Slashdot Mirror
Apple Invests $848 Million Into Solar Farm
An anonymous reader writes: Apple is making a huge investment in solar energy, sending $848 million to First Solar's California Flats Solar Project. The deal will supply Apple with energy for 25 years. Construction of the new 2,900-acre solar farm will start this summer and finish by the end of 2016. Apple's share of the energy produced will be about 130 megawatts, while another 150 MW will be sold to Pacific Gas & Electric. "The iPhone maker already powers all of its data centers with renewable energy. Tim Cook, Apple's chief executive officer, has advocated taking more steps to combat climate change."
Obviously, this initiative will generate plenty of snarky comments and cynicism over here because, well, Apple.
But if we take a step back I think it is great that a company sets this example to combat climate change while it would be so easy not to anything that doesn't bring direct shareholder revenue. I hope that more successful companies follow this example.
is the bird incineration thing an actual concern holding back solar thermal energy?
No:
1. There are far bigger problems holding back solar thermal, especially the falling price of PV solar.
2. The number of birds incinerated is negligible compared to the number killed by things like habitat destruction.
This particular plant is PV, not thermal. So it isn't even an issue.
Solar thermal makes little economic sense. It is more expensive than PV, and the only advantage is its ability to provide base load power. But that is only a theoretical advantage, not a real one, since the current demand curve for electric power fits the production curve of PV quite well.
Great. So all the desert critters will be displaced and in constant shade.
One option for those critters would be to move to the 99.9999% of the desert not being used.
Ecologically speaking I think you could describe the desert areas of the world as biologically under-productive, true they have a unique ecology, but they are largely unthreatened because they are hostile environments (so little development historically). Now here is the thing, you can probably make these areas more bio-productive with these types of solar energy initiatives thus enabling more wild animals in total to inhabit the planet (and actually strengthen the web of life). The reason I say more bio-productive is because the heat, lack or water, and lack of shade prevent lots a plant growth. Direct sunlight is not needed for plant growth, most plants only utilize 2% of direct sunlight for growth. With large swaths of shade, there will be more plant growth because ground temperatures will be lower and more water can be maintained by what plants choose to live in the sheltered areas. While the areas may seem shady by contrast, they likely will have more than enough scattered/indirect light for plant growth. With more plant growth, more wildlife.
You have to pick your battles. Does converting deserts to energy production do the environment and biosphere less damage than business as usual? Sure it changes the environment, but to resist all change, because it alters the biosphere in someway, is not a war you are going to win. Trying to keep the Earth totally as it once was is more a religious crusade than a practical goal.
Letter To Iran
OMG, my solar plant blew up. Someone get a mop.
Versus
OMG my nuclear power plant blew up, run for your lives.
Even new nuke plants have issues with waste.