Apple announces progress toward carbon neutral goal, new energy projects

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 2021
Apple has announced that more than 110 of its supply chain partners globally will switch to 100% renewable energy, a step toward its goal to become carbon neutral by 2030.

Credit: Apple
Credit: Apple


The Apple manufacturing partners will move to clean energy for their Apple product. They plan to bring 8 gigawatts of renewable energy online, commitments that will avoid over 15 million metric tons of CO2e annually, the Cupertino tech giant said Tuesday.

In addition to the manufacturing partner commitments, Apple also said that it is investing directly into renewable energy projects to cover upstream emissions and an energy storage pilot project in California.

"We are firmly committed to helping our suppliers become carbon neutral by 2030 and are thrilled that companies who've joined us span industries and countries around the world, including Germany, China, the US, India, and France," said Lisa Jackson, Apple's vice president for Environment, Policy, and Social Initiatives.

Some of Apple's global energy projects include wind power purchase agreements in the Netherlands via partner DSM Engineering Materials and a solar carport established by STMicroelectronics in Morocco.

In the U.S., supply chain partners Alpha and Omega Semiconductor, Marian, The Chemours Company, and Trinseo have recently committed to Apple's carbon neutral goal. That's in addition to 15 suppliers based in China.

Apple is also constructing one of the largest battery projects in the U.S., dubbed California Flats. The company says it's a grid-scale energy storage project that will be able to store 240 megawatts of energy -- enough to power more than 7,000 homes for one day.

That battery project will support the company's existing 130-megawatt solar farm in California, which provides all of Apple's renewable energy in the state.

Back in July 2020, Apple announced that it plans to become 100% carbon neutral across all aspects of its business by 2030, including its supply chain. As of March 31, Apple says it has decreased its carbon footprint by 40% and has avoided more than 15 million metric tons of emissions.

"In a year like no other, Apple continued to work with a global network of colleagues, companies, and advocates to help make our environmental efforts and everything we do a force for good in people's lives -- and to work alongside the communities most impacted by climate change," Apple VP Jackson said.
dt17Alex_V

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    WgkruegerWgkrueger Posts: 352member
    Apple on the forefront of dragging our backwards society into the 21st century. 
    dt17chasmAlex_Vjony0
  • Reply 2 of 10
    I know it sounds corny but actions such as this make me proud to be a shareholder of AAPL. Great job Tim Cook and team AAPL!
    dt17Alex_Vjony0
  • Reply 3 of 10
    rcfarcfa Posts: 1,124member
    Apple should build a modern nuclear power plant, that would be truly green…
    …Gates is further along that road than “visionary” Apple, which is more interested in virtue signaling and greenwashing.
    edited March 2021 jony0
  • Reply 4 of 10
    rcfa said:
    Apple should build a modern nuclear power plant, that would be truly green…
    …Gates is further along that road than “visionary” Apple, which is more interested in virtue signaling and greenwashing.
    New to me that nuclear waste is green. Great work, Tim. Apple should get much more credit for this. 
    Alex_V
  • Reply 5 of 10
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,735member
    schmrtzzz said:
    rcfa said:
    Apple should build a modern nuclear power plant, that would be truly green…
    …Gates is further along that road than “visionary” Apple, which is more interested in virtue signaling and greenwashing.
    New to me that nuclear waste is green. Great work, Tim. Apple should get much more credit for this. 

    Nuclear is the only reliable source of energy that does not give off large amounts of carbon.   Wind and solar are not reliable in that they require wind and sun to be effective.   Things that are not always on hand on any given day.  They are great to augment supplies.  Germany is getting rid of their nukes. France has embraced them.  Guess which one has made great strides in reducing carbon output.    Or Germany.  But France has.  If you want a carbon less modern society, nuclear is the key.  
    mobirdjony0
  • Reply 6 of 10
    Alex_VAlex_V Posts: 112member
    The problem with nuclear technology is that it uses the most toxic substances known to humans. They remain toxic for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Longer than human civilisation has existed. It’s impossible to “safely” extract, use, and dispose of these substances. In fact, we know if no completely secure way to dispose of spent fuel.

    The second problem is that the costing of nuclear technology never fully accounts for disposal of the spent fuel. In other words, nuclear energy is “competitive” only if you ignore the cost of disposal of fuel and the reactors etc at the end of life. A nuclear reactor lasts about 50 years. All around the world, at nuclear power plants like Fukushima, the spent fuel is lying in pools, just sitting there. Why don’t they dispose of the fuel? Too expensive. What are they waiting for? The government to do something about it—in other words the taxpayer must pay to dispose nuclear waste in deep tunnels under the earth. Cost of disposal and securing? Incalculable (best guess), because you have to sit and watch over it forever. Many power plants are run by private companies with no intention of incurring the cost of disposal. Privatise the profits, socialise the costs.

    The third problem with nuclear power is that it is very dangerous and requires the support of a military industrial complex. In other words, you need a highly militarised and policed society in order to secure the nuclear industry. In other words we, citizens, are required to cede some of our personal political freedoms in order to afford such a dangerous technology in our midst. Nuclear power is looked on favourably by military industrial complexes or by totalitarian regimes. It is inherently secretive and security-obsessed, for obvious reasons. In contrast: solar and wind power, for example, have issues, but they have no equivalent risks, they can be implemented at small-scale by individual citizens in your backyard on your roof etc. They are inherently more democratic.
    muthuk_vanalingamRayz2016FileMakerFellerschmrtzzzdt17
  • Reply 7 of 10
    schmrtzzz said:
    New to me that nuclear waste is green.
    What, you've never seen the healthy green glow given off by that stuff in the dark? :P
    Alex_V
  • Reply 8 of 10
    chasmchasm Posts: 2,530member
    rcfa said:
    Apple should build a modern nuclear power plant, that would be truly green…
    Yes, let's ask the people of Fukashima and anyone living near the city of Pripyat how "green" nuclear power turned out to be ...

    Give me a freakin' break.
    muthuk_vanalingamAlex_Vtmay
  • Reply 9 of 10
    dt17dt17 Posts: 18member
    chadbag said:
    schmrtzzz said:
    rcfa said:
    Apple should build a modern nuclear power plant, that would be truly green…
    …Gates is further along that road than “visionary” Apple, which is more interested in virtue signaling and greenwashing.
    New to me that nuclear waste is green. Great work, Tim. Apple should get much more credit for this. 
    Nuclear is the only reliable source of energy that does not give off large amounts of carbon.   Wind and solar are not reliable in that they require wind and sun to be effective.   Things that are not always on hand on any given day.  They are great to augment supplies.  Germany is getting rid of their nukes. France has embraced them.  Guess which one has made great strides in reducing carbon output.    Or Germany.  But France has.  If you want a carbon less modern society, nuclear is the key
    if you don’t have sun and wind. You need to worried about more pressing matters rather than energy

    Nuclear power is clean. Nuclear waste doesn’t go away in a lifetime. Land or water used to contain waste will be eradicated for 100 years. Likely more

    edited April 2021 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 10 of 10
    linkmanlinkman Posts: 1,029member

    The company says it's a grid-scale energy storage project that will be able to store 240 megawatts of energy -- enough to power more than 7,000 homes for one day.
    Important distinction in terminology here. Even a single AAA battery can store 240 MW of power; but that storage/discharge will probably be limited to mere picoseconds. Electrical energy is usually rated in watt-hours, where power is often rated in watts. A MW is an instantaneous measurement of power. This is like stating "I can just lift a 250 kg weight off the floor" vs. "I can lift a 100 kg weight 2 meters." 240 megawatt-hours could indeed power 7000 homes for a day. 240 megawatts could power those 7000 homes nonstop.
    Alex_V
Sign In or Register to comment.