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."
Is this the kind that incinerates all the birds that fly by, just so it can boil some water in a central tower?
Or is it an actual solar cells of some sort that directly produce electricity?
They really need some sort of better name to differentiate between these...
Morphing Software
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.
C'mon. Geeks. 130 megawats of *power*. And then it'd be interesting to know: is that peak power? average?
Tim Cook, Apple's chief executive officer, has advocated taking more steps to combat climate change."
The thing is when you're the CEO of the richest company in history (maybe?), you're in the unique position of actually being able to do something instead of suggesting other people do it (aka advocating). Way to be just like the rest of us, Tim Cook.
But for today I'll be glad Apple has spent ~0.7% or whatever of it's cash reserves on something they would have to buy anyway and thus gets counted as an investment. I'd be really impressed if they took $10B or so and spent it on some promising new nuclear or fusion project. What obligation does a corporation have to do such a thing in the free market where the shareholder is king? Well, a stable environment would be good for the economy.
Now please fill me in on all the great stuff Apple does for the environment so I can be less...less impressed!
"[Apple] powers all of its data centers with renewable energy"
Solar makes lots of sense in the California desert. However, I find statements like the above really annoying. In the night, solar provides zilch. On calm days, the same for wind. Apple's data centers hang off the grid like anyone else, and the great weakness of all renewables is irregular production and lack of storage.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
$850 million for 130 MW? That's $6.50 a watt. Commercial scale solar is supposed to be around $1.60. Am I missing something here?
That's 2,900 acres of local ecological disruption through lack of sunlight.
What do you predict the results will be compared to the former farming operation?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
for their exclusive power needs. Apple just dams the sunlight.
That's right, because Apple's has a terrible track record when it comes to investing in marketing. ::rolleyes::
That all works out to about 3.0 cents per kWh (24-7).
If they're not paying extra for the actual electricity, of course. TFA seems to be saying this will be their actual cost for the electricity for the next 25 years.
I find myself wondering how they're managing such a low rate given that half the power they're buying (at least) will be generated by the local electric company the old-fashioned way (which charges about five times that for commercial power).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Powering 60,000 homes and a large organization that employs some of those residents for 25 years without blasting the top off of a single mountain or pouring contaminates into rivers sounds great for large scale power, and the panels can be replaced over time without the need for additional land.
Oh great, now a virtual Steve Jobs will start skulking around, appearing in any nearby reflective surface.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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
A slight increase in the price for a head of lettuce.
Time to offend someone
Solar farms are very compatible with ecosystems and pasture based farming.
I've seen several now and am impressed.
In a desert situation the solar farm creates shade which conserves water by reducing evaporation and creating microclimates where life thrives. That's a good thing.
In non-desert situations livestock can be grazed around the panels. Especially smaller livestock like sheep, goats, pigs and chickens. Cattle are more of a problem from rubbing on the bases but with big strong bases this becomes a non-issue. The livestock do the mowing that otherwise would be done mechanically. Done as managed rotational grazing this results in the sequestering of about 1.4 tons of carbon a year per acre or more. That's good for the environment. It also produces food, meat, from solar, the sunshine and plant activity. The moving shade of the panels is also beneficial to the livestock while letting the forages, plants, grow between them.
Big win in either climate.
Since when did shade destroy an ecosystem? Look at rainforests.
a decrease in carbon consumption.
a decrease in PGE's bottom line (fuck em)
Well our Foxconn workers are basically slaves who jump off the roofs occasionally but we better use that 75% profit margin and illegal monopoly abuse proceeds to stop global warming! (actually they just want free electricity after the panels pay for their initial investment). At least now they can get an eco-credit on those taxes that they don't pay to the US gov.
The iPhone maker already powers all of its data centers with renewable energy and it's factories in China with second-born children
Solar panels don't use/contain rare earths.
They are made form pure Si which is plus doted with Boron on one side and minus doted with Phosphor on the other side.
You learn that in 6th - 8th grade school in a physics class btw. depending when the physics education starts in school.
Regardless, it is easy to google.
So: no raw earths involved at all in PV cells.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I remember when Apple used to create products that had incredibly positive impact on the lives of billions of people all over the world. Things like the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad -- all products that basically overnight changed everyone's ideas of what could be done in their areas.
Then Steve Jobs died.
4 years later all they've done is install 2015 model chips and plate some things in gold while Ive turns the most beautiful OS in existence into some kind of Japanese cartoon about bubblegum and Tim Cook sits around ordering Solyndra products and making ads about how wonderful his is for it.
I knew that Jobs was irreplaceable and that Apple would eventually just turn into another HP or whatever. But it's actually turned out to be something much worse. They aren't just operating at a lower level of competence. They've lost everything that made them great and become something different while having an arrogance and misguided confidence that makes even Steve Balmer look modest. It's as if they can't see how they aren't doing any of the things that made Apple great.
A rainforest replacing a desert would destroy the desert ecosystem. Would it not?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Since Greens are generally afraid of rainforests turning into deserts, wouldn't this be an improvement?
Well, there are all the rare earths needed to make 2,900 acres worth of panels, so it's not like it's for free. In fact on a per MWhr basis I'm willing to bet that nuclear fission is still more environmentally friendly (though heat pollution of the cooling water source can be an issue depending on where the plant is sited).
What rare earths? These panels are made from a thin film of cadmium and tellurium on glass, no rare earths required. Tellurium is somewhat rare, if that's what you meant. Since it is mostly produced as a byproduct of copper production, the panels increase the total economic benefit derived from that environmental cost.
Nuclear being more environmentally friendly on per MWhr basis depends heavily on how you define "environmentally friendly".
As for water, "The project will also displace over 152,000 metric tons of water consumption annually based on the average California grid." So, not only no heat pollution, it will save water compared to other methods of producing the electricity.
*facepalm*
They are not: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...
But, you are right, I forgot that there are PV cells not based on Si.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I guess you don't have any idea how much land is disrupted when you strip mine for coal. It's a lot, and it continues as long as you need to feed the power plant. Solar is a one time installation.
It's nice that Apple can carve out a niche of sanity in an insane land.
But it apparently costs a pretty penny to buy sanity in CA.
LOL! I have heard this argument before. The Cats killing more birds statistic is an urban one, i.e. most of the birds they are killing are of the urban variety, like pigeons (rats of the sky), and other "pest" birds. Those big solar towers are not located in urban areas, but rather the countryside. What birds they may or may not be killing are of the more important variety...
Not that I say that it is significant, or that I am against this sort of power generation (personally I think it is fascinating), only that the cats kill more birds than solar towers, while "technically" true in volume, is a bit misleading and BS insofar as an accurate comparison goes... The same goes for window strikes really, that is an urban issue, and the type of birds are not going to be the same.
In fact, as anyone that lives in the country that has owned cats might tell you, the shoe is sometimes on the other foot in that cats are just as likely to get eaten by a predator bird...
http://www.bepreparedsolar.com...
Casteism