21–30 of 89 posts
I'm wondering how much space would be left if every company in the states all decide to switch to solar energy.
It's a good collateral effect for the environment, but it's all about money.
Then why isn't everyone doing it? And if it does become all about 'the money' then that's great, whatever gets large companies on-board with being as environmentally responsible as possible can only be a good thing.. The faster it becomes a no-brainer decision the better.
I just think it's dust in eyes :) in 2011 was least green because of it's coal usage and now it's pure 100%...
I'm wondering how much space would be left if every company in the states all decide to switch to solar energy.
I haven't read through this yet, but it looks like an attempt at answering that question: http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127
This is great, but I bet apple's suppliers and manufacturers aren't anywhere close to this level of renewable energy.
So what's the point? Do you think its still better than not using renewable energy or not? Also there is no mandate to use 100% renewable energy is there?
How much energy would they get from burning $1 bills that they've collected over the years from all the Pabst swilling hipsters?
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." -- Hacker News Guidelines.
This is some pretty deceptive marketing. Apple's data centers still run on coal in places like North Carolina because that's is what is producing the electricity on the grid. Their renewable projects produce a decent amount of electricity, but one of the most critical issues of the electrical grid is stability and solar, even with the fuel cells does not provide enough electricity on cloudy days or over night. Solar,…
I just assume marketing == deception, anymore. I know that isn't really an accurate view of reality, but it leaves me less upset when I find out they are in fact being deceptive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what's the point? Do you think its still better than not using renewable energy or not? Also there is no mandate to use 100% renewable energy is there?
The point is that this is green washing, and the bulk of their manufacturing operations is excluded from this "100%" figure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't read through this yet, but it looks like an attempt at answering that question: http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127
"... we arrive at 496,804,500,000 square meters or 496,805 square kilometers (191,817 square miles) as the area required to power the world with solar panels. This is roughly equal to the area of Spain."
This is some pretty deceptive marketing. Apple's data centers still run on coal in places like North Carolina because that's is what is producing the electricity on the grid. Their renewable projects produce a decent amount of electricity, but one of the most critical issues of the electrical grid is stability and solar, even with the fuel cells does not provide enough electricity on cloudy days or over night. Solar,…
That's Apple's style...
EDIT: If you are going to downvote, at least point to proof that it isn't happening