Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it.
I would like to see the number of coal fired power plants quadruple, and an increase in the production of petroleum by squeezing shale. Greenpeace can kiss my posterior and go crawl back under the rock where they came from.
Apple should build several more data centers and locate them right smack in the center of coal powered areas of the country (where they're also likely to realize the lowest operational costs).
Nothing wrong?
Are you kidding me?
Coal generates the most carbon dioxide among all the power sources, the main culprit to the contribution of greenhouse gases. Not only that, it also contributes a good amount of harmful gases into the atmosphere.
Nuclear, geothermal, hydro, wind and solar is the way to go. It may be more expensive but that is partly due to the strong lobbyist on the part of the coal coalition that is strongholding these alternatives from ever seeing advancement and political support. It's not just simply technical.
Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it.
I would like to see the number of coal fired power plants quadruple, and an increase in the production of petroleum by squeezing shale. Greenpeace can kiss my posterior and go crawl back under the rock where they came from.
Apple should build several more data centers and locate them right smack in the center of coal powered areas of the country (where they're also likely to realize the lowest operational costs).
Yes... Boneheads... It's a fantastic idea to level mountain ranges for coal and scrape untold acres of soil up to squeeze oil out of it at 2x the cost of drilling wells. Clean Coal my ass... Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, it isn't renewable.
You are the bonehead. It's too bad there are few alternatives to coal at this juncture though.
Apple will eventually do away with text books that our children are carrying around everyday. Can you imagine how many trees that will save? Why not recognize that at the same time?
Has it occurred to any of you rabid apologists that Apple, and other companies, strive to take the extraordinary measures they do, and are developing, precisely because agencies like Greenpeace keep the issue in the public eye?
Many companies would never have discovered they could "go green" profitably, had they not been nagged into it.
So, nag away - there is plenty more to be done to make the future a sustainable one...
I, for one, would like to see it so.
Actually, it occurred to us apologists that activitsts like Greenpeace always credit themselves whenever the target of their protests does something good, because they assume that the target cannot possibly have any social conscience without Greenpeace.
So please, Greenpeace, pat yourselves on the back, take credit for what other people do, and continue to tell yourself that nagging and public shaming solves complex real-world economic issues.
I can tell from these replies that most people posting here don't care about the environment at all. .
That is, of course, almost as ridiculous as what Greenpeace has to say.
I care very much about the environment. Furthermore, I've put a great deal of my own money to use in improving the environment.
That doesn't require me to accept everything Greenpeace says without reservation. They've shown themselves not to be trustworthy or to place environmental concerns above their own lust for power and influence.
When you look at the facts, Apple has done a great deal to improve the environment - more than most (if not all) of their competition. Have a look at the link I provided for another side of the story.
Furthermore, ask yourself where Greenpeace gets their information. Do you really think that they have access to the company records that would allow them to make statements like that? Furthermore, ask yourself why they're doing it now on the eve of Apple launching the largest solar system in the industry - and failing to mention any of Apple's efforts.
Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
This is absolute lies and nonsense. Every word of it.
Actually, it would be nice if either or both of you could cite some references.
plenty of things they can focus on... whale hunting, the polar bears, drilling oil, wearing fur (join PETA against Kim Kardashian lol), smoking, cosmetic companies, or something random like a campaign against creamy peanut butter!
crushing peanuts hurts the environment!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGJ
Why don't they focus on deforestation in Brazil, instead of publishing a bunch of worthless numbers that no one actually pays attention to?
Coal generates the most carbon dioxide among all the power sources, the main culprit to the contribution of greenhouse gases. Not only that, it also contributes a good amount of harmful gases into the atmosphere.
Nuclear, geothermal, hydro, wind and solar is the way to go. It may be more expensive but that is partly due to the strong lobbyist on the part of the coal coalition that is strongholding these alternatives from ever seeing advancement and political support. It's not just simply technical.
Leave coal to the dark ages.
Plants love carbon dioxide. Converting it all into oxygen. Feed the plants.
Hydro, wind and solar are simply not economically viable at this time. What is in place now is only due to incredibly high "investment" from taxpayers. I wouldn't count too highly on these technologies any time soon. Meanwhile, coal is here today. In abundance.
Umm, Living in the Charlotte Area just south of Maiden, we're fed by 3 Nuclear plants and Hydro Electric? All Duke Energy. Driving up 321 I don't see any Coal Plants (not that they are not there somewhere) but... Could Green Peace be wrong? and just picking on Duke because they own Coal plants elsewhere. Guilt by association?
Plants love carbon dioxide. Converting it all into oxygen. Feed the plants.
Hydro, wind and solar are simply not economically viable at this time. What is in place now is only due to incredibly high "investment" from taxpayers. I wouldn't count too highly on these technologies any time soon. Meanwhile, coal is here today. In abundance.
Your 'facts' are wrong.
Hydro is very economical. Unfortunately, the number of locations where it is available is somewhat limited.
Solar and wind are economical in some situations - frequently remote locations. Even in locations that are near the grid, they can sometimes be economical, depending on the location and your expected return on investment. And the cost of both of them is dropping at double digit rates.
Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it.
I would like to see the number of coal fired power plants quadruple, and an increase in the production of petroleum by squeezing shale. Greenpeace can kiss my posterior and go crawl back under the rock where they came from.
Apple should build several more data centers and locate them right smack in the center of coal powered areas of the country (where they're also likely to realize the lowest operational costs).
I don't know I'm not siding with Greenpeace, I'm all for energy independence, but I have friend who lives too close for comfort to coal plants and has family that does as well, and I've heard nothing but negative things about quality of living and overall health. Who knows what their electric rate is!? Personally, I wouldn't want to live near one.
I think a general blend of energy options is good for business, why have all your eggs in the coal basket? Besides from the obvious - profit.
How many billions of tons of plastic/metal/shipping/fuel is saved by people streaming stuff through iTunes rather than buying physical media in a store?
Apple has done more to save the environment than they get credit for, and Greenpeace deliberately picks on the best to elevate their own agenda.
Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it.
I would like to see the number of coal fired power plants quadruple, and an increase in the production of petroleum by squeezing shale. Greenpeace can kiss my posterior and go crawl back under the rock where they came from.
Apple should build several more data centers and locate them right smack in the center of coal powered areas of the country (where they're also likely to realize the lowest operational costs).
I will believe what you say if you live right next to a coal-fired power plant.
Nah, if they were still smoking pot, they'd probably be more like they used to be which is honourable, honest, and concerned about the environment.
The new Greenpeace is a dishonest PR machine that only cares about promoting it's own corporate profile in the media. I would bet they gave up the pot, for scotch on the rocks with their lawyers at the club years ago.
I believe Greenpeace are rated as being very power efficient... they're so full of shit their recycling digesters are running at full capacity and probably exporting to the grid!
Why don't they focus on deforestation in Brazil, instead of publishing a bunch of worthless numbers that no one actually pays attention to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal
Do you mean the forest that Foxconn cut down to build their ipad assembly plant?
Sorry couldn't resist.
Actually, I was going to include that clear cutting that Apple did next to their new North Carolina plant to install the solar arrays. Kind of ironic that they have to raze down acres of beautiful, green land with ecosystems inside of it, only to replace with "green" solar panels that frankly require some of the nastiest environmentally-damaging chemicals and processes to make.
Just my 2 cents in the cause for portable nuclear power...
Comments
Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it.
I would like to see the number of coal fired power plants quadruple, and an increase in the production of petroleum by squeezing shale. Greenpeace can kiss my posterior and go crawl back under the rock where they came from.
Apple should build several more data centers and locate them right smack in the center of coal powered areas of the country (where they're also likely to realize the lowest operational costs).
Nothing wrong?
Are you kidding me?
Coal generates the most carbon dioxide among all the power sources, the main culprit to the contribution of greenhouse gases. Not only that, it also contributes a good amount of harmful gases into the atmosphere.
Nuclear, geothermal, hydro, wind and solar is the way to go. It may be more expensive but that is partly due to the strong lobbyist on the part of the coal coalition that is strongholding these alternatives from ever seeing advancement and political support. It's not just simply technical.
Leave coal to the dark ages.
Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it.
I would like to see the number of coal fired power plants quadruple, and an increase in the production of petroleum by squeezing shale. Greenpeace can kiss my posterior and go crawl back under the rock where they came from.
Apple should build several more data centers and locate them right smack in the center of coal powered areas of the country (where they're also likely to realize the lowest operational costs).
Yes... Boneheads... It's a fantastic idea to level mountain ranges for coal and scrape untold acres of soil up to squeeze oil out of it at 2x the cost of drilling wells. Clean Coal my ass... Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, it isn't renewable.
You are the bonehead. It's too bad there are few alternatives to coal at this juncture though.
Has it occurred to any of you rabid apologists that Apple, and other companies, strive to take the extraordinary measures they do, and are developing, precisely because agencies like Greenpeace keep the issue in the public eye?
Many companies would never have discovered they could "go green" profitably, had they not been nagged into it.
So, nag away - there is plenty more to be done to make the future a sustainable one...
I, for one, would like to see it so.
Actually, it occurred to us apologists that activitsts like Greenpeace always credit themselves whenever the target of their protests does something good, because they assume that the target cannot possibly have any social conscience without Greenpeace.
So please, Greenpeace, pat yourselves on the back, take credit for what other people do, and continue to tell yourself that nagging and public shaming solves complex real-world economic issues.
I can tell from these replies that most people posting here don't care about the environment at all. .
That is, of course, almost as ridiculous as what Greenpeace has to say.
I care very much about the environment. Furthermore, I've put a great deal of my own money to use in improving the environment.
That doesn't require me to accept everything Greenpeace says without reservation. They've shown themselves not to be trustworthy or to place environmental concerns above their own lust for power and influence.
When you look at the facts, Apple has done a great deal to improve the environment - more than most (if not all) of their competition. Have a look at the link I provided for another side of the story.
Furthermore, ask yourself where Greenpeace gets their information. Do you really think that they have access to the company records that would allow them to make statements like that? Furthermore, ask yourself why they're doing it now on the eve of Apple launching the largest solar system in the industry - and failing to mention any of Apple's efforts.
Originally Posted by mytdave
Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it. ...
This is absolute lies and nonsense. Every word of it.
Actually, it would be nice if either or both of you could cite some references.
crushing peanuts hurts the environment!
Why don't they focus on deforestation in Brazil, instead of publishing a bunch of worthless numbers that no one actually pays attention to?
Nothing wrong?
Are you kidding me?
Coal generates the most carbon dioxide among all the power sources, the main culprit to the contribution of greenhouse gases. Not only that, it also contributes a good amount of harmful gases into the atmosphere.
Nuclear, geothermal, hydro, wind and solar is the way to go. It may be more expensive but that is partly due to the strong lobbyist on the part of the coal coalition that is strongholding these alternatives from ever seeing advancement and political support. It's not just simply technical.
Leave coal to the dark ages.
Plants love carbon dioxide. Converting it all into oxygen. Feed the plants.
Hydro, wind and solar are simply not economically viable at this time. What is in place now is only due to incredibly high "investment" from taxpayers. I wouldn't count too highly on these technologies any time soon. Meanwhile, coal is here today. In abundance.
Plants love carbon dioxide. Converting it all into oxygen. Feed the plants.
Hydro, wind and solar are simply not economically viable at this time. What is in place now is only due to incredibly high "investment" from taxpayers. I wouldn't count too highly on these technologies any time soon. Meanwhile, coal is here today. In abundance.
Your 'facts' are wrong.
Hydro is very economical. Unfortunately, the number of locations where it is available is somewhat limited.
Solar and wind are economical in some situations - frequently remote locations. Even in locations that are near the grid, they can sometimes be economical, depending on the location and your expected return on investment. And the cost of both of them is dropping at double digit rates.
Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it.
I would like to see the number of coal fired power plants quadruple, and an increase in the production of petroleum by squeezing shale. Greenpeace can kiss my posterior and go crawl back under the rock where they came from.
Apple should build several more data centers and locate them right smack in the center of coal powered areas of the country (where they're also likely to realize the lowest operational costs).
I don't know I'm not siding with Greenpeace, I'm all for energy independence, but I have friend who lives too close for comfort to coal plants and has family that does as well, and I've heard nothing but negative things about quality of living and overall health. Who knows what their electric rate is!? Personally, I wouldn't want to live near one.
I think a general blend of energy options is good for business, why have all your eggs in the coal basket? Besides from the obvious - profit.
Apple has done more to save the environment than they get credit for, and Greenpeace deliberately picks on the best to elevate their own agenda.
Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it.
I would like to see the number of coal fired power plants quadruple, and an increase in the production of petroleum by squeezing shale. Greenpeace can kiss my posterior and go crawl back under the rock where they came from.
Apple should build several more data centers and locate them right smack in the center of coal powered areas of the country (where they're also likely to realize the lowest operational costs).
I will believe what you say if you live right next to a coal-fired power plant.
Nah, if they were still smoking pot, they'd probably be more like they used to be which is honourable, honest, and concerned about the environment.
The new Greenpeace is a dishonest PR machine that only cares about promoting it's own corporate profile in the media. I would bet they gave up the pot, for scotch on the rocks with their lawyers at the club years ago.
I believe Greenpeace are rated as being very power efficient... they're so full of shit their recycling digesters are running at full capacity and probably exporting to the grid!
Why don't they focus on deforestation in Brazil, instead of publishing a bunch of worthless numbers that no one actually pays attention to?
Do you mean the forest that Foxconn cut down to build their ipad assembly plant?
Sorry couldn't resist.
Actually, I was going to include that clear cutting that Apple did next to their new North Carolina plant to install the solar arrays. Kind of ironic that they have to raze down acres of beautiful, green land with ecosystems inside of it, only to replace with "green" solar panels that frankly require some of the nastiest environmentally-damaging chemicals and processes to make.
Just my 2 cents in the cause for portable nuclear power...