It's important to keep the facts straight going forward. ZZZ did make some concessions. You need to give him that.
Thank you. But the main point is that Apple is calling the natural gas it will be using a "renewable source".
If Apple built a traditional natural gas power plant, would it still call it a source of renewable energy?
They should laud the good aspects of using fuel cells, and not say untrue things.
Fuel cells configured in the manner Apple plans cut down on transmission losses, which are otherwise significant. They require much less infrastructure compared to traditional centralized plants.
They also release much less greenhouse gas than other methods of burning fossil fuels. They are relatively clean.
But they are not powerd by a renewable source (despite the fact that they could be).
I love how Greanpeace admitted their 100+MW number was probably bullshit after Apple stated it only uses 20 at peak, but that the goal was to 'bring attention' to the issue and 'start a conversations'.
Yeah, go fuck yourself you lying tardfaces Grossly misrepresenting the truth is never a legitimate way to 'start a conversation' especially when you're such self-righteous, lying dickfaces about it.
Yes, because that single company is the industry leader. And Noblesse Oblige.
If Apple can't take the heat it should get out of the kitchen.
Apple wants to be industry leader so it, and its fanbois, shouldn't whine like kindergarten kids.
There might be some validity to your arguments - IF Greenpeace were using accurate data. In fact, Greenpeace flat out lied about the amount of energy Apple is using as well as how much of that came from renewables. So their whining is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
It looks like Apple is playing fast and loose with their numbers.
The fuel cells are NOT "renewable energy". They burn fossil fuels.
They are good for many reasons, but calling them "renewable energy" is just plain lying.
Incorrect. A fuel cell is renewable if the source of hydrogen (or methane which is where the hydrogen is commonly derived) is from a renewable source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Your point no. 4 is true. But given that Apple will NOT use renewable fuel, it is moot.
That's called doubling down on your error. And you're wrong.
“Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) wants you to know it cares about the environment. It's telling us that its new NC data center has loads of solar panels, plus fuel cells powered by biogas.
The reputation of Greenpeace is completely trashed. They are a bogus "charity" trying to get attention to raise money is all. Any enviro credibility they once had has gone up in smoke.
Why not protest coal fired power at the energy companies' headquarters? Because Apple is the worlds #1 global brand and that will get these attention whores more notice in the mass media.
Cleaning up our air is FAR too important (with implications from coastal flooding to disease to birth defects) not to leverage the largest company in the world for awareness-building.
It?s also FAR too important to damage your ow cause by making up or cherry-picking facts. We need a Greenpeace that is consistently credible with their facts. Then they can pull every stunt in the book for all our benefit?just prioritize facts first. There?s no other approach that won?t backfire.
Cleaning up our air is FAR too important (with implications from coastal flooding to disease to birth defects) not to leverage the largest company in the world for awareness-building.
It?s also FAR too important to damage your ow cause by making up or cherry-picking facts. We need a Greenpeace that is consistently credible with their facts. Then they can pull every stunt in the book for all our benefit?just prioritize facts first. There?s no other approach that won?t backfire.
The ends justify the means? Kill the population in order to save it? That's a slippery slope you're on.
In order for Greenpeace to follow their mission, they need to be publicity hounds. Protesting Apple gets them a lot of media coverage.
That's reality. Sure, they could protest United Technologies, ABB, or RR Donnelley, but that's not going to get them front page coverage. Heck, even protesting Microsoft, Google, or Amazon.com isn't going to get them half as much media coverage.
They can't apply even attention to all corporations on this planet, so they need to stragetically focus their efforts.
I support Greenpeace's basic mission, although I don't care too much for how they go about doing it. Thus, I give my emotional support, but not any dollars from my wallet. But there are enough Apple haters who I hope are giving generously to Greenpeace.
This is just part of the game when you're a major worldwide corporation.
Cleaning up our air is FAR too important (with implications from coastal flooding to disease to birth defects) not to leverage the largest company in the world for awareness-building.
It?s also FAR too important to damage your ow cause by making up or cherry-picking facts. We need a Greenpeace that is consistently credible with their facts. Then they can pull every stunt in the book for all our benefit?just prioritize facts first. There?s no other approach that won?t backfire.
So it's OK for them to lie?
Apple is far ahead of the competition in most cases. Greenpeace fabricated numbers in order to attack Apple.
Wouldn't they be more honest (and probably more effective) if they based their complaints on facts and went after the REAL polluters?
Given that modern coal plants are among the cleanest energy sources after nuclear.....
You lose all credibility when you post something so patently silly.
(I am not talking about nuclear, which is, not just in its operations but also its entire life cycle -- even leaving scalability issues aside -- by far the 'cleanest' energy source).
Thank you. But the main point is that Apple is calling the natural gas it will be using a "renewable source".
If Apple built a traditional natural gas power plant, would it still call it a source of renewable energy?
They should laud the good aspects of using fuel cells, and not say untrue things.
Fuel cells configured in the manner Apple plans cut down on transmission losses, which are otherwise significant. They require much less infrastructure compared to traditional centralized plants.
They also release much less greenhouse gas than other methods of burning fossil fuels. They are relatively clean.
But they are not powerd by a renewable source (despite the fact that they could be).
1. Fuel Cells are not a mean of generating energy as you and others have put it (its purpose here is to store the overhead energy made by the solar cells)!
2. Fuel Cells are used to store energy and manage extra electricity production
3. The Fuel Cells are used to store the extra energy generated by the Solar Cells throughout the day so they can use them at night or at peak times!
4. This is common practice to regulate energy made by renewable sources (like sun or wind) and many companies are undertaking trials in the field of energy storage! This is just one method.
It's too bad that none of them accidentally slipped and fell from the roof. That at least would have made for a more interesting and entertaining news story.
Hopefully the dirty little buggers will be charged with illegally trespassing.
Funny that for staging this protest they drove from the Netherlands with a long Landrover Defender (not exactly the smallest carbon footprint), used a power generator on the entrance roof to make floating soap clouds (yes that really helps the environment), and the pictures they made on their iPhone 4s was synching via Photostream to the cloud (we like using your Apple products and services, oooops). The flyers, well at least they were recycled paper, but the free rubberized mouse pads looked a lot like those very cheap ones that are made in China (You must of heard of that country were coal is the main source for electricity 2/3)
I think that making people aware of such things is good, but the means do not always justify. But I guess staging something like this outside Microsoft in Sandyford wouldn't even garner a blip on the news.
I just love this whole renewable fuel/power debate, face it people no power generation today is clean. Anyone who say so has not ideal what they are talking about. What people do not factor into all this is the simple fact of how much energy was consumed or use to product the item that is harnessing the so called free sun or wind or water.
The only way to cut waste it to cut what we use. Even though car and computer all use less fuels these days we just have more of them so the total consumption has not gone down but up.
I am not sure why anyone even listens to Greenpeace anymore and not even sure why Apple or any company even response to them. I keep saying this, until they are naked in the woods living off the land, they should stop throwing stones at everyone's glass houses. Greenpeace has never fixed a think in many cases they make the situation worse.
I giving this example in the past, back in the 70's the protested McDonald's in CA about using paper and card board to put hamburgs in they told the store owner to was better to use Styrofoam since it did not destroy forests, so they did use it only to have Greenpeace come back in the 90's and say Styrofoam was killing the ozone go back to paper.
Everyone know our power consumption is bad and our use of fuel is destroying thing stop telling us what we already know come up with a solution and BTW, telling apple to use more solarcell is not the solution since most are built in China (you know the whole labor issue) and the chemicals use to fabricate them are really nasty stuff. and it takes lots of power to make one and they only last about 10 yrs before you have to replace them considering most coal plant have been running 50 yrs along with Nuclear.
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.
By state law, a certain percentage of the gas supplied to Apple (everyone) is required to be sourced from something other than natural gas. So in effect, the fuel cells are run from renewable fuel, just not 100%.
So Apple's claims are true. Apple doesn't have a huge pile of crap to draw all the necessary methane from to power the data center. Although, I'm sure they'd be willing to take some off your hands, since you seem to be overflowing with it.
Personally, I think we need to build (and update) more nuclear plants until more efficient and inexpensive "green" methods can be developed.
1. Fuel Cells are not a mean of generating energy as you and others have put it (its purpose here is to store the overhead energy made by the solar cells)!
No, fuel cells do not store energy. Instead, they convert energy from one type of fuel to another, i.e. from gasses into into electricity.
Comments
Don't feed the troll
It's important to keep the facts straight going forward. ZZZ did make some concessions. You need to give him that.
It's important to keep the facts straight going forward. ZZZ did make some concessions. You need to give him that.
Thank you. But the main point is that Apple is calling the natural gas it will be using a "renewable source".
If Apple built a traditional natural gas power plant, would it still call it a source of renewable energy?
They should laud the good aspects of using fuel cells, and not say untrue things.
Fuel cells configured in the manner Apple plans cut down on transmission losses, which are otherwise significant. They require much less infrastructure compared to traditional centralized plants.
They also release much less greenhouse gas than other methods of burning fossil fuels. They are relatively clean.
But they are not powerd by a renewable source (despite the fact that they could be).
Yeah, go fuck yourself you lying tardfaces Grossly misrepresenting the truth is never a legitimate way to 'start a conversation' especially when you're such self-righteous, lying dickfaces about it.
Yes, because that single company is the industry leader. And Noblesse Oblige.
If Apple can't take the heat it should get out of the kitchen.
Apple wants to be industry leader so it, and its fanbois, shouldn't whine like kindergarten kids.
There might be some validity to your arguments - IF Greenpeace were using accurate data. In fact, Greenpeace flat out lied about the amount of energy Apple is using as well as how much of that came from renewables. So their whining is wrong.
It looks like Apple is playing fast and loose with their numbers.
The fuel cells are NOT "renewable energy". They burn fossil fuels.
They are good for many reasons, but calling them "renewable energy" is just plain lying.
Incorrect. A fuel cell is renewable if the source of hydrogen (or methane which is where the hydrogen is commonly derived) is from a renewable source.
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.
Your point no. 4 is true. But given that Apple will NOT use renewable fuel, it is moot.
That's called doubling down on your error. And you're wrong.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/19753...h_solar_biogas
“Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) wants you to know it cares about the environment. It's telling us that its new NC data center has loads of solar panels, plus fuel cells powered by biogas.
Why not protest coal fired power at the energy companies' headquarters? Because Apple is the worlds #1 global brand and that will get these attention whores more notice in the mass media.
It?s also FAR too important to damage your ow cause by making up or cherry-picking facts. We need a Greenpeace that is consistently credible with their facts. Then they can pull every stunt in the book for all our benefit?just prioritize facts first. There?s no other approach that won?t backfire.
Cleaning up our air is FAR too important (with implications from coastal flooding to disease to birth defects) not to leverage the largest company in the world for awareness-building.
It?s also FAR too important to damage your ow cause by making up or cherry-picking facts. We need a Greenpeace that is consistently credible with their facts. Then they can pull every stunt in the book for all our benefit?just prioritize facts first. There?s no other approach that won?t backfire.
The ends justify the means? Kill the population in order to save it? That's a slippery slope you're on.
In order for Greenpeace to follow their mission, they need to be publicity hounds. Protesting Apple gets them a lot of media coverage.
That's reality. Sure, they could protest United Technologies, ABB, or RR Donnelley, but that's not going to get them front page coverage. Heck, even protesting Microsoft, Google, or Amazon.com isn't going to get them half as much media coverage.
They can't apply even attention to all corporations on this planet, so they need to stragetically focus their efforts.
I support Greenpeace's basic mission, although I don't care too much for how they go about doing it. Thus, I give my emotional support, but not any dollars from my wallet. But there are enough Apple haters who I hope are giving generously to Greenpeace.
This is just part of the game when you're a major worldwide corporation.
Cleaning up our air is FAR too important (with implications from coastal flooding to disease to birth defects) not to leverage the largest company in the world for awareness-building.
It?s also FAR too important to damage your ow cause by making up or cherry-picking facts. We need a Greenpeace that is consistently credible with their facts. Then they can pull every stunt in the book for all our benefit?just prioritize facts first. There?s no other approach that won?t backfire.
So it's OK for them to lie?
Apple is far ahead of the competition in most cases. Greenpeace fabricated numbers in order to attack Apple.
Wouldn't they be more honest (and probably more effective) if they based their complaints on facts and went after the REAL polluters?
Given that modern coal plants are among the cleanest energy sources after nuclear.....
You lose all credibility when you post something so patently silly.
(I am not talking about nuclear, which is, not just in its operations but also its entire life cycle -- even leaving scalability issues aside -- by far the 'cleanest' energy source).
Thank you. But the main point is that Apple is calling the natural gas it will be using a "renewable source".
If Apple built a traditional natural gas power plant, would it still call it a source of renewable energy?
They should laud the good aspects of using fuel cells, and not say untrue things.
Fuel cells configured in the manner Apple plans cut down on transmission losses, which are otherwise significant. They require much less infrastructure compared to traditional centralized plants.
They also release much less greenhouse gas than other methods of burning fossil fuels. They are relatively clean.
But they are not powerd by a renewable source (despite the fact that they could be).
1. Fuel Cells are not a mean of generating energy as you and others have put it (its purpose here is to store the overhead energy made by the solar cells)!
2. Fuel Cells are used to store energy and manage extra electricity production
3. The Fuel Cells are used to store the extra energy generated by the Solar Cells throughout the day so they can use them at night or at peak times!
4. This is common practice to regulate energy made by renewable sources (like sun or wind) and many companies are undertaking trials in the field of energy storage! This is just one method.
To me, they're just one more liberal whacko bunch of demonstrators like the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
I give them a big yawn.
http://www.nanomicroclub.com/events/...ge-systems.pdf
Otherwise please do a search on Google Books for Fuel Cell Energy Storage!
Hopefully the dirty little buggers will be charged with illegally trespassing.
Whoever runs greenpeace is making a fortune off these clueless tree huggers and their donations.
I think that making people aware of such things is good, but the means do not always justify. But I guess staging something like this outside Microsoft in Sandyford wouldn't even garner a blip on the news.
The only way to cut waste it to cut what we use. Even though car and computer all use less fuels these days we just have more of them so the total consumption has not gone down but up.
I am not sure why anyone even listens to Greenpeace anymore and not even sure why Apple or any company even response to them. I keep saying this, until they are naked in the woods living off the land, they should stop throwing stones at everyone's glass houses. Greenpeace has never fixed a think in many cases they make the situation worse.
I giving this example in the past, back in the 70's the protested McDonald's in CA about using paper and card board to put hamburgs in they told the store owner to was better to use Styrofoam since it did not destroy forests, so they did use it only to have Greenpeace come back in the 90's and say Styrofoam was killing the ozone go back to paper.
Everyone know our power consumption is bad and our use of fuel is destroying thing stop telling us what we already know come up with a solution and BTW, telling apple to use more solarcell is not the solution since most are built in China (you know the whole labor issue) and the chemicals use to fabricate them are really nasty stuff. and it takes lots of power to make one and they only last about 10 yrs before you have to replace them considering most coal plant have been running 50 yrs along with Nuclear.
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.
By state law, a certain percentage of the gas supplied to Apple (everyone) is required to be sourced from something other than natural gas. So in effect, the fuel cells are run from renewable fuel, just not 100%.
So Apple's claims are true. Apple doesn't have a huge pile of crap to draw all the necessary methane from to power the data center. Although, I'm sure they'd be willing to take some off your hands, since you seem to be overflowing with it.
Personally, I think we need to build (and update) more nuclear plants until more efficient and inexpensive "green" methods can be developed.
1. Fuel Cells are not a mean of generating energy as you and others have put it (its purpose here is to store the overhead energy made by the solar cells)!
No, fuel cells do not store energy. Instead, they convert energy from one type of fuel to another, i.e. from gasses into into electricity.
No, fuel cells do not store energy. Instead, they convert energy from one type of fuel to another, i.e. from gasses into into electricity.
Any storage device converts energy from one form to another!
Going back to the topic at hand, please take time to read the PDF I posted. Have a look at it!