Apple says repeal of U.S. EPA ‘Clean Power Plan’ would threaten investments

“Apple Inc said on Friday it opposes any repeal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of the Clean Power Plan, which is a priority of the agency’s Administrator Scott Pruitt and would reverse an Obama-era program to curb greenhouse gases,” Timothy Gardner reports for Reuters. “Repealing the plan would jeopardize the country’s position in the race for investments in clean energy, particularly its competition with China, Apple said. It was the first public comment by a company on the proposed repeal of the plan, which has never been implemented because of legal challenges.”

“‘Repealing the Clean Power Plan will subject consumers like Apple and our large manufacturing partners to increased investment uncertainty,’ the California-based company said in a filing to the agency,” Gardner reports. “Apple, which says it runs its U.S. operations fully on renewable energy such as wind and solar power, added that repeal of the plan would also threaten development and investments that have already been made in renewable power.”

“Pruitt proposed last October to repeal the Clean Power Plan, a set of standards for U.S. states intended to cut pollution from power plants, the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. In December, the EPA launched a comment period for a possible replacement of the plan,” Gardner reports. “Under Pruitt, the EPA has said the Clean Power Plan was illegal and exceeded the agency’s statutory authority. The plan never went into effect after it was suspended by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: The “repeal” of a something that never went into effect will subject Apple to “increased investment uncertainty?” M’kay.

Apple CEO Tim Cook pressured to follow Elon Musk and leave President’s Council over Paris Agreement kerfuffle – June 2, 2017
Apple CEO Cook slams President Trump’s decision to withdraw from climate deal; says it’s ‘wrong for our planet’ – June 1, 2017
Despite pleas from Apple CEO Tim Cook and others, President Trump pulls out of Paris Agreement – June 1, 2017
Apple signs on to full page ‘open letter’ ad urging President Trump to keep U.S. in Paris Agreement on climate change – June 1, 2017
Apple CEO Cook calls President Trump as Elon Musk threatens to quit White House advisory councils over Paris decision – May 31, 2017
President Trump leaning toward exiting Paris climate change agreement despite Apple, others urging U.S. to remain in deal – May 31, 2017
Apple to stick with environmental pledges despite President Trump’s gutting of Obama’s climate change orders – March 30, 2017


  1. How about paying attention to products and services (Mac Pro, AirPlay 2, Messages in the Cloud, HomePod multi-room audio and stereo pairing, Apple TV, software quality) instead of wasting time on DOA liberal feel-good bullshit like the “Paris Agreement” and the “Clean Power Plan?”

    1. I see you live rather myopically. Clean air/water/healthy soil are fundamental to healthy living. If that’s not important to you fine…perhaps living on the Moon would better suit you. To pollute the environment in order to be successful economically is a very short game (guess who wins??). So instead of spewing your Fox-induced stupor comments, do some research on climate change (yes, it’s real). Meanwhile, kudos to Apple for exhibiting environmental leadership not only in its products, but in its corporate mentality.

      1. Downvoters: don’t take my word for it, the EIA publishes energy trends and projections. Fracked gas is cheaper and cleaner. Sorry.

        If you love coal so much, install a coal furnace in your own house and tell us how much better it is.

          1. There’s a lot of virtue signaling to keep the mob distracted by companies. Unfortunately Apple’s making such a public statement sounds like they really believe the propaganda.

      2. Spot on, Realist. Here’s that chart:

        There are three sources of energy for electrical generation that are growing:
        – natural gas
        – wind
        – solar

        Any other source is flat or in decline due to economic factors that will never be reversed.

        The three growing sources are already the most economically viable choices in most regions and will only become moreso in the future.

        How many Apple customers here work in coal mines? Anyone? How about your kids? Got them trained for coal extraction? Well what a surprise, nobody. Because coal has been in rapid decline since 1990. Good riddance.

        Special note to nuclear lovers: the costs aren’t even close to competitive. Look for a step change down when America’s nuke plants are decommissioned over the next decade or so. It would be cheaper to replace every homeowner’s roof with solar panels than it would be to build a new nuclear plant and guard the spent fuel forever.

        1. I work in a coal mine in Western Kentucky if you must know. Been using Apple products since my senior year of high school 1990-1991. I believe it was an Apple SE. We had it in the journalism department and I went on to be a graphic designer for 17 years until the print industry died. I got tired of being a “broke” artist and went into the mines that pay significantly more than what I made in the newspaper industry.

          You wouldn’t believe the number of iPhones and iPads that my fellow coworkers have. We make a significant amount of money for our area and can easily afford Apple products.

          So yeah, there are plenty of us dirty coal miners with Apple products, we’re just hard to see from your ivory tower.

          1. That chart is for the FIRST HALF of 2017. This is a typical tactic of climate-change (and just about anything else) deniers – pick a short time period or single data point and ignore the overall trend. A convenient omission.

            Here’s the LATEST data and the overall trend. Facts, so inconvenient, aren’t they?

            Tip to all – stop drinking the left and right wing Kool-Aid and do your own research. Tip: Look for scientifically-sourced facts rather than opinion or shoddily written articles full of confirmation bias.

      3. What the Hell is wrong with this argument?
        Reality, that’s what is wrong.
        Yes, coal is a dying industry for power with cheaper gas and other “green” alternatives getting better every year.

        So what is the Left’s issue with coal, besides looking down on the people that work in it and the states they live in?

        Again, It is reality.
        You leftist HATE reality.
        “why can’t the world just be like I dream…?(sob)”

        How many of you have actually ever even BEEN to a power plant? How about factories that produce their own power, ever been to one?

        Here is the “dirty” little secret about coal, It will take a few decades for it to go away completely, so just let the market take its course.

        No one is saying it should be subsidized and kept as a way of life (I hate that shit)

        But if you are in an area that uses natural gas EXCLUSIVELY then you might be in a shock when the supply is disrupted, just like solar and wind. Less likely but still can happen.

        Many power plants keep at least one coal boiler even if there is cheaper gas to use because it can be STOCKPILED for use in the event of low gas supply or max power needed beyond gas supply ability, and also while maintenance is done to a gas boiler.

        There should be no argument here about coal. Most power companies prefer natural gas so coal will phase out as newer plants come on line, but Obama’s plan to strangle coal use and raise the cost of power by forcing companies to switch before they had budgeted (some by decades) was another over-reach of his ability to shape the real world.

        What stupid arguments you kids start by showing charts and opinions. None of that changes reality, so throw your diapers away and go see how the world really works before you try to change it. You just might find out you aren’t near as smart as your mommy tells you…

        1. Superlative post!

          You covered most of the bases, history, current reality and what the future holds for coal and green energy.

          But my favorite part is calling out the “diaper” Democrat elitists that demonize, then regulate, then tax, then destroy industries they DEEM DEPLORABLE. DISGUSTING!

          The transition will no doubt take decades as you pointed out, if it ever happens at all. China built so many coal plants recently and as a “sovereign” nation no one can tell them to stop. And they are not alone.

          Like you, I love the typical liberal cabal with their charming posts of like minded liberal sources they say, are “the truth” and the end all, be all. We know they are selective masters of distraction and extrapolation …

        2. Just for the record, the most recent Chinese coal plants were mostly built to replace older plants with newer, and much more efficient and less polluting, generation units. At least a hundred plants that would have provided new capacity have been cancelled.

          From the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

          Chinese coal-fired electric production has already nearly peaked at 4 trillion annual kilowatt/hours. It is projected to decline, though only very slowly, from that level through 2040. Pollution (including CO2 emissions) and coal consumption will fall much more rapidly, due to the newer equipment.

          Because the Chinese are boosting other forms of generation, nuclear as well as renewable, the percentage of power generated by coal will fall from the current 72% to about 46% by 2040.

          As it was in England and the United States, coal was the only choice for powering the Chinese Industrial Revolution. The so-called People’s Republic has no secure access to large volumes of petroleum or natural gas, so coal is still almost their only non-nuclear option as boiler fuel. Access to possible gas reserves is one of the major drivers for China’s dangerously aggressive claims to the entire East and South China Seas.

          Nobody has to tell China to stop building additional coal-fired power plant capacity. They are doing that themselves. Unlike the US, they are still a party to the Paris Accords.

          1. “Just for the record, the most recent Chinese coal plants were mostly built to replace older plants with newer, and much more efficient and less polluting, generation units. At least a hundred plants that would have provided new capacity have been cancelled.”

            Umm, EXCUSES ASIDE, they are still using coal for the foreseeable future and liberals like yourself are POWERLESS to stop it ..

          2. For the record, that has noting to do with my post other than this…

            “What stupid arguments you kids start by showing charts and opinions. None of that changes reality, so throw your diapers away and go see how the world really works before you try to change it. You just might find out you aren’t near as smart as your mommy tells you…”

    1. I can’t understand why people want to preserve the vanishing jobs in the coal power plant industry (mostly lost to competition from natural gas) at the expense of the far greater number of jobs that already exist in the growing renewable energy field. Even in places like Pittsburgh, there are more people working in renewables than in coal-fired industries.

      Oh yeah… I forgot the Electoral College.

      1. “Oh yeah… I forgot the Electoral College.”

        You did not forget anything. Your cloaked DIG against the party you despise and are not a part of that SAVED jobs and an industry. There, I fixed it for you. And remember, every job is SACRED no matter how small the numbers …

        1. As usual, you are mindlessly cheerleading for the moron who pretends concern about a few ‘dirty’ jobs’ in a dying industry, whilst ignoring the article’s central issue – environmental protection. Why don’t you address the central problem? Is the price paid in environmental damage, pollution and harm to public health, worth it?
          Common sense, environmental evidence and King Canute says no…you can’t turn back the tide of progress. Only blind fools, mendacious denialists and the Trumpista insist that a square peg fits all holes.

          1. Your empathy for a SHRINKING, not yet dead industry and its traditions, proud workers et al. – is what is mindless, “moron.”

            Grandson of a proud Appalachian coal miner here and elitist flyover types like yourself will NEVER UNDERSTAND …

            1. What these people don’t seem to understand or are ignoring is the fact that everything humans use is either grown or mined.

              Their precious solar panels and windmills are all made of products that come from the earth. Like it or not, no matter what form of energy we use, mining will always be involved. Where do you think lithium comes from, or the metal to build anything, or the materials it takes to produce concrete?

              Unlike most people on this board I actually work at an underground coal mine. No, it’s not pretty, it’s hard, dangerous and dirty work, but we care about our environment. I can guarantee you that there are more outdoorsman that care about the environment that work in the coal mines than probably any other industry. All of us either hunt, fish, camp, horseback & atv ride, kayak, boat or hike. Every single one of us!!! We don’t want polluted waterways or polluted air. Here in western Kentucky we have some of the finest waterways and forests in America.

              Also, in case you didn’t realize it, fracking is a form of mining. Ever been to a fracking rig? Not pretty either! Not sure why coal mines have been singled out when every other form of mining has similar downfalls.

              We have to have things. Mining is the start of every product we use. We just have to do the best we can to limit the impact of getting those resources.

            2. I should have gotten back to you sooner.

              “are ignoring is the fact that everything humans use is either grown or mined.”

              I have not heard anything of it’s kind — VERY interesting.

              “Like it or not, no matter what form of energy we use, mining will always be involved.”

              Proud to be a descendant of a coal miner grandfather. ⛏👊🏻 Yes, when the doggedly dogmatic left is out to demonize and destroy their perceived enemies, they could not be bothered to learn and understand BOTH sides of the issue, and then make a fair determination. That would require time and energy away from lewd dancing videos, having brainpower and OBJECTIVE thinking skills.

              At their worst, the left routinely shows media empathy for killers on death row and celebrates releasing criminal illegals back into society on CNN with no oversight. MORE confused thinking that is their VERSION of the empathy.

              But if you are a hard working coal miner like yourself making a living and raising a family while respecting the environment — you are the evil incarnate destroying the world. No empathy for you, your family or your profession. You are WORSE to these whack jobs than illegal murderers and death row inmates. Dr. Savage was right, “liberalism is a mental disorder.”

              “it’s hard, dangerous and dirty work, but we care about our environment. I can guarantee you that there are more outdoorsman that care about the environment that work in the coal mines than probably any other industry.”

              I certainly know first hand, tis TRUE. But the left does not see it in their insular urban bubble.

              Ever been to a fracking rig?

              Yes, visited the largest rig in Pennsyltucky over five years ago. Friend of mine works there in the control room. Awesome operation and I was impressed by all the environmental controls the company maintains as standard practice.

              It was the same rig that Yoko Ono and several other Hollywood lib types visited the region in protest after the documentary movie “Gasland” was released.

              The local news did a story on their sacred sojourn to the rural region and it was a hoot to watch to use a traditional term. They stood around in a group on TV, yeah this is bad, this is really bad. So typical.

              “Mining is the start of every product we use. We just have to do the best we can to limit the impact of getting those resources.”

              Exactly right and I believe it is being done.

              Graphic designer to coal miner. I must say that is the most interesting transition of a career.

              On a completely different note, please indulge me. Suggest you and your buddies try the newest Yuengling coal region PA beer named “Golden Pilsner.” Four weeks ago was traveling on business in the region less than twenty miles from America’s oldest brewery. Visited a recommended country inn for dinner where they featured it on draft. I was surprised, since the media reports said the debut was April 1 almost two weeks away. So I asked the bartender (owner) about the embargo and how do have it for sale at this time. He said Dick (brewery owner) comes in here and his daughter lives locally and comes in here all the time. Worth a try and keep the faith …

            3. I hate to post again. I wasn’t planning to turn this into an all-day project, but I fear I may have given you the wrong impression.

              I understand, and I think we all understand, that everything we use is ultimately traceable back to raw materials from the earth, seas, or sky. I haven’t seen anybody here who is opposed to mining or to miners. Coal, either in raw form or as a chemical feedstock, is a vital industrial material. The specific issue is whether burning coal for electrical power generation is the best use of that resource.

              If it is not, because there are cheaper and less polluting alternatives for that purpose, then we should be moving forthwith to those alternatives and using our coal resources more appropriately.

              The current government initiatives to promote coal-fired powerplants over the alternatives are not economically rational. They might save jobs in the coal industry (if it cannot repurpose itself), but only at the cost of jobs in the renewable energy industry, which already employs many more people.

              The Administration initiatives also ignore the economic impact of the avoidable emission of harmful stack gasses and other pollutants. NOAA recently issued a report suggesting that rising sea levels could be producing high-tide flooding two to three times every week along the western Gulf Coast and northern Atlantic Coast as soon as 2040.

              Click to access techrpt86_PaP_of_HTFlooding.pdf

              For discussion, see:

              The promotion of coal powerplants over the alternatives is completely illogical, absent the realization that coal country provided the winning margin in the recent presidential election.

              Tim Cook, and Apple generally, are not “messing in politics” by lobbying for the Clean Air Act. They are suggesting that decisions about national energy policy should NOT be political. Making rational economic decisions is in everyone’s interest, including folks who work or invest in the mining sector.

            4. “The promotion of coal powerplants over the alternatives is completely illogical, absent the realization that coal country provided the winning margin in the recent presidential election.”

              Right now, COAL IS KING. Sorry that bothers you and yes it was a part of the Trump win you can’t stand. It will also provide the winning margin in 2020 …

  2. Its too bad Apple tries to do all this PC-SJW stuff, and the only loser is the Apple Customer who gets short changed because things don’t work, delays for products and features get longer.

    HomePod feature delays, Battery issues, Mac Pro, Mac-Mini, the list could go on…

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to be green, IF you can afford it like Apple can at the moment. However I do wonder with all the maintenance and downtime of solar arrays, how much are they really saving? Where are some facts that say by deploying all these panels and arrays at huge cost, are actually saving Apple any money? How far out is the RTO?

    1. Williamson County, Texas, has long been considered to be one of the most conservative in the state. The county seat, Georgetown, is the home to Sun City Texas, populated by thousands of conservative retirees.

      After a lot of study and lengthy public comment, Georgetown decided to save money by getting 100% of its electrical power from renewable sources. Wind, and to a lesser extent solar, plants in West Texas generate more watts than the city uses, with the surplus sold on the interconnect network. That enables the purchase of power to make up for calm cloudy days. I’m sure that Apple has made the same calculation that renewables are cheaper than other sources in the long run.

      In other words, renewable power isn’t just a expensive pie-in-the-sky concept for social justice warriors. It is saving real consumers real money now.

      1. Don’t you ever get tired of countering fables with facts? Has it ever worked? I want to believe that it could work, but your track record here is abysmal. I don’t understand why. I have been told that people favour their beliefs over reports to the contrary, and over even the evidence of their own eyes. Was Orwell right, or what?

        1. Herself,

          I can’t seem to help myself. It probably goes back to college. I went to one of the top American research universities, where 65% of my classmates were physical scientists or engineers and another 10% architects. My majors were in the social sciences, but we were held to the same rigor.

          The Prime Directives included (1) never cite a “fact” unless you are sure it can be verified, and (2) never cite a theory that is not the simplest explanation of all the facts you know. When I hear someone assert a “fact” that can easily be disproven or a “theory” that ignores facts or unnecessarily complicates them, it affects me worse than fingernails on a blackboard.

          I know it is a waste of electrons to post here, where many of the most vocal are not remotely interested in facts that do not confirm their pre-existing bias. Still, I always hope that there are some kibitzers out there who might believe all the unverified assertions from the usual suspects unless somebody pointed out the evidence to the contrary.

      2. Given your talent for information by omission, if the example you cite is true, you have not noted hard numbers of the cost savings per family calculated with the added expense of buying power on cloudy days.

        But ok, let’s just assume tis true and green energy is cheaper in Greenville, I mean Georgetown. Nothing but wonderful green 🌲superlatives from me.

        Isolated success stories from sunny areas closer to the equator and some northern areas as well, are great when they work. Solyndra anyone?

        I agree green energy is not just for SJWs for the same reason statistics have consistently shown conservatives buy more electric and hybrid vehicles.

        Bottom line: When green energy costs produce REAL savings, only then will traditional sources be replaced and it doesn’t matter what party you belong to or who you vote for.

        The MacPro is in a similar stuck in neutral situation of weighing cost per performance …

    2. My panels paid off in 10 years and now I have free electricity for the foreseeable future. Been zero maintenance except for the disconnect switch needed replacing once.

      Downtime? When it snows or it is nighttime, I make 0 kWh, true. On a cloudy day my array makes half of what it makes on a sunny day. By day, I feed the grid with my excess capacity and at night I draw from it (all of it natural gas and nuclear here). It can be 95 degrees out with my 5-ton AC unit going full blast and the meter is still running backwards, so I am leveling peak loads for the power company by powering my neighbors. Win-win-win.

      And I have avoided some ridiculous amount of CO2 output; too lazy to get up and read it off the display in the garage.

      In fact, I picked up a cheap Nissan Leaf for about $16K after incentives and rebates back in July (thanks all for the federal tax credit). I’ve put 8,000 miles on it and powered it with my excess production for the most part. Had about $160 in electric bill over that entire stretch as panels don’t make as much in Dec and Jan. Now that I am in peak season, I will have virtually unlimited free miles until at least Nov.

  3. Renewable energy is a pipe dream for most. While you might find a small locale like Williamson County, TX that has the right amount of wind and solar to make it possible (along with enough real estate for the solar farms), it’s not possible everywhere.

    I bet even Apple, if you are able to look into their balance sheets, trades on carbon credits so that they can claim to be 100% renewable. Ever see a photo of their solar farm – it’s massive. Not practical to run cities and counties.

    Look at Germany, the world’s more foremost investor in green energy. In 2013, only 4% of gross electricity came from solar and about 7%-8% came from wind. Once in a while the stars will align where there is enough output for a minute or a day where it produces enough to be newsworthy but that’s like saying my car gets 50 mpg when I coast downhill in neutral.

    The irony is that Germany, after dismantling their nuclear reactors had to build coal plants to supply their baseload energy needs because it’s rare that you find anywhere on earth that renewable energy can be reliable energy.

    I love the idea of a renewable energy source that doesn’t pollute and has minimal environmental impact and we can shut down all the burning. Until then, we need to keep researching and finding better ways to burn stuff cleaner.

    1. Georgetown has about 25,000 electric customers (total county population is over a half-million). The wind and solar farms aren’t located there (north of Austin), but 250 miles away in West Texas—about as far as from Hoover Dam to Los Angeles. There is plenty of real estate out there, to say nothing of wind and sun (El Paso once had over 400 consecutive days of sunshine). Even with the transmission costs, renewable is cheaper here than natural gas (and much cheaper than coal or nuclear).

      Texas is not “a small locale.” It is not only the second most-populous state, but is also in the top six for per-capita electricity consumption (New York and California are in the bottom three). Last year, the state as a whole got 18% of its electricity from renewable sources. As long ago as December 2015, there was a day when 45% of the power came from wind.

      Texas wind farm generating capacity already exceeds coal, and will double it by next year. Four of the largest coal plants are shutting down in 2018 while massive wind farms open every month. This is in a state where gas is cheaper and more abundant than almost anywhere else in the country.

      As with iPhones and electric cars, better battery technologies have the potential to completely change the playing field.

      1. So the gold standard Georgetown example serves only 25,000 people? Importing power from one of the sunniest areas in West Texas. I hate to break it to you green idealist, but you just made Jacadian’s point even stronger …

        1. 25,000 customers = 25,000 meters. Each residential meter serves an average of 2.52 people. Each business meter serves a much larger number of people. So, the Georgetown Electric Utility does not “serve only 25,000 people.”

          To repeat, the county of which Georgetown is the county seat has a half-million permanent residents within a metropolitan area of over 2 million. Georgetown isn’t some little village, and it isn’t run by “green idealists.” There hasn’t been a single Democrat elected to a county-wide office in over 30 years.

          My point was that using renewable power isn’t some sort of expensive “green idealist” dream, but something that a real middle-sized American city run by a bunch of very conservative Republicans can use to lower the electricity bills of all its residents. The savings from using cheap wind and solar power when it is available (and selling the surplus) more than make up for the cost of buying other power when renewable is not enough to meet demand.

          That is why Texas has an interconnect system, so that when one power source falls short another can make up the difference. “100% renewable” doesn’t mean that all the electrons going through a Georgetown resident’s light bulb came from wind or solar, but that the utility is producing more renewable power each year than the total power that it consumes.

          “Importing power” from sunny areas is what solar power is about, just as importing power from rivers is what hydropower is about. Cities “import power” from remote nuclear plants; they don’t put them downtown. There is this thing called “transmission lines” that allow moving power hundreds or even thousands of miles. Unless you are a survivalist or live in Puerto Rico, I imagine the generators for your domestic electric supply aren’t in your backyard.

          Obviously, there isn’t enough renewable capacity currently available to power America. Even if there were, we would have to address the issue of storing the power for use on calm nights. Not every city can follow Georgetown’s example, but many could and that number will increase with time.

          Bottom line: Apple isn’t supporting some sort of out-there leftist fantasy when it supports renewable energy. It is supporting its own bottom line.

          1. “25,000 customers = 25,000 meters. Each residential meter serves an average of 2.52 people. Each business meter serves a much larger number of people. So, the Georgetown Electric Utility does not “serve only 25,000 people.”

            I stopped reading right there. Once again you do not tell the whole story and enjoy BAITING by omission. My main problem with your posts you have a penchant for good facts interspersed with misleading HALF TRUTH statements all the time that INFER different meanings. Here is some unsolicited advice: Try speaking plain truth and plain English for a change …

          2. You posted, “So the gold standard Georgetown example serves only 25,000 people.” That was untrue, so I corrected your misstatement.

            The Georgetown (TX) Electric Utility has 25,000 accounts. The average household in Georgetown has 2.52 residents. Every viable commercial business in the world has substantially more than 2.52 owners, employees, and customers. All of those are readily available public facts.

            Please explain how that is not “plain truth and plain English.” What do you think I omitted to make it a HALF TRUTH?

            Honestly, if I posted “GeoB’s mother was NOT a baboon,” you would insist I was lying. Am I?

            1. “You posted, “So the gold standard Georgetown example serves only 25,000 people.” That was untrue, so I corrected your misstatement.”

              What exactly should I interpret from your half truth misstatement about the town size related to how many customers the meters ACTUALLY serve? You forgot to clarify that part and put out a false narrative . Once again, you are guilty by omission Tejas bait specialist.

              You can thank the maker we are not in the same room making comments about my mother …

            2. Again, stop blowing smoke and get specific. What did I say that you regard as “a half truth misstatement?”

              A) “The Georgetown Electric Utility has 25,000 customers.” I never said that the city had only 25,000 residents or that the utility provided power to only 25,000 people. The utility counts meters; it doesn’t care how many individuals benefit from those meters. You jumped to the wrong conclusion and I corrected the misleading impression that I had evidently left you. It wasn’t a personal attack.

              B) “The average household in Georgetown has 2.52 people.” That includes only the 68,000 people within the city limits; there are tens of thousands more within Georgetown’s exclusive extraterritorial jurisdiction, many of whom are also served by city utilities.

              C) “Every Georgetown business with an electric meter serves far more owners, employees, and customers than the average household size.” Do you know of any viable businesses that only impact two-and-a-half people?

              D) “Therefore the utility serves far more than 25,000 people.” The point being, Georgetown TX isn’t some sort of podunk village with a tiny utility system that is unrepresentative of “real cities”… as you implied. It is a sizable U.S. city, larger than 98% of all U.S. incorporated places (there are roughly 550 larger and 38,450 smaller).

              Georgetown is also one of the five fastest-growing cities in the entire United States (#12 is in the same county). Its utility system is planning for over 5% annual growth, using entirely renewable sources while saving its customers money. What makes you think that is a half truth?


              E) “GeoB’s mother is NOT a baboon.” You rather made my point by arguing with that statement. I can’t say anything that you will agree with. It was a comment about you, not your mother.

      1. When I saw the headline, I thought, HMM.. then I saw where it came from, the fake news king, the New York Times.. Germany is probably not awash in electricity and its probably not paying people to take it.. Probably the inverse is more likely. The people are probably getting screwed by high energy costs.

        1. If you look around just a little, you’ll find articles that say things like this… “Power prices in Germany are among the highest in Europe” But they don’t mind it seems, they bought the lie that man can actually control nature…

          1. Are you just trolling are are you too cowardly and brainwashed to look at the other source I posted or any of the other DOZENS of web sites that back up the story? I suppose the German government is in on all this, too:

            Spare me the puerile “fake news” BS. If you want to engage in debate, then pull up to the Adult table where it is incumbent upon you to use logic and research to examine the data presented and STATE WHY IT IS WRONG. Except you can’t do that because it isn’t. So instead you go off into tantrum land where you put your hands over your ears and yell “CANT HEAR YOU CANT HEAR YOU I AM NOT LISTENING” wah wah wah.

      2. The truth about German electricity is really pretty complex.

        The retail price per kw/hr to small consumers is among the highest in Europe, but over half the cost is due to politically determined taxes and fees. Large industrial consumers are exempt from the fees, and just pay the market price for wholesale electricity. That varies dynamically from moment to moment, following the interplay of supply and demand.

        On one particularly sunny and windy day last May, there was so much renewable power available for a few hours (87% of the mix) that supply outstripped demand. The wholesale cost went negative, with the utility paying large users. Because large coal and gas-fired power plants could not cut their production quickly enough, for those few hours they had to pay the grid to take their electricity, instead of being paid for it. That isn’t a regular occurrence.

        Ordinary customers, of course, continued to pay the retail rate plus all the fees. There is less of a bite than in the US because German average household consumption is about a third of the American average. A typical German household with three people pays about 85.80 euros ($105.55) per month. That is slightly less than the $110/month average in Texas.

        Wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass together amount to about 37% of annual German production. The goal is to reach 100% by 2050. Denmark has already had short periods of over 100%, with the surplus sold to adjacent countries.

        So, the answer is that yes, there are high retail prices for domestic electricity in Germany, but that is not due to the cost of producing renewable energy, but to government policies that more than double the retail price. There have been very brief periods in which the cost of wholesale electricity fell below zero.

        1. Source? And even if you have it, this means nothing in and of itself. Gasoline is highly taxed in Europe vs the US, and that has nothing to do with the source of the gasoline/power.

  4. You know Tim, it’s not too late to pack the company’s back and relocate to another location. Or you can stay at home and enjoy the consequences of those who don’t really care about health the environment. Who knows maybe they’ll even bring back thalidomide babies.

    1. There are factions within Apple who favour disincorporation and relocation to Finland. Sweden might have been a destination but the Chernobyl disaster checkered any relocation plans. Also there is a long-standing National secession plot churning, involving Oregon, Washington, and NorCal. The Yellowstone Humanity Reclamation Project hopes to keep civilisation functioning after the impending catastrophic eruption of the megavolcano.

      I know, why bother? Who cares about a bunch of war criminals? I blame my sex for it all — Eve handed over the fruit of the tree of knowledge to Adam; and he couldn’t fscking handle it.

      1. First of all, I’d like to thank you for your post under the topic of “Apple CEO Cook offers ‘sympathy and support’ after YouTube shooter opens fire”. I still find it incredible to see such a lack of similar posts under the topic but then again I’m not be overly surprised.

        The suggestion I put forth to Apple is laden with irony, Apple is a global company yet has its origins from what is becoming an increasingly xenophobic nation.

        I take a bit of an issue with your war criminals comment, especially since obummer wiped away any possibility of such justice with the brilliant “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards” sidestep and your country is not part of the International Criminal Court (ICC). With 124 being part of it, it’s another indication of your nation’s isolationism and its inability to be a team player.

        To that end I always refer to the atrocities committed by your nation to be acts against humanity as your country as it often does sidesteps any form of justice where your country will be held responsible so that is can remain beyond the law.

        That being said I’m bothering, and I’m caring though it may not be that apparent. I’m hopeful that one day your nation will rise to a level of civility once more. Humanity moves forward, for now.

        I love your slant on the sex blame and I sort of agree with you, though from my perspective man can handle knowledge just fine, it’s emotions where he stumbles, make you want to think that Eve forgot to share fruit of the tree of empathy.

        Having more of a scientific nature I lean more to Calhoun’s behavioral slant. It is fascinating to see how much the overpopulation changes behavior in mice are mimicked by humans.

  5. Today’s vocabulary word is:


    It refers to those who refuse to accept the future, particularly with regard to technology and industry.

    Example: The Trump Administration, as demonstrated by the actions of EPA Director Scott Pruitt.

    Of course Earth/pollution/human survival minded corporations are going to balk at the acts of these modern Luddites. Thank you Apple, Tim Cook, for speaking up for the future. The past is over and in this case good riddance. The carbon fuel era is at an end. Wake up and deal with it everyone. It’s a great thing! You don’t have to be a loony leftist of Obama sycophant to know what mankind has already done and must now do to undo and replace it. It’s a DUH thing.

    Sadly, a lot of politicians and victims of BS propaganda from the carbon fuel overlords are way below the DUH level of awareness and thinking. It only takes researching the real world to change their minds.

      1. The NY Times has problems, that’s for sure. Yesterday I read an article related to science that went out of its way to avoid in depth research, which lead to erroneous conclusions that obviously left the reader ignorant and misinformed. I don’t call that ‘fake’. But it’s certainly unprofessional and qualifies as stupefaction of its readers.

        Meanwhile, the NY Times, when its authors do their jobs properly, can be as useful a source of factual information as any other professional news source.

        Right now, I don’t know of ANY news source I’d ever entirely trust as a sole news source. That’s why I read information from all over the net and all over the world. As I learned as a kid, at least from the point of view of the human mind:

        Perspective is everything. Get some.

        Humanities most spectacular failures are consistently due to nonsense believed to be ‘TRUTH!’ My usual response is:

        We humans never know everything about anything. That’s an uncomfortable revelation. But it puts us in a place of humbleness with regard to the vast complexity of the universe around us. Humble we must be. Our path forward, IMHO, is to gain what perspective we can, gather informed opinions of the world around us, express then and live them while continuing to learn more, adjusting our sense of ‘truth’ as we continue to strive to understand. /lecture

    1. “It only takes researching the real world to change their minds.”

      Hey, I’m all in on ending carbon dependence and achieving the green dream. But it is just that at this point, but making inroads. The only thing that will change minds on a massive scale is a positive balance sheet, unfortunately. Go hydrogen …

      1. I’m genuinely curious. Where do you plan to get the electricity to make the hydrogen?

        Fusion is still “25 years away,” as it has been for over 50. Fission plants are not politically or economically viable any more. Coal would be disappearing, if the current Administration were not trying to prop it up. Natural gas is currently cheap and available, but the supply (as with oil) is not eternal.

        1. Then why not natural gas? It is cheaper than coal, safer to produce, easier to transport, and substantially less polluting both at the point of production and the point of use.

          Its only drawback is that it is mostly produced in safely Red or Blue states, not in states that might send their electoral votes either way. Mr. Trump isn’t going to lose Texas or Oklahoma (or win California), no matter what happens. He might lose West Virginia, etc. if gas continues to displace coal for power generation.

            1. How does it feel to have your Citizen X, also felon, screen name banned from MDN? I’m in a TOTAL empathy mode and would really like to hear your side …

      2. To be more blunt, people playing in the financial game who have a financial stake in profits from carbon fuels are going to want that revenue stream to continue.

        I’d personally get out of the carbon fuels industries. Meanwhile, there are many important uses of the same resources. Example: What we create from petroleum is astounding and those creative processes must continue.

        Hydrogen is an incredibly useful and easy to generate fuel. However, storage of generated H2 continues to be a problem for ordinary people. The stuff explodes in the presence of O2 and sufficient heat. Bulk storage requires massive pressure in order to provide liquefaction. But it’s so incredibly easy to generate H2 that it MUST become a simple to store and use fuel for the masses. We wait…

  6. I don’t understand the republican view that we aren’t affecting the environment. They claim that there is not a consensus on global warming; that scientists can’t know for sure that humans are the cause. How can they be so sure? Can they not look around and see many examples of our toxic influence on the environment? What if the republican view is wrong? When so many educated people around the world are absolutely positive that humans are affecting global warming wouldn’t it be smarter to proceed with the belief that human influence is affecting global warming and take some precautions?

    1. It isn’t just Republicans. There are plenty of Democrats and Independents who believe that happy thoughts and pixie dust will alter the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide.

  7. Coal companies rejoice at their optimistic future when they will be able to freely pollute all the fresh water streams they want.

  8. I want Pruitt to run out of bottled water while in the forest, needs to hydrate to remain alive, but comes across a stream full of liquid dark matter that he’s forced to drink to keep alive at least for a few hours more until he reaches a hospital to get his stomach pumped out.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.