Wonder how efficient their operation is...anyone care to investigate?
I wonder how much coal power their headquarters in Amsterdam uses? What about the ships they use, are they modern fuel efficient ships or old clunkers?
Fuel Cells are a means of converting hydrogen into electricity (and water). It tells you nothing about where the fuel comes from. You can generate hydrogen using a variety of means, from burning coal and oil, to geothermal, and harnessing tidal waves.
Not strictly true, so maybe I should accuse you of "lying".
1. A fuel cell isn't a kind of energy, renewable or otherwise; it's a machine.
2. A fuel cell is about the cleanest possible way to burn fuel.
3. The fuel itself can be renewable.
4. If the fuel itself is renewable, then the energy produced by the fuel cell is in fact "renewable energy".
For whatever reason, various people have decided to attack Apple from the left. None of those reasons hold any water. The left needs to stop these attacks because it's just making itself look childish and snarky.
Your point no. 4 is true. But given that Apple will NOT use renewable fuel, it is moot.
...Apple's fuel cells are not "renewable energy". They run on fossil fuels.
There are many good reaons to use them. But they do not include their being renewable energy.
Also, some methods of hydrogen generation use coal as well. Producing batteries can also generate significant pollution. You really need to take it all the way back if you're really serious.
It's a lot more disheartening to have grown up in a world where entire countries are dictated by what is very obviously an egotistic shareholder drive.
Concerning what I wrote, you might be encouraged about my opinion a bit if you read it more literally. I'm probably on your side. Aside from that, I'm fairly confident in my level of maturity, an attribute of which is not resorting to personal attacks...I wasn't trying to provoke your indignation, though I understand it. On the other hand, it is not my political understanding that greed is "evil," as wealth is the fuel of life, whether you're trading in dollars or services, or deeds. Maybe we disagree, but I think you're overreacting a bit (or misunderstanding my intention). Anyway, don't see me as a proponent of abusing the earth. I'm on your team.
Also, some methods of hydrogen generation use coal as well. Producing batteries can also generate significant pollution. You really need to take it all the way back if you're really serious.
If I'm really serious about what?
That Apple should not call its natural gas burning fuel cells "renewable energy? That was my point.
I think that these fuel cells are great. They have many benefits. I am in favor of distributed generation, and fuel cells are a good means to accomplish that. They are efficient and quiet and generate relatively little pollution compared to certain alternatives. If their use was expaned, we would realize many benefits, including a huge reduction in transmission losses.
But they do not produce "renewable energy" in most cases, and certainly not in Apple's case.
Yes, they are capable of running on stuff like cowshit-generated methane.
But Apple is going to be using natural gas, which is not a renewable, but is instead a fossil fuel.
My point stands. Apple's fuel cells are not "renewable energy". They run on fossil fuels.
There are many good reaons to use them. But they do not include their being renewable energy.
Apple is going to be using natural gas, but it isn't limited to natural gas. Also, our civilization can't instantaneously drop its reliance on fossil fuels - not does it have to. In order to halt global warming, it is not necessary to completely ban CO2 production. It is, however, necessary to move as quickly as practicable in that direction. Moving away from coal to natural gas is definitely a way to reduce the production of CO2.
Besides that, nothing precludes a future move towards using methane produced from "recyclables", although even here the issue is still not uncomplicated. The use of grain alcohol as a fuel is not going anywhere because it relies heavily on the use of non-renewable energy for production and distribution.
Even solar cells take energy to produce, construct, and distribute. So the bottom line is, there are no 100% truly renewable power plants. They ALL uses non- renewables in one form or another.
Then they should not call the fuel cells a source of "renewable energy", because they are not. Instead, they use fossil fuel.
You're splitting hairs. If the source of fuel is renewable then the fuel cells make renewable energy. You don't know that their plans don't include making the source of fuel renewable.
You're splitting hairs. If the source of fuel is renewable then the fuel cells make renewable energy. You don't know that their plans don't include making the source of fuel renewable.
You yourself claimed that the fuel cells would run on natural gas. If Apple will be using cowshit gas, or landfill gas, or some other type of gas, then you might be wrong about what you claimed.
Yes, all your points are true. Point 3 too is moot, as it is inapplicable to Apple's natural gas powered fuel cells.
Apple seems to be lumping its natural gas powered generation into "renewable energy", but clearly it is not.
Seems to be is not the same as clearly not. If the fuel comes from renewable sources then the fuel cells make renewable energy. And you have no proof that the fuels won't eventually be from renewables.
You yourself claimed that the fuel cells would run on natural gas. If Apple will be using cowshit gas, or landfill gas, or some other type of gas, then you might be wrong about what you claimed.
You left out the part where I said it doesn't have to.
Comments
We all know you don't actually do research because it would always prove you to be the liar.
http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/energy-server/
Check out point 3...
Yes, they are capable of running on stuff like cowshit-generated methane.
But Apple is going to be using natural gas, which is not a renewable, but is instead a fossil fuel.
My point stands. Apple's fuel cells are not "renewable energy". They run on fossil fuels.
There are many good reaons to use them. But they do not include their being renewable energy.
Apple wants to be industry leader so it, and its fanbois, shouldn't whine like kindergarten kids.
I think invoking the word "fanbois" should automatically discredit one's arguments."
I think invoking the word "fanbois" should automatically discredit one's arguments.
It does.
Greenpeace who????
Wonder how efficient their operation is...anyone care to investigate?
I wonder how much coal power their headquarters in Amsterdam uses? What about the ships they use, are they modern fuel efficient ships or old clunkers?
Fuel Cells are a means of converting hydrogen into electricity (and water). It tells you nothing about where the fuel comes from. You can generate hydrogen using a variety of means, from burning coal and oil, to geothermal, and harnessing tidal waves.
And Apple will generate it using fossil fuel.
Not strictly true, so maybe I should accuse you of "lying".
1. A fuel cell isn't a kind of energy, renewable or otherwise; it's a machine.
2. A fuel cell is about the cleanest possible way to burn fuel.
3. The fuel itself can be renewable.
4. If the fuel itself is renewable, then the energy produced by the fuel cell is in fact "renewable energy".
For whatever reason, various people have decided to attack Apple from the left. None of those reasons hold any water. The left needs to stop these attacks because it's just making itself look childish and snarky.
Your point no. 4 is true. But given that Apple will NOT use renewable fuel, it is moot.
...Apple's fuel cells are not "renewable energy". They run on fossil fuels.
There are many good reaons to use them. But they do not include their being renewable energy.
Also, some methods of hydrogen generation use coal as well. Producing batteries can also generate significant pollution. You really need to take it all the way back if you're really serious.
Apparently you need to finish growing up first.
It's a lot more disheartening to have grown up in a world where entire countries are dictated by what is very obviously an egotistic shareholder drive.
Concerning what I wrote, you might be encouraged about my opinion a bit if you read it more literally. I'm probably on your side. Aside from that, I'm fairly confident in my level of maturity, an attribute of which is not resorting to personal attacks...I wasn't trying to provoke your indignation, though I understand it. On the other hand, it is not my political understanding that greed is "evil," as wealth is the fuel of life, whether you're trading in dollars or services, or deeds. Maybe we disagree, but I think you're overreacting a bit (or misunderstanding my intention). Anyway, don't see me as a proponent of abusing the earth. I'm on your team.
Also, some methods of hydrogen generation use coal as well. Producing batteries can also generate significant pollution. You really need to take it all the way back if you're really serious.
If I'm really serious about what?
That Apple should not call its natural gas burning fuel cells "renewable energy? That was my point.
I think that these fuel cells are great. They have many benefits. I am in favor of distributed generation, and fuel cells are a good means to accomplish that. They are efficient and quiet and generate relatively little pollution compared to certain alternatives. If their use was expaned, we would realize many benefits, including a huge reduction in transmission losses.
But they do not produce "renewable energy" in most cases, and certainly not in Apple's case.
Yes, they are capable of running on stuff like cowshit-generated methane.
But Apple is going to be using natural gas, which is not a renewable, but is instead a fossil fuel.
My point stands. Apple's fuel cells are not "renewable energy". They run on fossil fuels.
There are many good reaons to use them. But they do not include their being renewable energy.
Apple is going to be using natural gas, but it isn't limited to natural gas. Also, our civilization can't instantaneously drop its reliance on fossil fuels - not does it have to. In order to halt global warming, it is not necessary to completely ban CO2 production. It is, however, necessary to move as quickly as practicable in that direction. Moving away from coal to natural gas is definitely a way to reduce the production of CO2.
Besides that, nothing precludes a future move towards using methane produced from "recyclables", although even here the issue is still not uncomplicated. The use of grain alcohol as a fuel is not going anywhere because it relies heavily on the use of non-renewable energy for production and distribution.
Even solar cells take energy to produce, construct, and distribute. So the bottom line is, there are no 100% truly renewable power plants. They ALL uses non- renewables in one form or another.
Apple is going to be using natural gas,
Then they should not call the fuel cells a source of "renewable energy", because they are not. Instead, they use fossil fuel.
Your point no. 4 is true. But given that Apple will NOT use renewable fuel, it is moot.
All my points are true, not just Point 4. And it isn't moot. See my Post before this one.
All my points are true, not just Point 4. And it isn't moot. See my Post before this one.
Yes, all your points are true. Point 3 too is moot, as it is inapplicable to Apple's natural gas powered fuel cells.
Apple seems to be lumping its natural gas powered generation into "renewable energy", but clearly it is not.
Are we supposed to take them seriously when they target a single company out of the entire IT industry?
Nope. I certainly don't see them consistently targeting Amazon or any of the other manufacturers and service providers on the list.
I'm a pretty green-leaning individual, but even I see Greenpeace as nonsensical bunch of loons. They do FAR more harm than good.
Then they should not call the fuel cells a source of "renewable energy", because they are not. Instead, they use fossil fuel.
You're splitting hairs. If the source of fuel is renewable then the fuel cells make renewable energy. You don't know that their plans don't include making the source of fuel renewable.
Justice should be blind. When GP targets Apple it's clear they are doing it to
gain notoriety and that to me sullies their goal.
Plus the concept of using nutjob protesters went out over a decade ago as an effective strategy.
You're splitting hairs. If the source of fuel is renewable then the fuel cells make renewable energy. You don't know that their plans don't include making the source of fuel renewable.
You yourself claimed that the fuel cells would run on natural gas. If Apple will be using cowshit gas, or landfill gas, or some other type of gas, then you might be wrong about what you claimed.
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe
Apple is going to be using natural gas,
Yes, all your points are true. Point 3 too is moot, as it is inapplicable to Apple's natural gas powered fuel cells.
Apple seems to be lumping its natural gas powered generation into "renewable energy", but clearly it is not.
Seems to be is not the same as clearly not. If the fuel comes from renewable sources then the fuel cells make renewable energy. And you have no proof that the fuels won't eventually be from renewables.
You yourself claimed that the fuel cells would run on natural gas. If Apple will be using cowshit gas, or landfill gas, or some other type of gas, then you might be wrong about what you claimed.
You left out the part where I said it doesn't have to.