So you're criticizing Apple for thinking beyond simply making money and actually having a positive influence on the people and earth as a whole. No offense, but this attitude is exactly what is wrong with society: myopic, me-first thinking and why the capitalist system doesn't always work very well. It's nice to see a company that goes beyond just trying to please it's shareholders and actually wanting to have a social conscience.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Data Centers to Be Powered by 100% Renewable Energy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So you're criticizing Apple for thinking beyond simply making money and actually having a positive influence on the people and earth as a whole. No offense, but this attitude is exactly what is wrong with society: myopic, me-first thinking and why the capitalist system doesn't always work very well. It's nice to see a company that goes beyond just trying to please it's shareholders and actually wanting to have a social conscience.
And this headline will run later in the week......
"Greenpeace will now protest how Apple's equipment that generates the electricity from renewable energy sources is made."
Really, I don't think Greenpeace really wants to improve the environment, they just want to destroy any successful company and using the logic that because they are successful, they must be destroying the environment.
"Greenpeace will now protest how Apple's equipment that generates the electricity from renewable energy sources is made."
Really, I don't think Greenpeace really wants to improve the environment, they just want to destroy any successful company and using the logic that because they are successful, they must be destroying the environment.
You do realize that there's entire (for-profit) businesses built around laying solar panels on any structure they can, then selling the power to the building owner (at standard grid rates, mind you)? Payback time is like 5-8 years for these companies, but they stand to make a killing as time goes on, as these systems last 20+ years. Look up what a "power purchase agreement" is.
Also understand that with a large installation like this, Apple would be buying wholesale power off the grid. That power fluctuates in price based on demand. So on warm, sunny days (perfect solar power weather), Apple would have to pay way, way more for power than in the middle of the night when it's not warm out. So solar power especially makes sense when you consider this, since it is displacing the highest cost electricity that Apple would have to buy.
Ultimately, smart meters will be bringing this pricing to homes, also. Power will be more expensive at peak times, but if you can run stuff off peak it will be way cheaper that what you pay currently.
It does nothing for their PR. The only PR that has ever done Apple any good is their good products. Outside of a few select blog readers, nobody is going to even know about much less give a damn. And that doesn't account for the fact that a lot of people who do hear about it might avoid Apple products because obviously this a company which wastes time & money on doing expensive useless crap, instead of making great products.
The panels are never going to pay for themselves. Electricity in NC for a large user like this costs something on the order of $0.08 cents per kWh. Here I'm assuming this was a reason why someone like Steve Jobs might have sited the data center in North Carolina rather than someplace ridiculous like California. Even over their 20 or 30 year lifespan, unless they are collecting massive subsidies, these panels aren't going to pay for themselves.
If you have data to suggest otherwise, you should post it here.
It gets Greenpeace off their back. How is that nothing? You might not be swayed one bit by what Greenpeace says, but some people are.
Horsepucky. Maybe in a state like California with its artificially inflated electricity prices and ridiculous subsidies, some of these installations can barely scrape by. In North Carolina, with its comparatively cheap electricity prices, I'm pretty sure this is a big loser.
----------
Realistically speaking 99 % of the population doesn't give a crap what Greenpeace thinks. A few people give them lip service, even fewer really give a damn. And why should they?
realistically you do not speak for 99% of the population.
Also this helps the environment which a win/win situation for everybody living on this planet, which includes you even if you wish otherwise.
As others have said renewable energy is still an up and coming industry. The only real challenger left in the way is the fossil fuel industry, who don't care what happens to our environment
Thank you Apple management. Way to squander what Steve Jobs built..... again.
"Gee, I don't know where to take this company in the long term now that Steve is gone. I know! I'll build a solar powerplant and donate money to a cat rescue organization! Nobody will ever say anything bad about that!"
----------
Bull.
Go out and ask 100 people what they know about what Greenpeace thinks about Apple. Hardly anyone knows, or cares. Unless you tell them about it. Then they care. For about 30 minutes.
"Gee, I don't know where to take this company in the long term now that Steve is gone. I know! I'll build a solar powerplant and donate money to a cat rescue organization! Nobody will ever say anything bad about that!"
----------
Bull.
Go out and ask 100 people what they know about what Greenpeace thinks about Apple. Hardly anyone knows, or cares. Unless you tell them about it. Then they care. For about 30 minutes.
perhaps you should conduct your own surveys since you're speaking for everyone else.
And it still doesn't change the fact that this is good for our environment.
Like I said this is a good thing for the environment and for society as a whole. THis example will show other companies that renewable energy is a beneficial investment.
Bull. It's a good way for people who have money to burn to buy positive sentiment from childish people. In the long term, it gets you nowhere though.
The environment is fine.
Are people seriously trotting out the 'Steve Jobs wouldn't stand for this' argument?
You're right, these plans have just been conjured magically from the nasty shareholders and board of directors within 7 months. One minute the shareholders are greedy, profit, anti-Apple, now they have changed to being shareholders who like to piss money up the wall and devalue Apple.
This project has Steve Jobs all over it, in my opinion.
Jesus people, use your damn brains, it's common sense not rocket science.
You're right, these plans have just been conjured magically from the nasty shareholders and board of directors within 7 months. One minute the shareholders are greedy, profit, anti-Apple, now they have changed to being shareholders who like to piss money up the wall and devalue Apple.
This project has Steve Jobs all over it, in my opinion.
Jesus people, use your damn brains, it's common sense not rocket science.
actually if you're thinking long term renewable energy makes plenty of sense.
you seem hell-bent on bashing such science so please allow me to direct you to the appropriate forum
http://nation.foxnews.com/
Powered by 100% renewable energy! Well, that's swell! Maybe we can get some real news that everyone is waiting for, like when is Apple going to release some new freaking computers? They're into everything else but what made them great in the first place. I knew there would be trouble if Apple focused mainly on iStuff, and it also doesn't help that Tim Cook has the charisma of a tree sloth.
Electricity in Germany costs an average of $0.38 per kWh, yet solar panels are not economical unless people are given guarantees that utilities will be legally obligated to buy back electricity from solar users at this ridiculously inflated price. Despite this ridiculously high electricity price, it appears that solar panels are not economical in Germany without subsidies -- which Germans are getting ready to roll back, because they now realize solar is just too damn expensive.
I'm not certain what calculations you are entertaining that make you think panels will be save money on your power center bill compared the US average rate of about $0.12 per kWh. Maybe if you live in California, where artificially induced shortages and state policy dictate prices in the range of $0.40 per kWh at peak. But in North Carolina with its large user electricity prices being on the order of $0.08, I think the choice is a no-brainer.
May I ask you what state you live in and what your calculations are that a solar installation would save your company money?
----------
Childish.
The problem is the full cost of fossil fuel based electricity generation does not show up on your electric bill. The health care costs from having to breath dirty air from coal burning power plants does not show up on your electric bill. The mercury emissions from burning coal that causes brain damage in young children and fetuses does not show up on your electric bill. The toxic by-products that are stored on-site from burning coal is not reflected in your electric bill.
Don't even start with nuclear power. How is it that the nuclear power industry is exempt from any insurance claims if there was an accident?
All of these issues don't exist with solar electric panels or even wind. You are paying closer to the true cost of electricity when you use renewable energy.
It's funny because the ones who readily criticise Apple (particularly the appt. of Tim Cook) using the 'Steve wouldn't stand for this!!!' line are actually critisicing Steve himself, the person they so vehemently idolise. Steve choose Tim Cook as his successor, not the board.
Can't see the forest for the trees, wait what trees? All the trees have been cut down to make room for solar panels and wind mills
So, it looks like we have a ratio, at least in NC of 1/4 sq mile to 20MW peek generation capacity. At a 20% capacity factor (which I think is high) will generate 4MW. So for the steel mill that has a pair of 100MW arc furnaces, that is 200MW of power. So, that would be say 50 Apple sized solar panel farms. Or, about 12.5 square miles of solar panel farms to supply power to that one plant.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me, no?
I am all for re-using, using less, and such. But we need to take a step back and really look at the costs of solar and wind.
The square miles of real-estate required, the cost to human life and nature. The habitat's destroyed by running the power lines, the mining of the materials for the wind-mills and solar panels. And lest not forget the fact than many alternative energy sites are often many miles away from the users, so you have to add in all the power lines, materials for them and there own environmental cost.
It would be a whole more responsible of Apple to sit down with Obama and take him to task for not rescinding the ban on processing spent nuclear fuel to reduce/eliminate the problem created by the spent fuel sitting in holding ponds. And to put the wasted money into advanced fast cycle nuclear power plants, such as thorium reactors.
One, we can process existing spent fuel pellets into fuel for new reactors, which can, in the process of powering the nation, create significantly less radioactive "waste".