Apple CEO Tim Cook on creating a clean energy future
cbsnews.comIt appears as though Apple doesn't consider nuclear energy "clean". They don't mention it in writing anywhere, and from my locale in Chicago, the "Grid Forecast" available in the Home app is very stingy with its determination of "cleaner" energy, despite IL running on at least 58% nuclear energy (as of 2020).
Maybe they don't consider it economical? He was pretty clear about wanting to have solutions that are actually economical. Another consideration is that his timeline of seven years is not compatible waiting for nuclear plants to be built.
Many recent nuclear plants come online years late and many billions over budget. So he'd have a good point.
Nuclear plants are economical for their use case. In days in which renewables cannot provide enough energy, your clean energy alternatives are batteries (of which we don't have nearly enough of, and are not economically viable today as an option) and hydro (we already tapped most possible resources for it).
Those are not the only alternatives for storage. I think Power-to-gas, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas, will be an important part of energy storage. Basically, use excess renewable energy to create hydrogen and methane by means of electrolysis. That's essentially natural gas, which can then be used by conventional natural gas power plants.
Will be, or is? I'm talking about the current state of technology. There is no clean viable alternative to nuclear except hydro.
Well, if you're talking about "the current state of technology", the general consensus as I understand it is that building new nuclear power plants is not cost effective with other forms of energy storage/generation capacity.
I'm all for keeping existing nuclear plants online, but I don't think building new ones is the right decision.
Also, yes, there are viable green hydrogen plants being built today: https://totalenergies.com/media/news/press-releases/total-an... . Also, France is likely to lead in this area because they just got hydrogen produced with nuclear to be considered "green", which is a great thing in my opinion.
> the general consensus as I understand it is that building new nuclear power plants is not cost effective with other forms of energy storage/generation capacity.
Different forms of energy generation serve different purposes. I hope you can see why comparing nominal prices of solar panel installations vs a nuclear power plant is misguided. The latter can take you through a tough winter, the former cannot. Renewables are great, let's keep building them. For the times where they cannot help us, we can then choose to use a technology that is costly in dollars (nuclear) or lives (gas/oil/coal).
You're mistaking operational costs with capital costs.
Nuclear has huge up front capital costs, which makes building new plants a non-starter if it is believed that other storage options (including batteries and things like green hydrogen) will be cheaper before the lifespan of a power plant can essentially recoup its large up front costs.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that just because renewables are cheaper, you cannot simply replace anything with them or you would have severe unreliability.
Economical viability of renewables is being proven by the hundreds of GW per year deployment. Real world deployments. Across the world. Batteries too (produced by the twh/year now). Nuclear, ... not so much. For whatever reason, it's not happening at any scale worth talking about. A handful of plants here and there. Invariably and reliably way over budget years later than planned.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but nuclear has an absolutely terrible track record. Compared to the things you dismiss that are currently running circles around nuclear in terms of cost, GW delivered, etc. It's outpacing nuclear every year more and more.
If somebody figures out how to do nuclear 10-20 times cheaper and faster, I'm all for it. But so far that doesn't exist.
Please cite one example of an alternative to nuclear that is viable today - no trend, no future projections, today - that fulfills the following criteria:
1) Can be deployed at scale (ie, can cover for up to at least 10% of the world's energy needs) 2) Costs less than nuclear 3) Is cleaner than nuclear 4) Is not hydro
Nuclear is not a replacement for renewables. It does not have to compete in price with them. It is, however, our only viable alternative TODAY for base load needs, which obviously cannot be reliably supplied only with renewables.
What do you mean by viable? There are hundreds of GW in renewables deployed worldwide already growing at a rapid rate every year. Those are more than viable. So viable in fact that countries keep on doing more of it. Very lucrative business. If you have other information, please share it.
These are of course not hypothetical fantasy projects that may or may not happen but actual panels on the ground or spinning wind turbines delivering lots of power to grids today.
It's well proven technology. Clean, cheap, predictable in performance and installation cost, etc. Sort of the opposite of nuclear where every new plant is a bespoke thing that is all but guaranteed to blow through it's time and cost budgets. We can speculate on why that is but the fact is that there just isn't a whole lot of nuclear capacity coming online. Which is perhaps part of the reason why it is proving so expensive and hard to build more of it. You might even say it has perpetual issues proving, or rather disproving, it's viability in recent decades.
Whatever the reason, renewables are now dominant in newly installed capacity. These don't need more viability studies. That happened years ago. Renewables are now well on their way to being the dominant source of energy in a lot of markets. In some markets it already is. 10% would be a a distinctly unambitious goal. 50% is a more ambitious goal that could be reached in a decade or so. This decade possibly. With nuclear, that amount of contribution is unthinkable. The cost would be astronomical and there are no concrete plans to make that happen. The budgets for that don't exist. All we have is a lot of magical and wishful thinking.
Also, base load is a very loosely defined notion that somehow never gets nailed down to actual GW of capacity or GWH of storage needed. Can you be specific? The reality is that the only western nation plagued by rolling blackouts is the US, which has a lot of aging nuclear plants and is a bit behind on investments in infrastructure. In places with a much higher dependence on renewables, more modern infrastructure, and less nuclear (like essentially most of Northern Europe) blackouts are basically not a thing.
And of course nuclear sometimes goes offline for maintenance and that can take up significant amounts of time. When it does, it's gone for months or longer.. France is a good recent example that had a large portion of their reactors offline for maintenance just when there was a big energy crisis on courtesy of Russia. Where did their base load come from? Imported energy. France was a net electricity importer during 2022 because of this. 16wth or so. Only about 4% of it's needs; but still. They managed fine. The European grid has a lot of resilience. What grew massively during this period? Renewable energy production.
> Also, base load is a very loosely defined notion that somehow never gets nailed down to actual GW of capacity or GWH of storage needed. Can you be specific?
An energy grid must have a capacity to produce a given amount of energy over a certain period of time reliably, and this is called the base load. The capacity varies according to the region or grid - for example, for Europe you can find the average amount of energy consumed here: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
We cannot use renewables for that, because they can be unreliable. Even if we saturated Europe's most suitable spots with solar panes and wind turbines, there will be days in which not enough energy would be produced in this scenario. Energy production from renewables is also seasonal, obviously. Therefore, you need a stable energy source that you can use to accommodate for that.
So, your alternatives for when that happens are essentially nuclear or carbon-based power plants. The latter are heavily favored at the moment, as you can see in the link above. They are currently what Europe largely relies on as a reliable energy source generator. Therefore, nuclear is the only existing alternative to oil/gas/coal.
I would appreciate if you read my comments carefully and realize that I am not arguing against renewables, so you can save your lectures for someone else. I am merely pointing out that renewables are not a solution for a reliable grid without another energy source, and that every alternative people like to cite to nuclear in this scenario (batteries, hydrogen, you name it) are currently not viable.
A large, diverse, distributed grid.
No, the energy ultimately has to come from somewhere. If its a day without wind or Sun over, say, Europe, how do you propose a distributed grid would work without nuclear energy?
> If its a day without wind or Sun over, say, Europe,
That has never happened once in the last 30 years. The wind is always blowing somewhere. There have been times without both sun and wind in every single European country, but there has never been a time without both sun and wind across the entire continent, as long as you include the North Sea as part of the continent.
> The wind is always blowing somewhere.
Sure. With enough power in places that we can reliably use it as our base load energy source? No. If you disagree with that, please point out an existing grid that is based on that assumption, or that is being built relying on such an assumption.
I cannot reply to your other post. The answer is simple: France's grid was not designed for its base load needs to be supplied solely with nuclear energy. You could, barring political will, redesign Europe's energy grid to switch from coal/gas/oil to nuclear entirely. On the other hand, you can never design a grid that relies solely on renewables.
I am not moving any goalposts here. You have failed to answer my direct question, however: how do you propose a distributed grid would work without nuclear energy?
Actually coal and nuclear can only do base load: thermal power plants need hours to shutdown or to ramp up. That's why hydroelectric or gas peakers are needed for daily variations (peak hours). So 100% nuclear is not doable.
Renewables plus batteries have no such issues. Imagine you want to equip your house: batteries for 24h and enough PV to handle the worst day of the year (a cloudy winter day). Done, you have 100% renewable 24/7. Super reliable. Want more reliability? Add more PV, more batteries.
Since nuclear had lost the battle of the costs, they invent nonsense rationale to try to save their industry.
Hey sounds great! Except that if you take every battery put together in the world right now, it probably doesn't have enough capacity to store even 10% of Europe's energy needs for a day. Oops!
> you can never design a grid that relies solely on renewables.
If the wind is always blowing somewhere within the grid, yes you can.
Adding storage makes it cheaper, but it's not a necessary part of the design.
I cannot make this issue any simpler, I'm afraid, but here is a try: it's not about the binary existence of "wind" "somewhere within the grid", it is about having enough wind AND wind turbines to power your entire grid from that corner alone. Again, no grid has ever or will ever operate like that, as you acknowledge by not pointing out any counter examples.
> an existing grid
Not even France can supply its baseload with existing nuclear so why are my goalposts different than yours?
The problem with the current generation of nuclear tech is 4 fold.
* fuel sources are finite ( non-renewable )
* disposal of waste is an issue.
* safety concerns makes building very costly ( have to be built to withstand an attack - not just an accident )
* nuclear energy is too adjacent to nuclear weapons for it to be a global solution.
Current nuclear tech is a transitional technology - important for providing base-load, until better storage & better distributed grids are put in place.
> Current nuclear tech is a transitional technology - important for providing base-load, until better storage & better distributed grids are put in place.
Yup, but the reality so sucks that we don't have alternatives proved to be effective in scale. We don't even have renewable energy that is eco-friendly through out its whole life cycle, just yet. Recycling tech is not catching up fast enough.
Yep - lots of work to do.
On the positive side - battery technologies [1] are still improving fast, there is lots that could be done on the energy efficiency side.
While big central powerstations are always going to be needed, I think the future will be more distributed generation and storage than today.
We don't actually have a problem with lack of energy - the problem is capture, storage and distribution.
[1] We need to think beyond just batteries for storage of course.
In terms of global warming, nuclear energy can never get to zero because they’re thermal power plants that directly contribute to warming of the planet. The effect is surprisingly significant. Though, as long as we’re burning fossil fuels, green house gases will dominate enough that I personally think we can consider nuclear energy as clean. I’m just wary of making it the primary solution.
The thermal output of any nuclear or fossil fuel power station is not a significant source of global warming.
I’m happy to inform sounthat the palnet does emit thermal energy via radiation, so we likely won’t ignite it with nuclear/fusion powerplants emitting heat. Also: solar panels can actually get hot themselves. Think about it.
How do they warm the planet? They don’t emit CO2 right? So are you saying its just from radiant heat, or what?
Seems hard to believe the heat it generates actually warms the planet.
The process of refining ore is energy intensive and probably emits co2 in itself.
This is a moot point, if a power plant operates at any significant efficiency, it doesn't matter what the process of generating power is - the generated power will 90% of the time be turned into waste heat anyway.
In the long term, I guess light emitted to space and the embedded energy in spaceships are the only things that don't end up as heat in the atmosphere?
Electrically induced chemical reactions would also store the energy in a way that might not be released as heat, I think.
What's your alternative for cleaner primary solution for base load?
How about making the phones and laptops easier to repair? Or at least make the batteries easier to swap?
https://www.macrumors.com/2023/09/13/iphone-15-pro-models-mo...
At least something...
While this is good, if they can prove and demonstrate that their recycling process is equal or better in environmental impact, the repairability only helps repair shops stay in business. Of course, this is a big if, and I don't think they are anywhere near that goal, especially considering sourcing various materials. Just a nuance I often see missing from these conversations.
Make the phones 3mm thicker and put bigger batteries in them.
They could just do this by making the phone the same thickness as the camera bump... Battery could be 2 days+ I suspect.
My iPhone 10 battery already lasts me over 2 days on a charge and I use it all day.
Can you define „use it all day“? I find that claim hard to believe as someone who used a 10 until recently and even got the battery replaced.
I’ll start using it as soon as I wake up in the morning, and while I do not talk on the phone much, I am constantly using messaging apps, a brokerage app, and reading webpages for many hours throughout the day.
I do a full charge every two or three days.
I suppose there is a distribution for processor efficiency, screens, battery size and so on that could put you at an extreme end of the range, being charitable. Still, this seems unlikely given most people's experiences with these devices.
Perhaps since my eyes are rather sensitive to screen light, the fact that I keep my brightness at 50% or a slightly less is part of the reason?
And bring back headphone jack
iPhones have consistently gotten both thicker and larger battery capacity over the years. iPhone X from 2017 was 7.7mm and 2716 mAh, iPhone 15 Pro is 8.25mm and 3274 mAh.
> Make the phones 3mm thicker and put bigger batteries in them
How did we circle around to using more material as an impact-reducing measure?
I really would have expected a deeper analysis from someone of your calibre.
It should be fairly simple to see how a slightly larger input up front could result in less maintenance over time.
> should be fairly simple to see how a slightly larger input up front could result in less maintenance over time
Heavier phones hit the ground with more momentum. Moreover, how many people throw away—not sell or trade in—their phones because of battery alone? Given the ease of replacing iPhone batteries, I’d guess it’s minimal.
The only thing more battery grants in scale is on the packaging and microcontroller. Compare that to the excess material, on account of folks charging their phone every day (switching from daily to every-third-day charging is unlikely a meaningful behavioural update), and you see the net waste. Particularly when heavy users can be segmented to with external battery packs. (Which don’t add the momentum tax.)
It could help. But proposing using more material use in an environmental discussion without thought to its trade-offs isn’t serious debate.
Step one - reduce product cycles to every 2 years.
I bet no one ever thinks that!
The yearly updates hardly bring meaningful changes for most people.
We don’t have new gaming consoles every year, with iPhones being just as locked down, we could have new ones coming out every few years.
Just so you know - you dont have to buy a new one every year.
Doesn't mean they're not making them - a lot of people will buy them regardless, or get a new one from their carrier.
For Apple devices especially, this is incentivized by the culture around them - a lot of folks just want the newest.
If my 3 year old iphone falls off a cliff I shouldnt have to buy a "new" 3 year old iPhone because someone decided that people should only buy 1 every 4 years - that would be a collosal waste.
Update the technology on a regular basis as everyone is on a different purchasing cycle.
That is such an interesting perspective. You're saying that buying this years model is an important part of buying 'new' for you. I get it but I've never seen it written down before.
I guess cars are the same. If you walked into a dealership and all the models had been released 2 years previous you might feel like you shouldn't be paying full price even though you are getting a brand new car.
> saying that buying this years model is an important part of buying 'new' for you
Arbitrarily lengthening release cycles like this is performative. Particularly in high tech. Doubly so in a category that’s reducing its energy and material footprint.
Consider if we did this for cars. New model once a decade. This would be horrible for fuel economies. To say nothing about safety and EVs.
Some might say yearly release cycles may be a bad incentive to hold back innovations because you have to bring something new every year... So you do _not_ get the latest and greatest, but a carefully planned "older" product with newer stuff in the pipeline for the next 5 years.
> Some might say yearly release cycles may be a bad incentive to hold back innovations
Based on what evidence?
Seems like you just don't want to give up the convenience of being able to buy the most top-notch hardware at any point in time. No one ever said that being sustainable wouldn't be without sacrifices :)
So what if people get the latest. It’s not like the previous device will just magically disappear.
It will get resold and reused.
Why? The factories manufacture something all the time. The hardware/software design engineers are already hired. Never saw somebody throwing fresh (1,2,3 years old) iPhones away.
https://shop.fairphone.com/fairphone-5 <- 5 year warranty, 8 years of software updates, easy to repair, made from recycled parts etc. etc. This all exists today. We do not have to wait for Cupertino.
I think this would have much less effect than you think it would. People don't actually pay attention to when new phones come out and it's not why they buy new phones.
Well .. people buy new phones because of advertising (not you and I obviously). If it wasn't true they wouldn't spend so much on it. Those advertising folks want something new to talk about. That's why.
Apple product lifetimes are pretty good. iPhone 6s (2015, 8 years) still gets security updates, iPhone 8 (2017, 6 years) only now will stop getting new feature updates. The current trajectory seems to be supporting older models for even longer. If the device is not physically damaged beyond repair, you can just keep on using it.
On one hand, having annual release cycles encourages innovation to happen much faster. Sadly, it might also introduce bugs. Having product cycles as 2 years is probably reasonable, but might slow innovation a bit.
I don’t think much innovation happens year to year. At the beginning of iPhone development every other year Apple was releasing an S model of the previous year, which was just improved specs, but no new features. At this point the smartphone has stagnated, with small edge case features being introduced each year.
Would that really make a noticable difference.
Most people don't upgrade every year, but those that do, typically have a still very good condition and usable second hand device to sell or hand down to another friend/co-worker/etc - that same person would otherwise just have to have bought a new device. So on net, no difference.
I'm sure there are some people that both upgrade needlessly and just let them collect dust but I can't see it being a significant percentage?
(This is coming from someone who had every iPhone from the 3G through to the X on Day 1, though now I am going from a 12 Pro Max to a 15 Pro max :)
> Most people don't upgrade every year, but those that do, typically have a still very good condition and usable second hand device to sell or hand down to another friend/co-worker/etc
I don't upgrade every year and still was able to turn in my previous phone for some hundred bucks so far
Is this yet-another Apple scheme to avoid taxes or raise stock prices? Many of these "clean energy projects" are incentivized by the governments through tax benefits, additional investment, or giving land basically for free (and land is investment these days).
> This past week Apple announced its first totally carbon-neutral product, its new Apple watch
I'd be happy if Apple announced an acid-neutral project (not counting other carcinogenic materials used to produce every single component in that device). Plants (even animals and, to some extent, people) can neutralize carbon compounds, but those acids can't.
And let me not start with all the necessary mining and production pollution for batteries and other components no one talks about.
To start, Tim Cook should pledge user-replaceable batteries in iPhones, iPads, MacBooks. People are replacing the entire gadget just because battery capacity went down contributing to electronic waste. Without addressing this elephant in the room his "clean energy future" is a cheap talk.
How about not producing substandard products that need to be replaced frequently, and are tied down by yesteryear user-hostile operating systems?
> How about not producing substandard products that need to be replaced frequently
Let's be honest - in terms of reliability, it is very hard to out-compete Apple. What leads you to say they produce substandard products?
I guess the operating system part is subjective, but what do you mean with substandard products that need to be replaced frequently?
If anything, the Apple products I had held their value much better than their Wintel counterparts. Writing this on a MacBook Pro from 2017 for example.
I think Apple can be fairly critized for lots of things, but not for the quality of their products. (Especiall not for hardware, their software leave more to be desired, while still being top shelf)
Maybe a "green future" starts with making Apple products self repairable, without all the current shenanigans.
Given their prowess for design and engineering, and a clean energy future, I'm surprised Apple has not developed an electric car.