<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Apple backs down: Macs will stay EPEAT certified</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2012/07/13/apple-backs-down-all-macs-will-stay-epeat-certified/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/07/13/apple-backs-down-all-macs-will-stay-epeat-certified/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:21:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Morgan</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/07/13/apple-backs-down-all-macs-will-stay-epeat-certified/#comment-865619</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Morgan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:14:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=542492#comment-865619</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[FYI

Federal Lawsuit Regarding Bloom Energy

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/21/884-May-Be-Bloom-Energys-Fatal-Number-Fuel-Cell-Efficiency-Federal-State-Tax-Credits


&quot;Buried deep in the permit application, in Table 1 on page 161 of a 163-page application, was the number 884. On that page, under penalty of perjury, Bloom officially told the world that its energy servers emit 884 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour.&quot;

Also buried on page 161 of the permit application is a Table 2 notation that says these 235 “clean” servers would emit 22.56 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) per day. But Delaware, like other states, regulates VOC emissions at far lower levels (Maryland, for instance, regulates boat repair shops that emit more than 15 pounds per day). Moreover, if the same amount of power had been generated by combined cycle gas turbines, only 0.249 pounds of VOCs would be emitted daily. That’s 90 times less pollution!

To top it off, because of the Bloom servers’ low efficiency and high capital cost, Delaware citizens will pay Bloom over $200 per megawatt hour of power delivered to their electricity transmission grid. But in January 2012, the U.S. Energy Information Agency said the projected “levelized” cost of electricity over the next 30 years from advanced gas-fired combined cycle power stations is $65.50 per MWH.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FYI</p>
<p>Federal Lawsuit Regarding Bloom Energy</p>
<p><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/21/884-May-Be-Bloom-Energys-Fatal-Number-Fuel-Cell-Efficiency-Federal-State-Tax-Credits" rel="nofollow">http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/21/884-May-Be-Bloom-Energys-Fatal-Number-Fuel-Cell-Efficiency-Federal-State-Tax-Credits</a></p>
<p>&#8220;Buried deep in the permit application, in Table 1 on page 161 of a 163-page application, was the number 884. On that page, under penalty of perjury, Bloom officially told the world that its energy servers emit 884 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour.&#8221;</p>
<p>Also buried on page 161 of the permit application is a Table 2 notation that says these 235 “clean” servers would emit 22.56 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) per day. But Delaware, like other states, regulates VOC emissions at far lower levels (Maryland, for instance, regulates boat repair shops that emit more than 15 pounds per day). Moreover, if the same amount of power had been generated by combined cycle gas turbines, only 0.249 pounds of VOCs would be emitted daily. That’s 90 times less pollution!</p>
<p>To top it off, because of the Bloom servers’ low efficiency and high capital cost, Delaware citizens will pay Bloom over $200 per megawatt hour of power delivered to their electricity transmission grid. But in January 2012, the U.S. Energy Information Agency said the projected “levelized” cost of electricity over the next 30 years from advanced gas-fired combined cycle power stations is $65.50 per MWH.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pjs_boston</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/07/13/apple-backs-down-all-macs-will-stay-epeat-certified/#comment-864247</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[pjs_boston]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:43:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=542492#comment-864247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually, if you check Apple&#039;s tech specs page for the new MacBook Pro, it is already rated EPEAT Gold.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, if you check Apple&#8217;s tech specs page for the new MacBook Pro, it is already rated EPEAT Gold.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pjs_boston</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/07/13/apple-backs-down-all-macs-will-stay-epeat-certified/#comment-864246</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[pjs_boston]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:42:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=542492#comment-864246</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I really don&#039;t think Apple rashly pulled its products from EPEAT and then backpedaled due to public opinion.  It isn&#039;t Apple&#039;s style to take rash action or to give a f**k about taking a little PR heat.

Here&#039;s an alternate theory.  Apple became frustrated with EPEAT because the standard wasn&#039;t adapting to give Apple credit for many of its environmental practices.  So, Apple pulled its products.  This brought EPEAT back to the table and Apple backed off.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really don&#8217;t think Apple rashly pulled its products from EPEAT and then backpedaled due to public opinion.  It isn&#8217;t Apple&#8217;s style to take rash action or to give a f**k about taking a little PR heat.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s an alternate theory.  Apple became frustrated with EPEAT because the standard wasn&#8217;t adapting to give Apple credit for many of its environmental practices.  So, Apple pulled its products.  This brought EPEAT back to the table and Apple backed off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Syrh G</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/07/13/apple-backs-down-all-macs-will-stay-epeat-certified/#comment-864085</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Syrh G]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=542492#comment-864085</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So are they recalling all the new Macbooks that have their batteries glued to the case?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So are they recalling all the new Macbooks that have their batteries glued to the case?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GigaLoam</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/07/13/apple-backs-down-all-macs-will-stay-epeat-certified/#comment-864068</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[GigaLoam]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:00:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=542492#comment-864068</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No surprise here.

Apple tried to undermine the certification by abandoning it and they failed. Now, they&#039;re working to see the standard changed to suit instead.

Different tactic, same result... 

The continued protection of Apple&#039;s enviable profit margins and inventory turnover by way of glued together, unservicable gadgets with 12 month refresh cycles.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No surprise here.</p>
<p>Apple tried to undermine the certification by abandoning it and they failed. Now, they&#8217;re working to see the standard changed to suit instead.</p>
<p>Different tactic, same result&#8230; </p>
<p>The continued protection of Apple&#8217;s enviable profit margins and inventory turnover by way of glued together, unservicable gadgets with 12 month refresh cycles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kawika Holbrook</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/07/13/apple-backs-down-all-macs-will-stay-epeat-certified/#comment-864053</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kawika Holbrook]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 18:59:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=542492#comment-864053</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[EPEAT has also posted a letter to its website, http://www.epeat.net/, about Apple&#039;s decision to return: &quot;We look forward to Apple’s strong and creative thoughts on ongoing standards development. The outcome must reward new directions for both design and sustainability, simultaneously supporting the environment and the market for all manufacturers’ elegant and high-performance products.&quot;

Seems like that may be the bigger story: helping standards keep up with innovation.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>EPEAT has also posted a letter to its website, <a href="http://www.epeat.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.epeat.net/</a>, about Apple&#8217;s decision to return: &#8220;We look forward to Apple’s strong and creative thoughts on ongoing standards development. The outcome must reward new directions for both design and sustainability, simultaneously supporting the environment and the market for all manufacturers’ elegant and high-performance products.&#8221;</p>
<p>Seems like that may be the bigger story: helping standards keep up with innovation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
