres of land. By comparison, a coal plant requires only 640 or so acres of land. If you try to avoid the land costs by leasing public lands from the feds, you incur rental fees, megawatt surcharges, and the cost of compliance with a complex and time-consuming federal permitting process. And finally, like wind power, solar power is intermittent, requiring massive storage capacity for the darkside time period in order to provide constant supply. So while these are among the "greenest" solutions, they are only supplementary in nature. But they make great PR fodder - like Google's solarization of their Mountainview campus.
Arguably the energy demands of a full datacenter the size of the Apple Maiden, NC operation are far greater than Google's campus, but just for comparison, let's look at what Google netted by doing it. First in order to do it they needed subsidies from local utility PG&E and a generous federal tax credit. Fair enough. The entire installation covering most of the roofs and parking covers of the campus at peak capacity generates 1.6MW of power for the campus, or according to Google, approximately 30% of their peak demand which calculates out to ~4.8MW of power. Even if Apple were to cover the entire roof and adjacent exterior spaces of the new data center, it would not reduce the energy usage by an appreciably amount, it would however increase the ongoing maintenance costs as solar panels lose efficient over time and require routine replacement.
Greenpeace also estimated that the 500,000 sq ft facility would require 100MW of power to operate. If you look at real energy use studies for operational data centers, the actual energy demand runs roughly at 40W/sq ft. Doing the math shows that - without any other efficiencies built in - the Apple data center would in fact require only 20MW for operation on average. That is five-fold lower than what Greenpeace estimates in their report. They have not used real energy use numbers to arrive at their calculations and simply grabbed a number they thought would work in their best interests. Yet another flawed and sensationalist piece of crap from the would-be saviors of a green world.
This great Earth has been going through temperature cycles and swings for billions of years and we just don't have enough data to come to definitive conclusions.
Don't sweat it. These are people with the unrealistic expectation that Obama was going to be their own personal activist and not the President of everyone. The President of people who agree and disagree.
They don't have the vision to see Obama will be able to do his most important work after he leaves office.
This is what that little report does not tell you. That data center is within earshot of two nuclear facilities. In fact, there is one not even 20 miles from the facility (with another less than 40 miles form it). Also, one of the main reasons for choosing NC is that the state has a huge fiber optic setup. Of course, Greenpeace ignores that info. by glossing over the coal to nuclear ratio. Please Greenpeace, how about telling us what the data center is powered from? Giving stats of an entire state does give even the slightest indication of what the data center is powered from. The fact they don't mention this shows an automatic bias on Greenpeace's part but that's not surprising. Here is a little info. on the McGuire nuclear facility that supplies half of Duke Energy's power to NC and is close to the Apple facility.
Thanks for pointing that out. Saves me having to look up the URLS, etc. Of course Greenpeace would say that nuclear is as bad as cola - for different reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If Greenpeace wants to have an impact, they should:
- Encourage additional incentives for use of renewable energy
- Fund R&D to reduce the cost of renewable energy
- Encourage the public to invest in energy conservation technologies
The first and third thing I agree GP should be concentrating on. That might actually get some results!
There is enough data to know that sending this much carbon into the environment over a short amount of time is not a natural phenomenon, its entirely man made. There is enough data to know that this has never happened before. There is enough data to know that upsetting the balance of things has some type of consequence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
This great Earth has been going through temperature cycles and swings for billions of years and we just don't have enough data to come to definitive conclusions. I'm not being ignorant, just practical and not extreme. A solar flare, an asteroid collision or a massive nuclear war is going to kill us all way long before our lack of green decisions does.
God Father III was a terrible movie, but had a great scene in it. The Pope picks a rock from the water and cracks it in half. He shows that while the outside of the rock is wet, the inside is dry. He compares this to Christianity, saying that Christ surrounds Christians, but does not penetrate them.
Enlightenment isn't going to come from a web post, no matter how many references are presented. If you want the knowledge to penetrate, you'll have to do some work on your own.
I don't know why people are trying to actually argue with Greenpeace's methodology or hypocrisy, or whatever you want to call it. Just remember this:
Greenpeace is a PR firm - pure and simple. Self-appointed to a client (the Earth) that could care less (Humans or no humans, Earth's ecology will still be here), but diligent in their work-rate regardless!
Does anyone believe all the hype, misdirection, and omissions spewed out by PR firms hired by tech companies, political parities, and celebrities? Look for the one piece of info that might be hidden in all the fluff - technology consumes lots of energy that has to come from somewhere - and ignore the rest. I mean, they write "100MW" at full capacity. Is that per hour, per second, per year, what? If you can't even get the units right in your report you are a PR firm, nothing more.
Just for comparison: an efficient 300 ton electric arc furnace uses around 130 MWh give or take to melt that much scrap steel. But heh, you don't get that big news cycle hit complaining about steel mills or the like.
Gunderson is a well-known anti-nuclear power fearmonger. If that's your source, then of course nuclear will seem scary. My grandfather studied TMI for the EPA and the supposed elevated cancer rates are clearly a result of bad data. The literature just does not support it. Researchers have even downgraded the estimates of deaths caused by Chernobyl, so I'm really not worried about Fukushima from a causing death/ pollution perspective. Economically, of course, it's a terrible disaster, but that's as much due to alarmists like Gunderson as to any real threat.
How long ago was your grandfather doing those studies? B/c our science has evolved quite a bit in the last 20 or 30 years. Radiation levels and poisonous material being found in the drinking water, not to mention milk and creatures of the sea, which make up a vast % of the diet of Japan, are factual problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey
Is it not possible that Apple will be looking into some way to offset their dependency on coal power in NC.
They did, they built near 2 nuclear power plants, so Apple's data center is likely almost 100% powered by nuclear energy.
What is Apple supposed to do? Buy all its electricity from f***ing wind farms? While normal Americans do not? Greenpeace can go get a life. I am an environmentalist but AAPL is doing what they can. Using coal electricity in the Carolinas is a bedrock American technology. The location is right geographically.
Comments
Nobody is advocating the things that you are suggesting.
Apple should release a special edition 24 core anti-green Mac Pro which uses way more energy than the current one and this in turn would also boost the performance to ridiculous and previously unheard of levels. The whole "Green" fad will soon fade away hopefully. Let's get back to raw power. ...
OK, I was referring to the comments made by a known troll--not useful. But you have to admit, there is an undercurrent of anti-environmentalism running through the comments on this thread as if environmental concerns are the problem...
We are saying that Greenpeace should tell The WHOLE story. By omitting the things I mentioned, they are spreading nothing more than pure propaganda, plain and simple. They are not creating "dialogue" by omitting all the facts.
Seriously?
Are we not talking energy use on an Apple fan/rumor site? Is this not some sort of dialogue? Is it not possible that Apple will be looking into some way to offset their dependency on coal power in NC. Might not other companies building future server farms consider their power sources as part of the equation?
Again, Greenpeace's publicity stunts are not the end--if so, they would be nothing more than noisy propaganda as you complain. Instead, this is more likely the beginning. You will see much more discussion in the future about the environmental footprint of enormous data centers as well as initiatives that mitigate their environmental impacts. This all takes time, and in the end most people will have forgotten that Greenpeace put the issue on the map...
They are feeding the machine that does not give a crap what they think when they only present PART of the story.
I'm not sure what machine you are referring to here, so I cannot comment on that. But I think it is obvious that in any public discussion of heated issues, each party talks about the points they want to emphasize. Do you really think that Greenpeace is unique on this account?
I think the point is Greenpeace would have preferred Apple located the datacenter somewhere else where there is hydroelectric or other green energy rather than in a part of the country filled with coal mines.
Too bad that Greenpeace never learned to think things through.
During the summer, our power plants are all at or near capacity. So if Apple put their facility near a wind farm, then SOMEONE ELSE would be forced to use the coal and nuclear power.
During the winter when there's excess capacity, the grid ensures that people will generally use the least expensive power, so siting it near a wind farm wouldn't really change that.
And, more importantly, once the capital cost for wind and solar has already been spent, those are very, very cheap power sources on an out-of-pocket basis - so chances are that the grid is already using all the available wind and solar power - and there's nothing Apple can do about that.
Now, Greenpeace could argue that Apple should have built a solar facility to generate its own power, but even Greenpeace apparently understands how hypocritical it is to expect one company to spent hundreds of millions of dollars on solar panels when none of their competitors do.
If Greenpeace wants to have an impact, they should:
- Encourage additional incentives for use of renewable energy
- Fund R&D to reduce the cost of renewable energy
- Encourage the public to invest in energy conservation technologies
Demanding that one company should run their business to suit Greenpeace's desires is just absurd.
the company revealed that the server farm will be used for iTunes and MobileMe when it opens this spring.
Plus data stored until needed by NSA, CIA, FBI and DHS? Unthinkable, but just been thunk!
Right. Let's wait until five minutes before the Earth becomes uninhabitable.
Great, am I going to get a global warning lecture too? While I don't drag my feet and am prudent in most cases, I'm not about to panic because a bunch of tree huggers are screaming that the sky is falling. This great Earth has been going through temperature cycles and swings for billions of years and we just don't have enough data to come to definitive conclusions. I'm not being ignorant, just practical and not extreme. A solar flare, an asteroid collision or a massive nuclear war is going to kill us all way long before our lack of green decisions does.
I guess everyone needs to stand behind a cause to feel better about themselves and feel they're doing their part in giving back, rather than always taking. You hug trees, I donate blood and platelets.
Nuclear's other problem, along with many others, is the scale of it. Too much power in one place means that the potential for catastrophe exists.
There is however lots of truly green energy out there for example from water. Very small scale, very local, no need for big power stations, transmission cables, energy companies. It would also remove the need to project power in order to preserve energy supplies in the 'national interest'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBm8ogwnpG0
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6mqnu
Gas is more of a problem and much more polluting than is generally believed:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/speci...as/default.htm
Nuclear is worse than generally believed, for updates on Fukushima this is a good source:
http://www.fairewinds.com/
Whilst an explosion killing a few people will create headlines and provoke a reaction, pollution killing thousands of people a year or two early by prematurely degrading their physical and mental capabilities gets scant attention. Pollution can and does produce proportionately much greater harm whilst avoiding responsibility.
Greenpeace was taken over by the usual culprits a long time ago.
All the companies shown in that little chart should continuously work to improve materials, recycle-ability, and reduce power consumption - because it's the right thing to do, but also it's in their best interests to conserve as doing so reduces their costs. But at the same time they should also collectively (or individually) tell Greenpeace to fcuk off.
One of the problems with energy is that a lot of it occurs at the wrong time. Nuclear produces at virtually a flat rate day and night, wind when there's wind, sun when there's sun (daytime). Apple is a leader in battery technology and so is working hard to ameliorate the inconveniences of 'green' energy.
Nuclear's other problem, along with many others, is the scale of it. Too much power in one place means that the potential for catastrophe exists.
There is however lots of truly green energy out there for example from water. Very small scale, very local, no need for big power stations, transmission cables, energy companies. It would also remove the need to project power in order to preserve energy supplies in the 'national interest'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBm8ogwnpG0
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6mqnu
Gas is more of a problem and much more polluting than is generally believed:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/speci...as/default.htm
Nuclear is worse than generally believed, for updates on Fukushima this is a good source:
http://www.fairewinds.com/
Whilst an explosion killing a few people will create headlines and provoke a reaction, pollution killing thousands of people a year or two early by prematurely degrading their physical and mental capabilities gets scant attention. Pollution can and does produce proportionately much greater harm whilst avoiding responsibility.
Greenpeace was taken over by the usual culprits a long time ago.
I think the point is Greenpeace would have preferred Apple located the datacenter somewhere else where there is hydroelectric or other green energy rather than in a part of the country filled with coal mines.
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.
I'm sure you are correct. But it's not up to Greenpeace where Apple or anyone else locates a data center, or any other facility for that matter.
The NC site offers abundant power, good labor, direct access to high speed connectivity, and tax incentives. If Greenpeace thinks a company is not going to jump on that, then they're smoking more of whatever it is they smoke than usual.
On a side note, I say we open even more coal mines (I mean, there's plenty of the stuff in NC, SC, & WV), and start using the stuff up generating power and squeezing oil out of it, thereby reducing our dependence on foreign energy. Oh, and I'm sure Greenpeace hasn't noticed, or refuses to acknowledge the availability of clean coal burning technology. Maybe they should focus their attention on getting that technology used more.
Oh yea, btw, you can't have hydro-electric plants either, cause daming up rivers kills the fish and whatever else.
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?
Don't care about Greenpeace's list, it's irrelevant. There are lots of things to consider when building a data center. Apple's is likely to be one of the most efficient around. It doesn't matter that it's in NC coal country. Being close to a power source creates efficiencies. They're also close to water, not to mention other benefits.
Greenpeace never seems to see the big picture or understand how one thing makes an impact somewhere else (for example CFL bulbs - far more environmentally damaging than incandescents).
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?
Where exactly are the wind farms and/solar ranches that can support 500,000 - 1M square-feet of data center? given wind power's intermittancy and low capacity factor (where 25,000 MW of wind power only reduces local grid capacity demand by an actual 4,000 MW). Conversely, solar production, either locally or from solar ranches located where they are most effective, cost 4 times that of conventional modern coal-fired generating stations. Moreover, using a 1000MW standard for comparison a CSP facility requires 6000 acres of land, and photovoltaics require over 12,000 acres of land. By comparison, a coal plant requires only 640 or so acres of land. If you try to avoid the land costs by leasing public lands from the feds, you incur rental fees, megawatt surcharges, and the cost of compliance with a complex and time-consuming federal permitting process. And finally, like wind power, solar power is intermittent, requiring massive storage capacity for the darkside time period in order to provide constant supply. So while these are among the "greenest" solutions, they are only supplementary in nature. But they make great PR fodder - like Google's solarization of their Mountainview campus.
Arguably the energy demands of a full datacenter the size of the Apple Maiden, NC operation are far greater than Google's campus, but just for comparison, let's look at what Google netted by doing it. First in order to do it they needed subsidies from local utility PG&E and a generous federal tax credit. Fair enough. The entire installation covering most of the roofs and parking covers of the campus at peak capacity generates 1.6MW of power for the campus, or according to Google, approximately 30% of their peak demand which calculates out to ~4.8MW of power. Even if Apple were to cover the entire roof and adjacent exterior spaces of the new data center, it would not reduce the energy usage by an appreciably amount, it would however increase the ongoing maintenance costs as solar panels lose efficient over time and require routine replacement.
Greenpeace also estimated that the 500,000 sq ft facility would require 100MW of power to operate. If you look at real energy use studies for operational data centers, the actual energy demand runs roughly at 40W/sq ft. Doing the math shows that - without any other efficiencies built in - the Apple data center would in fact require only 20MW for operation on average. That is five-fold lower than what Greenpeace estimates in their report. They have not used real energy use numbers to arrive at their calculations and simply grabbed a number they thought would work in their best interests. Yet another flawed and sensationalist piece of crap from the would-be saviors of a green world.
This great Earth has been going through temperature cycles and swings for billions of years and we just don't have enough data to come to definitive conclusions.
Yes we do.
They don't have the vision to see Obama will be able to do his most important work after he leaves office.
Holy shit! I'm in fruit cake land!
This is what that little report does not tell you. That data center is within earshot of two nuclear facilities. In fact, there is one not even 20 miles from the facility (with another less than 40 miles form it). Also, one of the main reasons for choosing NC is that the state has a huge fiber optic setup. Of course, Greenpeace ignores that info. by glossing over the coal to nuclear ratio. Please Greenpeace, how about telling us what the data center is powered from? Giving stats of an entire state does give even the slightest indication of what the data center is powered from. The fact they don't mention this shows an automatic bias on Greenpeace's part but that's not surprising. Here is a little info. on the McGuire nuclear facility that supplies half of Duke Energy's power to NC and is close to the Apple facility.
http://www.duke-energy.com/power-pla...ar/mcguire.asp
Thanks for pointing that out. Saves me having to look up the URLS, etc. Of course Greenpeace would say that nuclear is as bad as cola - for different reasons.
If Greenpeace wants to have an impact, they should:
- Encourage additional incentives for use of renewable energy
- Fund R&D to reduce the cost of renewable energy
- Encourage the public to invest in energy conservation technologies
The first and third thing I agree GP should be concentrating on. That might actually get some results!
--MDG
This great Earth has been going through temperature cycles and swings for billions of years and we just don't have enough data to come to definitive conclusions. I'm not being ignorant, just practical and not extreme. A solar flare, an asteroid collision or a massive nuclear war is going to kill us all way long before our lack of green decisions does.
God Father III was a terrible movie, but had a great scene in it. The Pope picks a rock from the water and cracks it in half. He shows that while the outside of the rock is wet, the inside is dry. He compares this to Christianity, saying that Christ surrounds Christians, but does not penetrate them.
Enlightenment isn't going to come from a web post, no matter how many references are presented. If you want the knowledge to penetrate, you'll have to do some work on your own.
. . . for supporting my point with more evidence.
Greenpeace is a PR firm - pure and simple. Self-appointed to a client (the Earth) that could care less (Humans or no humans, Earth's ecology will still be here), but diligent in their work-rate regardless!
Does anyone believe all the hype, misdirection, and omissions spewed out by PR firms hired by tech companies, political parities, and celebrities? Look for the one piece of info that might be hidden in all the fluff - technology consumes lots of energy that has to come from somewhere - and ignore the rest. I mean, they write "100MW" at full capacity. Is that per hour, per second, per year, what? If you can't even get the units right in your report you are a PR firm, nothing more.
Just for comparison: an efficient 300 ton electric arc furnace uses around 130 MWh give or take to melt that much scrap steel. But heh, you don't get that big news cycle hit complaining about steel mills or the like.
Gunderson is a well-known anti-nuclear power fearmonger. If that's your source, then of course nuclear will seem scary. My grandfather studied TMI for the EPA and the supposed elevated cancer rates are clearly a result of bad data. The literature just does not support it. Researchers have even downgraded the estimates of deaths caused by Chernobyl, so I'm really not worried about Fukushima from a causing death/ pollution perspective. Economically, of course, it's a terrible disaster, but that's as much due to alarmists like Gunderson as to any real threat.
How long ago was your grandfather doing those studies? B/c our science has evolved quite a bit in the last 20 or 30 years. Radiation levels and poisonous material being found in the drinking water, not to mention milk and creatures of the sea, which make up a vast % of the diet of Japan, are factual problems.
Is it not possible that Apple will be looking into some way to offset their dependency on coal power in NC.
They did, they built near 2 nuclear power plants, so Apple's data center is likely almost 100% powered by nuclear energy.
GreanPeace, I hope Apple doesn't tell you squat about anything they do. You just made trouble at MacExpo and got kicked out..AWESOME!
How did you like them Apples??
I think that's more or less standard operating procedure for these guys. You think they went to MacWorld to look at the Macs?
Shh! No one tel Greenpeace about Apple?s production in China.
Or the mercury in their precious CCFL light bulbs. Mmm...sweet, sweet mercury!
Or the millions of gallons of diesel fuel burned every year to ship those bulbs from China.