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."
First Solar only does photovoltaics, so no birds will be incinerated.
http://www.firstsolar.com/en/about-us/projects/california-flats
Call me stupid, but is the bird incineration thing an actual concern holding back solar thermal energy? Or is just classic /. sarcasm? The former scenario sounds just impossibly stupid enough to be real
This isn't concentrated solar power (CSP) it is CdTe "thin film" flat panel photvoltaics. They do have distinguishing names, just don't count on Reuters to get it right. AFAIK, there is no CSP station that incinerates all the birds that fly by. There are some CSP plants that can burn birds that fly too close to the focal point on the central tower...
The Apple iSolar panel will have a brushed aluminum back, rounded bevel and will do everything but generate solar power.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
$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?
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.
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"
Yes, to both. CSP has been known to singe/kill birds that fly into the concentrated light.
OTOH, the number of birds killed that way is insignificant compared to the number killed by house cats, or by flying into windows. It's a non-issue except for people who want to argue using emotional appeals instead of rational cost/benefit evaluation.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
yes trees can do that.
One tree provides shade in the desert, to cover the floor of the desert, you'd need a forest. But then it wouldn't be a desert anymore.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
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
The thing is when you're the CEO of the richest company in history (maybe?),
Not even close
Dutch East India company at an inflation adjusted capitalization of $7,000,000,000,000.00
http://www.fool.com/investing/...
But that .0001% is their rightful homeland as proclaimed by the Great Lizard Godking.
When did Hillary say that?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
1. There are far bigger problems holding back solar thermal, especially the falling price of PV solar.
Solar thermal makes a good base load supplier, and can react fairly quickly to changes in demand which makes it ideal for backing up solar PV. Price isn't everything, we need different technologies to solve different problems.
Considering what early solar thermal plants are costing it looks like it will be very price competitive with the alternatives (nuclear, coal, gas) and is of course very clean. Bird deaths are similar or lower to nuclear and much lower than coal, and they are all a fraction of the carnage caused by domesticated cats.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Peak consumption is around 7 pm, after solar drops off.
I live in California, and I pay "time of use" rates. I pay more for noon to 6pm. That would make no sense at all if the "peak" was at 7pm. According to PG&E: Peak periods occur from noon to 6 p.m., May through October.
Visit the California ISO site caiso.com and look at their renewable graphs.
I found nothing on that site that backs your assertion. Can you cite a specific page?
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.
Solar thermal makes a good base load supplier
In theory. In reality, California does not lack base load capacity, we lack peak load capacity. So providing extremely expensive electricity in the middle of the night, when prices are lowest, has little practical benefit, and is financial insanity.
Solar thermal may make sense in locations with base load shortages, and high wholesale prices around the clock, like Hawaii. But it makes no sense in California.
Peak load goes for about 4 hours beyond sunset. Solar thermal can cover this peak load. With Solar PV - you have to build plants that are only used 4 hours per day. http://www.caiso.com/outlook/S... Cooking birds is a real problem for some forms of solar thermal plants but not the solar trough plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.... If your only goal is to prevent CO2 release and cost of electricity does not matter - then Solar PV is the way to go. If your goal is to minimize total daily electric cost while decreasing CO2 - Solar thermal is probably a better option.
Pray tell, how much of a company's cash reserves should go towards impressing you?
Well since you're asking me, obviously ALL of it!
But seriously I am glad that when given the option of buying power from the grid (mostly coal) or a new PV project, they chose PV. BUT....its not like they stuck their neck out very far. Apple will (probably) need power for 25 years, they just paid for it up front. Their "investment" is essentially a purchase or a sunk cost for the future (probably not using that term correctly but hopefully you get the point).
All these tech companies have immense power (aka money) to make an epic statement. "In its most recent quarterly SEC filing, Apple reported that it had $158.8bn (£94.9bn) in cash and cash equivalents" (forbes). How many new hot text apps can they possibly buy with that? Its great that the $0.8b ended up in a new PV project that will pay itself off over 25 years. But think about how much impact just 10% of their straight up cash would have if truly invested in advanced power generation research over the same time. Half their cash is somewhere in the ballpark of the cost of 1/4 of our operating nuclear plants! Throw in some of their marketing expertise to shut up the anti nuke crowd and they could probably build more and single handedly eliminate coal as an energy source in the US with money to spare!
So yeah when you're worth ~$3/4 TRILLION, choosing to buy power from one source vs another doesn't really count as more than advocating, when just a little more risk you can make sweeping changes in a field that desperately needs it. Proportionally, all apple is doing is talk.
True today, but even California needs clean base load going forward.
No it doesn't. Electricity consumption is falling, as people adopt LED lights, more efficient TVs and computers, adaptive thermostats, etc. California is unlikely to need any additional base load for the foreseeable future.
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.
Rofl.
A NEW solar thermal plant might be more expensive then an EXISTING nuclear plant.
But a NEW thermal plant is cheaper than a NEW nuclear one.
Replacing existing stuff, whichs investments are written off, with new stuff, regardless how cheap, is always difficult.
Does not change the fact that per W a new solar plant is the second cheapest thing you can build in our times (regardless of PV or CST) The only thing cheaper is wind.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.