Slashdot Mirror


Apple Building Solar Farm In North Carolina

jfruhlinger writes "Apple's North Carolina data center will, it appears, be turning greener: the company is building a dedicated solar farm to power it. That would be a welcome turnaround for proponents of green energy, as Apple was lured to North Carolina in part by the promise of cheap electricity from coal-fired plants."

172 comments

  1. Reliability? by tp_xyzzy · · Score: 0

    I bet they get 99.9999% reliability for their electricity... Sounds just like what the data center needs.

  2. But it only works with Apple products! by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes but it will produce Apple electricity, which will only work with Apple products (such as the "licensed only" chargers for the iPhone). Sure it's possible to adapt the electricity to work with non-Apple products, but then they'll sue you for it.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:But it only works with Apple products! by drolli · · Score: 4, Funny

      moreover they will later claim that any company who offers solar electricity to charge mobile devices violates apples patents.

    2. Re:But it only works with Apple products! by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      moreover they will later claim that any company who offers solar electricity to charge mobile devices violates apples patents.

      Oh, now come on. Why would they ever do that? :)

    3. Re:But it only works with Apple products! by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Only if the solar energy is collected with rectangular panels.

    4. Re:But it only works with Apple products! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rectangular panels are fine as long as the corners aren't rounded.

    5. Re:But it only works with Apple products! by thestudio_bob · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not to be outdone, I heard MicroSoft purchased the land next to Apple's and are planning on building a wind farm. But because the wind doesn't blow there all the time, they've decided to forgo installing generators and instead put in motors so the fan blades move constantly. Do to this cost increase, they are offering sticker placement all over the structures for their preferred OEM's. Also, to get the public excited and to generate buzz, they've decided to use some of the land to hold weekly or monthly concerts. Ticket's go on sale one day before each event.

      Google, in the meantime, has come up with their own solution. They have built their own solar farm, which looks strikingly similar to Apple's, except the materials used are slightly cheaper quality. Anyone visiting the site will tracked throughout the complex (and some have even suggested they were tracked after leaving) and then blasted with offer's to buy cheap Viagra and tons of information regarding solar flares, the solar system, Solaris and the Southern Organization of Live Action Reenactments.

      --
      The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    6. Re:But it only works with Apple products! by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Since the power is going to the datacenter next door, you just KNOW they are going to use some special, proprietary power cable...

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    7. Re:But it only works with Apple products! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be outdone, I heard MicroSoft purchased the land next to Apple's and are planning on building a wind farm. But because the wind doesn't blow there all the time, they've decided to forgo installing generators and instead put in motors so the fan blades move constantly.

      As long as the turbines block the sunlight from reaching Apple's solar farm, mission accomplished.

    8. Re:But it only works with Apple products! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With rounded corners.

    9. Re:But it only works with Apple products! by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      I think you've got it - this is what *Thunderbolt* was intended for all along, don't you think?

    10. Re:But it only works with Apple products! by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      I see someone didn't do well in trig math :)

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    11. Re:But it only works with Apple products! by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Minus the proprietary, of course.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    12. Re:But it only works with Apple products! by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      FYI - two mod downs (as of typing this they haven't passed the mod ups)

      Link to the chain

      I'm going to keep a chain of these going to prove my theory, every time I get modded down for saying things critical of Apple. Yes there is a conspiracy theory - Apple fan boys working together. I actually have more than this to prove it, but I haven't dug them up yet.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    13. Re:But it only works with Apple products! by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Meant to be this link not the other one.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  3. but the power co can say you sell back the power by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    but the power co can say you sell back the power and we can use it any way you want or we can cut you off and I don't think solar works at night.

  4. Apple is stealling from the Sun!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this were Google, they'd be giving away the energy. Well, after they've used it and waited an appropriate amount of time.

    1. Re:Apple is stealling from the Sun!!! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2

      If this were Google, they'd be giving away the energy. Well, after they've used it and waited an appropriate amount of time.

      Yes, it will be beta juice for years until they get the bugs worked out, at which point everything you plug into it, from your refrigerator to your sump pump, will begin sprouting advertising and will watch your every move.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  5. Ho ho ho. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Solar must be viable because if it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't do it, right?
    Corporations always do what's in their best interest.

    1. Re:Ho ho ho. by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Solar must be viable because if it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't do it, right?
      Corporations always do what's in their best interest.

      Close enough. :)

      Construction and implementation+maintenance = loss.
      Making green-friendly people happy = increase in sales = profit increase.

      Mesh the two together, and there's a greater profit.

      They're doing the right thing. Making people happy, increasing profit, and utilizing less fossil fuel product. Well, as long as they don't reduce cost of labor through some inhumane treatment on top of this move, it's beneficial :)

    2. Re:Ho ho ho. by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Construction and implementation+maintenance = loss.
      ( Making green-friendly people happy = increase in sales ) + ridiculous government subsidies for installing solar = profit increase.

      FTFY

    3. Re:Ho ho ho. by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ( Making green-friendly people happy = increase in sales ) + ridiculous government subsidies for installing solar = profit increase.

      "Ridiculous" is just you editorializing. AFAICT the subsidies are working exactly as intended: by encouraging the adoption of solar power, they grow the solar power market, increase the economies of scale for panel production, and bring the prices down quicker so that soon we'll have solar power that's cheap enough that subsidies are no longer necessary.

      You may or may not have noticed that solar panel prices decreased by 50% last year, and the market grew by 70%. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I don't think so.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Ho ho ho. by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      and bring the prices down quicker so that soon we'll have solar power that's cheap enough that subsidies are no longer necessary.

      Wrongo. We have artificially-low prices to the end-user, with actually high prices that are masked by the subsidies that the end-user doesn't necessarily realize he's paying. Yes, it's bringing prices down faster, and it's bringing ACTUAL production costs down faster, and it will do so until solar power is cheap enough that subsidies are no longer necessary..... but that doesn't mean the subsidies will go away. Look at any other heavily-subsidized industry: Coal, oil, pharmaceuticals, wheat and corn. These are industries that pump money into politicians' election funds to ensure that their beloved tax breaks and subsidies will never go away. Renewable energy is approaching that point where they have extreme control over politics, except they have one extra benefit in that they have the undying support of the citizens as well. If we continue these ridiculous subsidies, they will never go away and we will forever be paying way too much for our energy.

      That being said, I am in favor of government funding for research, so long as that research remains public and is patented by the government and licensed free of charge, or not patented at all. All subsidies need to be eliminated... people need to know just how much money they're paying for that gallon of gas, loaf of bread, or kWh of solar power.

    5. Re:Ho ho ho. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean because the Chinese are dumping panels on the US market for cheaper than it costs for the factories to make them? This is why US solar companies are going out of business. After more US companies get shut down, you will see solar panel prices rise quite steeply.

      Look at the big picture; China is losing money by bad trade practices in order to capture the market.

    6. Re:Ho ho ho. by RCL · · Score: 1

      Your algorithm is susceptible to falling into local extrema. What if it's cheaper to pay for certain kind of energy, but it can be reasonably expected that its price will sharply go up during next 50 years? Isn't it better to pay more for another kind of energy which will stay roughly on the same level for next few hundred years?

      This is not to say that I believe in "we're running out of oil/gas" predictions. I am just pointing out an obvious flaw of a "greedy algorithm" (choose whatever is cheaper now and hope that the price won't ever go up or costs of transition to next cheap thing will be affordable) - it's like buying real estate near dormant volcano just because it's cheap.

    7. Re:Ho ho ho. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      US solar companies are going out of business? I only know of two, and both are building new factories because they managed to sell the entire production run in their current factories for the next year already.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Ho ho ho. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Look at any other heavily-subsidized industry: Coal, oil, pharmaceuticals, wheat and corn. These are industries that pump money into politicians' election funds to ensure that their beloved tax breaks and subsidies will never go away. Renewable energy is approaching that point where they have extreme control over politics, except they have one extra benefit in that they have the undying support of the citizens as well. If we continue these ridiculous subsidies, they will never go away and we will forever be paying way too much for our energy.

      So what you're saying is that we currently pay way too much for our energy because we're subsidizing non-renewable energy, and you're worried that as the renewable energy industry grows that we'll continue to pay way too much for our energy because we'll be subsidizing the renewable energy?

      It seems to me that your worry makes no sense:

      • If we assume that the subsidies won't go away no matter what then we might as well subsidize renewable instead of non-renewable energy (or along with, at least, to level the playing field).
      • If we assume that the subsidies could go away, then we should be worried about getting rid of the subsidies for non-renewable energy first.

      Either way, subsidies for renewable energy isn't the important problem.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:Ho ho ho. by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      Subsidies for ANYTHING is an important problem. Why should We The Taxpayers have to prop up an industry that can't support itself? As long as we subsidize the INDUSTRY of solar power and other renewables, we lessen the incentive for private funding of development of cheaper, more efficient technologies. We need to provide some government-funded research grants that will add to public knowledge of potential technologies... and leave the rest to private industry. Stop propping up those who can't come up with better technologies that can stay viable by themselves.

    10. Re:Ho ho ho. by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Why should We The Taxpayers have to prop up an industry that can't support itself?

      Because We The Taxpayers have an interest in weaning ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels, and (barring a miracle) that won't happen unless the new-technology companies can sell product and not go bankrupt. Your argument would make sense if solar and e.g. coal competed on a fair playing field, but there clearly isn't one -- the traditional energy sources have huge externalized costs (air pollution, war, global warming, the world's largest standing military to defend oil fields, propping up nasty dictators because they have oil) that all We Taxpayers are forced to pay for (one way or another) whether we care to or not. Those costs are not factored into the price of traditional energy. Furthermore, the traditional energy sources have mostly already paid their R&D costs, so they only have to pay for production; whereas new technologies have to pay for both research and production. Because of this, without some sort of intervention, there would simply be no significant incentive to do anything but burn coal -- its' a straightforward case of the tragedy of the commons. (If you don't like subsidies, I'm open to slapping a fat Carbon Tax on coal/gas/etc to make the prices of those products reflect their actual costs instead, but you and I both know that's not going to happen anytime soon, so subsidies it is)

      Therefore, we either do something to make development of new technologies viable, or we go without their benefits until the problems with traditional energy sources become so acute that there is no alternative. But if we do the latter, we've given up the opportunity to develop the better technology until it's perhaps too late.

      we lessen the incentive for private funding of development of cheaper, more efficient technologies

      Err... such as? Exactly what cheaper, more efficient technologies are being held back by subsidized solar power? And what makes you think that (in a subsidy-free world) these (hypothetical) superior technologies wouldn't also be stymied by the very same problems that made subsidies necessary for solar?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    11. Re:Ho ho ho. by MacDork · · Score: 1

      I noticed quite a few stories about Chinese plants decimating the local environment producing "green" solar panels and windmills. I don't think anyone is saving the planet using solar panels in the US when sludge and hazardous chemicals are being dumped in rivers around China where the panels are produced.

    12. Re:Ho ho ho. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Noooo, Apple is just being batshit crazy! You should never do anything new, only what everybody else has done before! Wasn't that how Apple got rich, anyway?

      They should burn tires for electricity, this solar thing is just a pipe dream, it's too inefficient, expensive and, even worse, it kills kittens!

      It's like that airplane thing. Stop dreaming. If men were supposed to fly, God has would have given them wings.

    13. Re:Ho ho ho. by thejaq · · Score: 1

      You're just reiterating baseless claims made by whining American firms. The Chinese players have already shown sufficiently low production costs to sell modules at 1.05 $/pW and some are structured to turn a profit at prices as low as 0.90 $/pW. There may be dumping by smaller firms going out of business and other firms (soon to be out of business who cannot compete with the economies of scales of the new big players). Isn't this destructive capitalism? I invite you to look at Jinko Solar as an excellent example of a new company structured to make bucket loads of money at present "dumping" prices. Then maybe you can further explain your accusation.

    14. Re:Ho ho ho. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Why do you think that solar, TODAY, is not worth it?

      Do you not get, over the life of the solar panels, electricity worth more than the cost of the solar panels?

      (You also get less pollution due to coal power plants not needing to run to output that electricity, gas/diesel to bring the coal to the power plants, etc..)

    15. Re:Ho ho ho. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't you be trying to get rid of the subsidies for coal and oil first? They're much larger.

    16. Re:Ho ho ho. by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      These are industries that pump money into politicians' election funds to ensure that their beloved tax breaks and subsidies will never go away.

      This is a problem with corrupt government, not subsidies.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    17. Re:Ho ho ho. by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      We need to get rid of all subsidies first.

    18. Re:Ho ho ho. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      We can't get rid of _all_ of them _first_. I agree, we should get rid of all of them. Getting rid of the biggest ones first makes the most sense.

    19. Re:Ho ho ho. by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      Not that it would ever happen... but if there were a big, successful political push demanding that we drop all industry subsidies, they could all be dropped in one act in one day. Too bad those that are receiving all these subsidies are the ones paying our representatives their second paychecks.

  6. Re:but the power co can say you sell back the powe by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    It's always been ok to convert non-Apple electricity to Apple electricity, that's why they license five volt adapters.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  7. Great by Osgeld · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now they are going to claim they invented the sun, and the stupid fucking patent office will grant it to them.

    1. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, the sun has been making apples for a long time now.

      now that prior art is dead, better file soon.

    2. Re:Great by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Now they are going to claim they invented the sun, and the stupid fucking patent office will grant it to them.

      Now, why on Earth would you say something like that? That's just..... insane. :)

    3. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why hate Apple for exploiting a Patent Office that seems to _want_ to be exploited? Until the USPTO changes, everything you've said is moot.

    4. Re:Great by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Because Apple encourages people to "Think Different" and tries to convey the sense that it's not like every other corporate entity out there.

      If they hadn't been so high and mighty about it, I doubt it would be seen as particularly significant.

    5. Re:Great by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0

      Now they are going to claim they invented the sun, and the stupid fucking patent office will grant it to them.

      Now, why on Earth would you say something like that? That's just..... insane. :)

      He was taking an obviously extreme position in order to make a valid point, I think. Two of them, as I see it: one, that Apple, Inc. has a habit of claiming developments made by others as their own (because, as everyone knows, only Apple is capable of true innovation) and two, that thanks to Congress, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have been turned into corporate whores who will grant pretty much anything to anyone. Okay, so he was more succinct that I was.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Great by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Prior art is no more "dead" than it was before the new legislation.

    7. Re:Great by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      I think Oracle would object to that patent.

    8. Re:Great by poofmeisterp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Do you know what an emoticon of a smile could indicate?

    9. Re:Great by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Do you know what an emoticon of a smile could indicate?

      Yeah, I do. My bad. I was only halfway through my first cup of coffee.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:Great by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      That's alright. I got modded down so I paid for it lol

    11. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfairly, in my opinion. Moved it back up to normal.

    12. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (*Pulls off ScrewMaster's mask*)

      Captain Obvious! (*facepalm*) I should have known!

    13. Re:Great by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Their motto is not really think differently.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    14. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because something can be exploited doesn't mean it's ethical to do so. For example, I still feel bad about exploiting your mother that one night.

    15. Re:Great by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      (*Pulls off ScrewMaster's mask*)

      Captain Obvious! (*facepalm*) I should have known!

      Hey, I already apologized for that. Deal with it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  8. Solar power... by David_Hart · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I applaud this move by Apple. I'm a big proponet of solar power. The more companies that integrate solar into their energy needs, the less expensive the technology becomes. It's finally getting to the point where an average homeowner can break even on an investment in solar.

    1. Re:Solar power... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I applaud this move by Apple. I'm a big proponet of solar power. The more companies that integrate solar into their energy needs, the less expensive the technology becomes. It's finally getting to the point where an average homeowner can break even on an investment in solar.

      If you made the price one that equaled or exceeded the current monthly/yearly expenditure on electric bills -AND- made the equipment affordable up-front, it would be a win-win.

      People are short-sighted these days with the economy being the way it is. They want to save money NOW, as well as save money long-term. Make it happen, that's your challenge.

    2. Re:Solar power... by jackspenn · · Score: 1

      You do know that green energy is the next economic bubble and Apple is an evil company, right?

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    3. Re:Solar power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, I checked out this solar power thing back in the 80's. I don't think it will work for my family.

    4. Re:Solar power... by Surt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The big advantage to green energy is that even if it is a bubble, you still accrue the long term benefits.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:Solar power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd approve of it more if they had chosen a cooler climate for the data center. Why is it when people make terribly wasteful choices that we applaud them for slightly mitigating their wastefulness?

    6. Re:Solar power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Solar panels work best outside. You should move your family out of your mom's basement.

    7. Re:Solar power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This other AC claims Apple should have set it up further south. FIGHT!!!

    8. Re:Solar power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost all companies are evil in their own, mischievous / greedy way.

    9. Re:Solar power... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      lol, the answer would be farther north. The amount of extra energy you get from the solar cells isn't likely to ever provide enough extra energy to provide the extra cooling. Heating in the winter isn't going to be a problem as the datacenter is going to produce more than enough to keep it within the design parameters.

      Of course, if somebody does ever manage 100% efficient cells and a cooling system that's 100% efficient then it might theoretically break even.

    10. Re:Solar power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you don't, solar panels dont last forever and the money that is being squandered on them could be put to much better use with other forms of energy. This is a PR gimmick.

    11. Re:Solar power... by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem with the article, however, is talking about how dirty electricity is in North Carolina, and citing coal (yes it is, and yes we have them) and nuclear (which is not exactly dirty), but just a couple hours away are major hydro-dams, on High Rock, Tuckertown, Badin (Narrows) and Falls. Most of these were created up to 100 years ago for creating aluminum, which is no longer being manufactured here, so the power goes to the main grid. And hydro is as clean and 'on demand' as you can get. These aren't the only hydro-dams around here even. NC isn't the worst when it comes to pollution from power generation.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    12. Re:Solar power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is the fact that solar panels are a false economy. They take a lot more energy in the process of making (seeding the silicon, doping it) than they will get back through their usable lifetime. It is like the adage, "to get a small fortune with solar, start with a big fortune."

      This isn't to say solar is useful -- in essence a solar panel is like a battery, where it will get energy for something that can't be hooked to the grid. However, as a primary energy source, it fails the muster of putting out more energy than it takes to make.

    13. Re:Solar power... by mlts · · Score: 1

      Bubble or no, it might be the impetus to get things shaken up in research in improving existing energy sources. Yes, I'm meaning nuclear. The problem is that virtually all reactors on line today are 1960s/1970s technology.

      To use a car example, it would be like using pushrod engines with breaker points and still fighting it out over cubic inches as opposed to better ignition systems, with no car maker wanting to use any engine design improvements in the past forty years like EFI or OHC.

      I'm hoping there is a green energy boom. This way, other energy sources might get looked at, and possibly improved. Solar is great, but what we need is improvement to nuclear and a phase-out of fossil fuels. Ideally production level fusion would be the best long-term, but until then, might as well work on thorium reactors and better idiot resistant (not idiot-proof, as there is no such thing) designs.

    14. Re:Solar power... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I think that's what solarcity is claiming to do...

      There's a lot of hype, though and I wasn't able to figure out where all the money is supposedly coming from / going, so I'm suspicious of shenanigans...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    15. Re:Solar power... by aiken_d · · Score: 3, Funny

      Unfortunately, this may be a huge setback for solar power as thousands of Slashdotters are now obligated to hate it because of Apple's move.

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    16. Re:Solar power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    17. Re:Solar power... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      To me, nuclear should be part of the mid-term solution, to reduce coal to 10% (we have lots of coal, and will always have some coal plants), reduce natural gas to "on demand systems" only (nothing beats it except hydro), and while we are both developing wind and solar, AND finding more ways to reduce consumption. We are already expected to use less per person over the next decade, as more CFLs and energy efficient appliances and HVAC systems are being purchased. The key is a balanced approach that lets nuclear provide the bulk of the power for the next 50 years or so, while these new technologies are being developed.

      Obviously, the other advantage of nuclear is that we have our own fuel and the capacity to produce it, just as we do with coal, some oil and some natural gas. There is no reason why being environmentally smart can't be good for our economy and security as well.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    18. Re:Solar power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wind power has been viable for generations. solar thermal has been well understood as well.
      photovotaics the polymers used degrade from heat. if heat resilient technology were developed they would last until it breaks.
      also are you comparing crystal silicon to thin film solar?
      thin film is real i've seen a 60" thin film transistor led tv. if we can't make solar cells with it we can make tvs/screens.
      and technically reality is what you make of it. i am reminded of the matrix, where they put a pill (virus) into the head of a human watch it go into replication and watch as he gets dumped from the matrix automatically based on the defense system. really rewatch it if you want to they say 'it's going into replication'

    19. Re:Solar power... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that all of the money is going into production. A lot of it is going to R&D. Irrespective of what happens to the investors, the results of that R&D will remain. The same thing happened with the dot-com bubble - lots of companies went bust, but we still got a lot of new technology developed while they were spending money like water.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    20. Re:Solar power... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The problem is that virtually all reactors on line today are 1960s/1970s technology.

      To use a car example, it would be like using pushrod engines with breaker points and still fighting it out over cubic inches as opposed to better ignition systems, with no car maker wanting to use any engine design improvements in the past forty years like EFI or OHC.

      Speaking of nuclear, do you know what kind of technology the planned new reactors at Plant Vogtle are going to use?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    21. Re:Solar power... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Snow/cloud shading could make a difference: further south might be better if going further north meant the cells were covered in snow for 3 months straight.

      The best place for a solar data center, IMHO, would be a cold desert.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    22. Re:Solar power... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, there are car AC units that are quite efficient. One watt of input power moves out 4 watts of heat for 400% efficiency.

      Semi-Passive techs like phase change heat pipes are wonderful devices.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    23. Re:Solar power... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Those are cars though, they're relatively small and benefit from the car's motion at times. I doubt very much that a home or office air conditioner can do that.

    24. Re:Solar power... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Also, the solar panels on the picture don't produce electricity but hot water.

    25. Re:Solar power... by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      They're using AP1000s. They're a modern form of the old pressurized water reactors developed in the 50's for nuclear submarines. Boring, but cheap and safe.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    26. Re:Solar power... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So what keeps them from using something like a pebble bed design?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    27. Re:Solar power... by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      PWRs are the "tried and tested" technology. 50 years has given us a pretty good understanding of how they work and how to handle them. Pebble bed reactors have had some issues with safety (not to say that PWRs haven't, they just haven't for a while and people have short memories). One of the biggest scares is that if air is allowed into a compromised reactor vessel, graphite pebbles will burn releasing radioactive particles in the smoke. The results of the AVR and THTR-300 reactors in Germany have also dampened interest in PBRs. Most progress will probably come from China. If they come up with a good design it may become more popular elsewhere.

      --
      404: sig not found.
  9. Oracle bought sun by vlm · · Score: 2

    You sure the facts are correct? I am pretty sure Oracle bought Sun, not Apple.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Oracle bought sun by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      You sure the facts are correct? I am pretty sure Oracle bought Sun, not Apple.

      So Apple is going to have to get a license from Oracle in order to use Sun's energy?

    2. Re:Oracle bought sun by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Apple is just investing in the Sun to encourage Oracle's lawsuits against Android.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  10. If only Apple set up further south... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The amount of incoming solar radiation increases significantly the closer to the equator you are.

    I live in Toronto, Canada, and not long ago the provincial government here made a big deal about setting up a solar array here (of course, with a significant govt subsidy).

    A critic pointed out how much cheaper it would have been to buy land in Texas, set up a solar array, and send the power back (despite losses in transmission).

    But then the govt wouldn't have had the nice photo-op...

    1. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by polar+red · · Score: 2

      that's why europe is planning this : http://www.desertec.org/organization/

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    2. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      that's why europe is planning this : http://www.desertec.org/organization/

      Well, no, 'europe' [sic] isn't plannig any such thing. A private foundation in Germany is stumping the concept, seemingly in hopes that someone will bumble along and fund them so they can continue their quest for more funding to support more funding for political lobbying and re-education of doubters and dissenters as the to value of their plan for more funding.

    3. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by polar+red · · Score: 1

      So, Germany isn't in europe ?

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    4. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by AJWM · · Score: 1

      The flaw there is that (1) photovoltaic cells are actually less efficient at higher temperatures -- an I know how much hotter Texas is than Ontario, and (2) down around Lake Erie you're as far south as (northern) California anyway; a few hundred miles won't make that much difference.

      But of course it's just PR, otherwise they'd be better off just adding another reactor to Bruce, Pickering or Darlington.

      --
      -- Alastair
    5. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 1

      More to the point, taking the actions of a small foundation to be representative of Europe as a whole is not very clever. Consider this example:

      America is planning some under-age ball fondling fun tonight http://www.nambla.org/

    6. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is, but German private foundation isn't "Europe".

    7. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link; as mentioned below: [a group in] Europe is....

      I saw this a few months back; I'll be much more interested when I see several of these being built and used. Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya might be worthy places to start.

    8. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yeah these are the same retards in the provincial government that "buy" power back at nearly 80c/KWH to put on the grid from green resources(specifically wind, and solar). And people wonder why the power rates continue to go up in Ontario. Ontario is pretty poor for anything outside of water based power generation. But the environuts don't want that, it might hurt the fish or something.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot thinks you're an idiot.

      See what's wrong with the original statement now?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Germany isn't in europe ?

      Germany is in Europe but Germany is not Europe. If you say "Europe is planning" it implies that there's some initiative from the EU (EU != Europe but that's what people generally refer to when they speak about Europe in this kind of context) or something like that. When that's not the case, saying so is both incorrect and misleading.

      Look at it like this: if a random citizen in the USA shouted out "We should totally invade Iran", would it be appropriate to report "USA is calling for invasion to Iran"? It wouldn't as such a claim implies that the USA (in this context, the government) has made such a demand, not that a random person in USA shouted something like that...

    12. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by couchslug · · Score: 2

      They should invest in Texas solar, sell the power to the US grid, then send the MONEY back to Canada.

      No transmission losses at all.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    13. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A private foundation in Germany is stumping the concept, seemingly in hopes that someone will bumble along and fund them so they can continue their quest for more funding to support more funding for political lobbying and re-education of doubters and dissenters as the to value of their plan for more funding

      Tis is only partly correct. First of all it is a european organization "Desert Tec" building it. Second of all they don't need "funding" as they have enough money to built it without it. Third of all construction is starting in 2012 for the first plant ... so who exactly needs to be "reeducated"?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Germany isn't in europe ?

      Edging on a Godwin here....

    15. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Never happen outside of regular investments by people. Besides we have such a glut of power from nukes, coal, ng and hydro based that we sell 30-50% of it to the US now anyway.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      This may be a very good thing for North Africa, in light of the Arab Spring. They have young populations, with many unemployed or barely making a living, most of the desert is just sitting there, baking away, and they'll get desalinized water as part of the deal. Jobs and job training, energy and water and someone else is fronting the cost.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    17. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The amount of incoming solar radiation increases significantly the closer to the equator you are."

      Plus, you need to go HIGHER. You get higher photon flux densities at higher elevations, plus colder temperatures.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    18. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Since Germany isn't planning it either, what's your point? (Other than on top of your head since you're so ignorant you can't tell the difference between a private foundation and a sovereign nation.)

    19. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      First of all it is a european organization "Desert Tec" building it.

      A 'European organization' isn't 'Europe' either.
       

      Second of all they don't need "funding" as they have enough money to built it without it.

      Since there isn't a 'it' they are building, rather than a concept they are stumping... (And since, right on their homepage they're asking for donations.)
       

      Third of all construction is starting in 2012 for the first plant

      Um, no. Construction is starting on a experimental demonstration concept unit - not a 'plant' in any useful sense of the word.
       

      so who exactly needs to be "reeducated"?

      You, you ignorant pinheaded jackass.

    20. Re:If only Apple set up further south... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Um, no. Construction is starting on a experimental demonstration concept unit - not a 'plant' in any useful sense of the word.

      You are out of scope.
      A 1GW plant is a plant in a useful sense

      You, you ignorant pinheaded jackass.

      Thanx for the compliment, as long as you are an ignorant pinheaded jackass with his head in his ass, I don't mind ;D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  11. Not so fast there, buddy! by Oh+Gawwd+Peak+Oil · · Score: 1

    You'll probably get some opposition to that . . .

  12. Re:but the power co can say you sell back the powe by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    For a datacenter, I imagine they'll be using grid and solar together. What the solar can't supply, the grid does instead. That way you get the solar plant running continually at capacity, but aren't held back by the irregularity of weather.

  13. They call this "greenwashing". by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    HTH.

    "It's finally getting to the point where an average homeowner can break even on an investment in solar."

    Yeah, enough subsidies from the government you might be able to afford it as well.

    Sans subsidies, a decade or more.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by polar+red · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/
      2.8% of energy subsidies go to solar. 20.2 to coal, 25.7 to oil and gas (not counting the war efforts of course ...)

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    2. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now compare the percentages against actual dollars spent.. oil, coal receive less than 1% of production as subsidy. Solar, 28%.

      Neither percentage, nor nominal amount is really a fair picture though, since one is skewed by the fact that solar "money" builds capacity, as opposed to total output, whereas the other is skewed by solar being a much lower total source.

    3. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to put this into perspective and checking the solar power production on the same year (year 2006, apparently it is about double of that for solar in 2010 ):

      Electricity net generation:
      solar: 0.6 billion KWh
      coal: 1933.7 billion KWh
      petroleum: 55.2 billion KWh
      natural gas: 618.0 billion KWh ...
      total: 3828 billion KWh.

      source: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec8_10.pdf

    4. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2

      And 3 lines further down on the same page. You get a percentage of the price which is subsidised.

      Oil & Gas 0.5%
      Coal 6.9%
      Solar 12%

      As I said. Sans subsidies it takes decades to pay back the capital costs of a solar installation.

      Go on, run the figures yourself.

      How much does your heat & electricity cost per year?
      How much is the capital cost of an installation to satisfy your requirements?
      How many years would it take to pay the cost of solar from the difference between the price of grid and the "free" energy?

      Not a good investment. Even worse if the money is borrowed to fund the installation.

      --
      Deleted
    5. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by The+Creator · · Score: 1

      Sans subsidies, a decade or more.

      10% yearly, tax free and inflation adjusted, but you can't get your primary back. I'd take it.

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
    6. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by polar+red · · Score: 1
      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    7. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      You would take it or you did take it?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    8. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      > Not a good investment. Even worse if the money is borrowed to fund the installation.

      I agree that borrowing money is probably a poor choice for this stuff, but that's true in general for depreciating assets in general IMO.

      As for "bad investment" -- not so fast. We do not have to convert solar to electric for all applications; there is a real possibility to make solar energy cost-effective when you use it to heat your home.

      I'm currently looking at a product by CanSolair -- http://www.cansolair.com/productspecs.php. Their marketing literature says that a 1,000 square foot home can have its temperature maintained with 15 minutes of sunlight per hour.

      Back of the napkin time --

      According to their spec sheet, it can do up to 10,000 BTU/hr.

      I have a 1200 square foot home, two levels (no basement), and an ideal unshaded south-facing wall upon which to put it (it will spill into the bedrooms' hallway) and a realistic outset. So, let's say I can get, on average, 40,000 BTU/day out of it during the heating season, which is Oct 20 - Mar 15 or thereabouts. That's ... 145 days or so, for a total of 5.8 MBTU in the season.

      A cord of hardwood is worth about 22 MBTU. I burn 3 to 3.5/yr, at $300/cord. This makes my annual heating cost around $1000.

      So, let's see, where was I... This means I use about 72 MBTU of heat a year, at a cost of about $13.6 per BTU. So this CanSolair thing would save me $74/yr, getting me to the break-even point in 40 years, assuming the cost of wood does not rise (which it will).

      Jesus Christ, the numbers were much better when they were discussing them on the news. Can anybody see a problem with my numbers? Maybe they were comparing a more expensive fuel source than local hardwood?

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    9. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by The+Creator · · Score: 1

      Would. Why?

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
    10. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2
      Hang on... First you say:

      You get a percentage of the price which is subsidised.
      Solar 12%

      Then you say:

      Sans subsidies it takes decades to pay back the capital costs of a solar installation

      But those two don't match up. If 12% of the price is subsidised, then without the subsidy it would cost 14% more. If the break even point is 10 years with the subsidy, then it would be 11.4 years without. For a small-scale home installation, the break even point is closer to seven years without subsidy, for a larger plant it can be anywhere from 2-5 years. Without the subsidy it would be a few months longer, not decades, unless the subsidies are closer to 80% of the price, not the 12% that you claim...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is almost irrelevant what the "cost per watt" is. Almost. You see, there is this thing called "energy storage" and "base load power", and solar is neither. I can pile up a coal heap. I can store gas and oil in tanks. I can't store electricity anywhere, except gravity, but then that is hydro and limited by geography. And please, don't even mention batteries, unless you simply want to be sarcastic.

      Who cares what "cost per watt" is when I need power when it is dark, or cloudy or when the wind doesn't blow. What is my "cost per watt" then??

      So yes, with "solar panels everywhere", all we will get is reverse peak demand. Peak power cost will come at night or when it is cloudy. When the sun is out, the spot price will be nil, and then ROI for solar will be non-existent without subsidies either.

      Anyway, here's the reality of solar. After $500 billion wasted on solar, all we get is cheap natural gas from shale fracking.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-26/the-energy-revolution-that-keeps-carbon-on-top-nathan-myhrvold.html

    12. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      I didn't take it, because a lot of R&D money is going into panels at the moment. They've gone from about 8% to 12% efficiency for cheap rooftop panels in the last couple of years, and 15% panels are available now. The theoretical peak is somewhere around 40%, and the practical peak before it starts to get really expensive is probably somewhere in the 20-30% range. Given the current rates of development, if I wait about five years then I probably won't get the subsidy (it's slowly being phased out), but I will get twice as much electricity generated for the same investment. Of course, I'd still encourage all of the early adopters to buy now and drive the prices down for me...

      That said, I only have a house to power. If I had a large datacenter, then I'd be a lot more tempted. The cost of waiting five years would be a lot more, and I'd probably want to rebuild everything in ten years anyway, so building something that will be obsolete in a decade isn't so important, especially because on such a large scale it's easy to incrementally replace panels as more efficient ones become available and the old ones wear out.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      getting me to the break-even point in 40 years

      Are you counting any rate of return for your money in an alternate investment?

      assuming the cost of wood does not rise (which it will).

      Yeah, faster than the rate of inflation around here. I've seen it nearly double in about 10 years (currently $250). But then again, so have all the other commodities, so perhaps the price is stable, it's just the Dollar and wages which have tanked.

      I have 26 acres of forest as a backup plan.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    14. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by polar+red · · Score: 1
      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    15. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by kesuki · · Score: 1

      we can see what that has done for corn and it's use to replace cane sugar, and gasoline.

      the problem is not that solar isn't practical, it's American living that isn't practical. how much plastic is in the average car? a barrel worth of oil right? and we make it look like leather, because leather is so much more sustainable, at least as long as we have McDonald's everywhere right? I've seen a fridge with leather texture on it because clearly some fictional animal eats iron and grows iron/steel skin.
      sustainability is nice, but living useful lives are more important. fears about global warming is unlikely because the sun looses potency over time. fears of asteroids and meteorites is silly, because if naturally occurring accidents end life it's not a big deal, and the waste from being able to send people into space is not good. not everything can be protected, and some people resent being treated like they are frail. otoh forcing people to do things they hate makes them hate you short term, until they realize you were right. if you were right. if you were wrong it tempers their anger, unless they don't care about your being wrong or having been forced to do the wrong thing.

    16. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the cost of the solar installation drops significantly in the future, it might be cheaper to wait. Not to mention inflation/present value arguments.

    17. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Those costs are dropping which isn't likely to be the case for the fossil fuels plants. Even if carbon taxes are never enacted, the fossil fuels have greater externalized costs especially related to air quality, radioactivity ( for coal ) and other toxic emissions. Solar (PV, not thermal ) has some from the extraction processes for the raw materials but appear to be much less than coal and are getting better as the tech matures.

      The amount allocated to Coal, Oil and Ethanol are an embarrassment; also, I've read that the oil subsidies have been in place for 100 years.
      If the fossil fuels sources are required to do CO2 scrubbing or CCS, solar will quickly surpass them in affordability, subsidies or not.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    18. Re:They call this "greenwashing". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a link to a lot of hogwash. Yes, I've actually read it! Besides stating what I've stated, that electricity storage is not practical, it goes on on a fallacy that to replace 1GW coal you only need 2.6GW wind to account for wind variability. The local utility group has about 18,000MW wind installed (there is lots of hydro, gas, coal, totaling daily output of up to 100,000MW). Well, generally, wind nets you 40% of their installed capacity - 7-8GW. That's all great, until you get into one of the hot days and you have a few days when 18,000MW wind produces less than 2000MW power, with a low of 500MW. This is over area of 1000s of sq. km!!!

      Wind is great to augment hydroelectric generation (no wind == more water, wind == less water usage). But overall, it sucks in almost any other scenario. No pun intended. You need to double your entire installation with fossil fuels, or you risk blackouts.

      Calling baseload a fallacy is idiotic. But I guess it's fine until your lights and heat/cooling turns off.

  14. Needs a much bigger solar farm by Animats · · Score: 2

    Typical high-density data center power consumption: 500w/m^2 for entire building, per floor.

    Max solar flux in NC about 1000w/m^2. But only for 6 hours a day on average. At 12% efficiency, that's 30 watts per square meter average. So the solar farm has to be 16x the size of the data center.

    We'll be able to see from the aerial photos whether they put in enough panels that it matters.

    1. Re:Needs a much bigger solar farm by Arlet · · Score: 1

      They'll just stack them 16 layers thick.

    2. Re:Needs a much bigger solar farm by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Did you take into account the effect the solar panels (on the roof) will have on the temperature in the data center?
      If the panels are 15% efficient, the amount of energy reaching the roof decreases by 15% which should lead to a temperature drop.
      If the panels are mounted on frames above the roof, some additional energy will leak away as heat radiating from the panels will heat up the ambient air rather than the roof.
      This won't make much of a dent in the 16x figure, but dropping that to 13x (assuming a 20% lower power load due to savings on AC) still saves a fair number of panels.

    3. Re:Needs a much bigger solar farm by Animats · · Score: 0

      Did you take into account the effect the solar panels (on the roof) will have on the temperature in the data center?

      They have a white roof now. Dark solar panels will increase the heat load.

    4. Re:Needs a much bigger solar farm by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      The output graph of the solar panels nicely tracks their power usage stats (assuming that AC is their biggest variable load). So the installation makes a dent in their peak power usage, which saves more money than the average price/kWh they pay would suggest.

    5. Re:Needs a much bigger solar farm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      500w that's 4380kWh/y. In NC you need around 4.5kW peak solar power, which is around 32m^2.

    6. Re:Needs a much bigger solar farm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you venture outside, you might experience shade. A shaded surface is much cooler than even a white surface.

      The solar panels produce shade as well !!!

    7. Re:Needs a much bigger solar farm by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Which has an environmental impact, though certainly nothing like putting coal exhaust in our breathing air.

      I don't understand why they're doing it this way. Green power is cheap in Iceland, there are three fiber trunks to the island, and cooling is easy.

    8. Re:Needs a much bigger solar farm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Max solar flux in NC about 1000w/m^2. But only for 6 hours a day on average. At 12% efficiency,

      This is a concentrator plant so efficiency should be 50%+ at least. One of the a new concentrator plants coming online is supposed to be 72% efficient.

    9. Re:Needs a much bigger solar farm by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Latency. You don't want to be hosting a datacenter for customers in North America in Europe (or vice versa) because the latency over the transatlantic link will slow everything down (not to mention cost a lot).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Needs a much bigger solar farm by olau · · Score: 1

      100KWh per day! We use about 1900 KWh of electricity per year (I think heating is about 4000 KWh/year, this is in Denmark). Are you running a steel mill in your kitchen?

    11. Re:Needs a much bigger solar farm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      re you running a steel mill in your kitchen?

      No! Just your typical secret underground lair.

      100KWh per day is a peak. The average is perhaps half that much.

      Now, I'm wondering about your numbers. You claim 1900KWh per year. That sounds atypically frugal. A single computer powered on 24X7 would consume that much. What about lights, cooking, heating, cooling, etc. My numbers are for a 3,000SqFt single family home. Are yours for a small apartment, perhaps?

      After claiming to use only 1900KWh per year you then say heating is about 4000KWh per year. How can you leave this out of your 1900KWh per year figure? Is your consumption 1900KWh or is it 5900KWh? Even 5900KWh per year is an atypically low number, especially for those of us at lower latitudes.

    12. Re:Needs a much bigger solar farm by olau · · Score: 1

      "A single computer powered on 24X7 would consume that much." - why would you have a 200 W computer turned on 24x7? I bought energy-conserving parts last time, the computer is probably on 8-12 hours a day. Lighting are all energy-efficient compact fluorescent bought before LEDs arrived. We cook with an electric stove every day. No cooling (except the fridge and freezer, both of which are relatively energy efficient :). Washing machine and tumble dryer aren't included, though, there's a common washing house 50 meters away.

      Heating is through what is called remote heating in Denmark - there's a coal power plant not far away that provides heating from waste heat in a 50 km radius relatively cheap. That's why I quoted heating separately. For the record, it's a 85 sq meter apartment (that's about 900 sq ft as far as I can tell). According to Danish standards, I think the insulation level is medium. New buildings here must have much better insulation.

      In any case, for me it's certainly feasible to cover the electricity bill through solar panels. The only reason I haven't done it yet is that it is a rented apartment and frankly solar isn't really big in Denmark so it's not easy to get the parts. I know from the electricity company that our electricity usage is in the low end, but definitely not abnormal in Denmark. I just checked, for October we spent 147 kWh.

      It sounds like you're spending most of your energy on cooling down the house? Maybe you need to investigate better insulation first?

    13. Re:Needs a much bigger solar farm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the solar farm is located on a separate 171 acre parcel across from the 500,000 sq. ft. data center, I don't think surface area will be too big a concern.

  15. Great they decided to turn green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is great that they decided to turn green. Good for the environment

    www.wuploaded.org

    1. Re:Great they decided to turn green by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Granny Smith, then?

      Steve is dead, the white is a decade out of fashion.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  16. uh oh by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 2

    Greenpeace is going to have a shitfit over them using chemicals, and ./ers will claim that Apple will now claim they invented solar power.

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  17. Solar Power and Latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a 15Kw Solar Panel on my roof. My Electric bill last year was £-126.00. Yep, the power company paid me... I guess I'm a Power Company.
    I'm in the UK at a latitude just a little bit south of 55North.
    You americans should go look at an Atlas and see where 55North comes on your side of the Atlantic.

    Too lazy eh?
    try this link
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/55th_parallel_north
    Does the southern edge of Hudson Bay ring any bells.

    I applaud Apple for this and anything they can do to reduce their reliance upon fossil fuels the better. I hope that other companies can follow suit and do the same.
    However (but and there is one...), Apple should have bought a few square miles in somewhere like Az, Nm or even Tx and build their power station there. There is not doubt that there are more sunny days in that part of the US than in North Carolina.
    Still, 'Every little helps'...

    1. Re:Solar Power and Latitude by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I have a 15Kw Solar Panel on my roof

      What was the actual power production from it?

      My Electric bill last year was £-126.00.

      How long does that make your payback period?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Solar Power and Latitude by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      Don't know what it cost, but he's making ~$10,000 every four years.

      --
      404: sig not found.
  18. Yeah, too bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad Apple actually cares about product quality. Things are licensed for a reason, sometimes, besides pure profit.

    1. Re:Yeah, too bad. by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      yea because its so hard to get a stable 5 volts that no one could possibly be trusted with it besides apple

    2. Re:Yeah, too bad. by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you're learning.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    3. Re:Yeah, too bad. by Osgeld · · Score: 0

      I learned a many years ago, supply 5 volts add a resistor voltage divider and there is apple's big secret, they are known for that petty shit, ie "too dumb to find the magic button under the cpu in your powermac 8500? no problem just spend a 100+ bucks for a "genius" to reset your bios"

    4. Re:Yeah, too bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your example is a 16 year old desktop?

  19. Solar power sucks too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People are bitching about solar power too? No wonder conservatives say that environmentalists want to turn back the clock on civilization.

    1. Re:Solar power sucks too? by pianophile · · Score: 1

      People are bitching about solar power too? No wonder conservatives say that environmentalists want to turn back the clock on civilization.

      I think a lot of people on /. (and elsewhere) just live to complain. Some things never change....

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
  20. Coal? NC is a nuclear power plant state... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of North Carolina's cheap electricity comes from nuclear power plants. I'm curious where these coal burning plants Apple was lured by are...

  21. Tweak by jvonk · · Score: 1

    I believe you forgot to calculate your stove/fireplace efficiency, which will cause your calculations to significantly overstate the value of your firewood. Let's say you get 40% heating efficiency out of your hardwood.

    Also, the CanSolair spec sheet conflicts with unit conversion. 10,000 BTU/hr is 2900 W. Their spec sheet lists 1200 – 2400 W, so let's use the 2400 W figure, though this was cited as being the noon-hour, highest output value. I am going to decline to calculate an integral for the total estimated daily output based on solar incidence angle, etc, and we will just use your 4 hr period.

    Also, I am going to abjure the "rods per hogshead" Imperial units and calculate using SI units.

    Firewood: 22 million BTU per cord * 3.5 cords * 40% = 32 GJ per season (Google Calculator is made of win)
    CanSolair: 2400 W * 4 hours/day * 145 days = 5 GJ per season

    5/32 is roughly 15%, so one might expect you to be able to shave off up to $150 per year. Again, these estimates likely favor the CanSolair by overstating the expected output (also, don't forget the electrical cost of running the blower for the CanSolair). Calculating the present value of that annuity is left as an exercise for the reader.

    PS. Okay, I lied about not doing the calculus (couldn't resist). I calculated the value of a sawtooth integral (rather than a sineform), presuming 8 hours of sunlight per day and a triangular slope that started at 1200 W at dawn, peaked to 2400 W at noon, and then doubled that for the afternoon - dusk period. I have no idea if the CanSolair actually delivers 1200 W at dawn, but we are trying to give it the fairest possible shake here. The CanSolair delivered an additional ~50% in this flawed estimate vs. the one in the above calculations.

  22. Good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that children working 16 hrs / day in China to build Apple products will rejoice hearing these wonderful news.

  23. right by smash · · Score: 1

    Are apple good or evil today. Wait, what am i saying, this is slashdot....

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  24. Apple did get where they are wasting money by amightywind · · Score: 0

    Apple didn't get where they are my malinvesting in feel good projects like green energy. Sorry to disappoint the proponents of green energy, but you have pretty much been proven a fraud, to the economic ruin of us all.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  25. Interesting by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they can make it in memory of Steve Jobs. That would be a nice gesture. Put part if it on the grid so to put electricity back in the system. And the revenue can be used to decrease everyone hydro bill. :)

    --
    [($)]
  26. They better invest in LED lighting by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Fluorescent is wasteful, LED has gone past HID efficiencies. This will make those energy savings go even further.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  27. Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I saw the post I was wondering how adding solar cells would make Apple even more evil to the Slashdot crowd. No evil comments but no positive ones either. Honestly can Apple do anything positive to most of the Slashdot community? People complain that there's Microsoft bashing but there's always people defending Microsoft it's Apple that is constantly trashed. Yes they aren't open sourced, neither is Microsoft, and yes they tend to close their products to competitors but that's business. Don't like them don't buy their products, problem solved. I have problems with Apple but it's legit stuff like them hosing Final Cut Pro leaving the pros in a lurch. Bad move. They want to sell iPhones to people that think CD trays are cup holders and not support the professional market. There's always Media Studio Pro and many of us left for the last pro option out there. Just wish I hadn't wasted years with Final Cut now. Bash Apple for legit reasons not because they dress funny. The solar panels are a move in a positive direction so give them a tiny bit of credit. And no obviously roof top solar cells can't power a data center as some have pointed out but it's called a bloody offset. It's like buying a car that gets 50 mpg instead of one that gets 15 MPG. Yes it still burns gas but it burns a whole lot less. Once again at least acknowledge the attempt!

  28. Duke-Progress is applying for a 16.4% rate hike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the story behind the story has nothing to do with Green this or that. It has to do with price stability. Duke-Progress, of which I am a customer is applying for a massive rate hike to recoup the costs of the merger between Duke and Progress which was supposed to be merited on the efficiencies and cost savings which would result.

    Isn't that awesome? Create the largest power company in the US, tell the regulatory agencies it's to give better rates. Then jack the rates to the sky after the merger completes. And NC and the Federal government have, to my knowledge never turned them down for a rate hike.

  29. Best interest in the circumstances by Quila · · Score: 1

    Solar has government subsidies behind its manufacture and tax breaks to the company utilizing it. It's possible that solar isn't profitable without our tax dollars supporting it.

    Solar also has fewer regulatory hurdles to overcome than traditional sources of energy, lowering its relative cost for power companies to implement.

  30. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to say I like the new Apple management. What changed?

    Oh, right.

  31. iCloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iCloud...Only accessible if there are no clouds.