Apple's Data Centers Now Running on 100% Renewable Energy, Corporate Facilities at 75%

[0815]

I'm sure somebody will complain - for what reason ever.

it already started ... Haters will always hate.

 

[JHankwitz]

I guess Green Peace will find other things to b*tch about

Greenpeace has to justify their existance in order to get donations to support their extravigant lifestyle. They're on a Witch Hunt, meaning they'll always find something to get the media attention they so desperately need to get funding. Apple is a perfect target because it will always ensure top media placement.

 

[samcraig]

This just in, Samsung has also announced that they are green energy aware and that the are at 150% already.

The CEO of Samsung was heard saying, "We work on this for soo long. We are proud once again to make something bigger than Apple."

In response to someone asking what the time is, Samsung's CEO hit hit himself in the face with his 26" S-Watch and knocked himself out cold.

I'm curious why you would want to devolve this thread into yet another Apple vs Samsung thread. Aren't there enough of those?

Well done

 

[TallManNY]

Not true. Most corporations don’t adopt “green technology” to simply “make more profit.” They use it because it is the right thing to do for the health of the planet. The added benefit is that such moves are positively viewed by the public, thus potentially improving the overall “image” of the company. Typically, for a standard business whose main focus of operations does not involve the “green economy,” environmental and sustainability initiatives are perused when they don’t negatively impact the bottom line of the company past a certain threshold. If profit was the motivating factor, you wouldn’t really have any companies pursing sustainability initiatives.

Actually, making a profit happens more often than you would think. I'm doubtful this solar farm is making a profit though. But I'm also guessing over the long run it isn't going to cost too much.
Companies do conservation things for heating and electricity use that are green and often save the company money. So while they try to get a PR boost, that isn't always the only aspect.

 

[krye]

I feel bad for the guy in charge of brushing the snow off those things.

 

[JHankwitz]

Energy from solar panels is usually more expensive than buying it from the plant...

Far, far more expensive. Initial cost is bad, life expectancy and efficiency are a lot less than advertized, but maintenance is the killer. It's like owning a yacht (a hole in the water into which you constantly dump money to impress others).

 

[E.Lizardo]

This is awesome if it was pure Solar/Wind. A lot of times renewables just contain other CO2 gas producers like natural gas.

I thought concentrated solar was the better way to go instead of these large expensive panels in terms of cost/efficiency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

LARGE SCALE solar is a joke.There is not and will never be enough land area on the planet to meet our needs,even at 100% efficiency.Especially if we want to grow food and live above ground.
Spain is bankrupt largely because of it.

 

[Peace]

Looks like the Prineville data center in Oregon will be the same.

http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2013/03/apple_outlines_green_energy_pl.html

 

[FreeState]

Agreed, they costs a lot ...

I recently tried to do the math to figure out if it is worth for me to put solar panels on my roof. It would take me ~20 years to recover the cost (I live in PA, would be different in CA) and the estimated life time of those panels would have been ~25 years. Needless to say I figured it is not worth it, given the huge upfront cost and the long time to recover the cost. Apples main datacenter is also in a location that is probably also not getting optimal sun exposure.

But it is great to see that Apple is investing some of their cash into this great project.

We just installed solar panels at our house. It's costing us $50 less a month than without them. We paid nothing down, got $1000 back, its a $20 year lease. No upfront cost, nothing down, $1000 instant rebate and we save $50 a month right away.

Granted we are in California.

 

[JarJarThomas]

So....without knowing where to find more detail....if any one or combinations of these resources do not have enough power output - because they are intermittent resources, Apple is using battery power to replace the need?

I find it more probable that Apple has enough contractual or even installed capability to run at 100%. Having installed capability does not equate to what is available from the unit. For example, a 100MW wind farm (installed capability) rarely outputs 100MW, so to truly get 100MW at all times, you may have to install a 500MW windfarm. (assuming a 20% capacity factor) I highly doubt Apple would install up to 500MW, as this would be a ridiculously stupid idea.

Saying that you are "now running on 100% Renewable Energy" also implies that Apple is somehow managing its supply to demand via these resources in perfect harmony. HIGHLY doubtful.

Here is what is happening....the resources are pumping power into the grid. To the extent the power offsets or exceeds Apple's demand...great, they may even receive a credit from their local utility. To the extent there is no wind, sun, or low water levels, Apple is buying from the local utility.

First it is not so unrealistic to have power at nearly 80% all time.
Because in most situations if it is cloudy and you can't have sun you have windenergy.
Second also in most cases excess power gets stored and used if not longer necessary.
You could pump water, you could use energy to create gas, you could store the energy as heat.
If you do all this in a clever way (and i am sure it is done clever, because at such large scale it just makes sense) you can have 90% of the time enough power.
And if not you buy green power from another source.

 

[0815]

LARGE SCALE solar is a joke.There is not and will never be enough land area on the planet to meet our needs,even at 100% efficiency.Especially if we want to grow food and live above ground.
Spain is bankrupt largely because of it.

Nobody says we need to replace all energy sources with solar ... the future will be a mix of different renewable energy resources and also existing techniques will improve more and more over the years, so you will need less and less 'space' for them. I agree, if you want to replace right now everything with solar panels, that would be a problem - but nobody want to do that. We just need some pioneers that invest big time in that technology so that it can keep improving.

 

[FreeState]

Here is what is happening....the resources are pumping power into the grid. To the extent the power offsets or exceeds Apple's demand...great, they may even receive a credit from their local utility. To the extent there is no wind, sun, or low water levels, Apple is buying from the local utility.

Thats how it works here in California, for everyone. It's actually state law that you can not go "off grid" unless you live in a place that is not already being serviced by the electric company.

 

[oliversl]

Those are lots, lots of solar panels!

 

[0815]

We just installed solar panels at our house. It's costing us $50 less a month than without them. We paid nothing down, got $1000 back, its a $20 year lease. No upfront cost, nothing down, $1000 instant rebate and we save $50 a month right away.

Granted we are in California.

Yes, when I was using various online calculators I figured that it might be worth doing it in California - but in Pennsylvania we just don't have enough exposure to the sun which means you either need a lot more panels or not enough savings with the smaller amount of panels

But the technique will improve and I will check again in a few years.

 

[socbyset]

As they cruise around in the ocean in their diesel powered ships.

OK, at the risk of being overly pedantic, Greenpeace now actually cruises around in a purpose-built ship running primarily on wind power backed up by a hybrid engine

source

 

[Antares]

Actually, making a profit happens more often than you would think. I'm doubtful this solar farm is making a profit though. But I'm also guessing over the long run it isn't going to cost too much.
Companies do conservation things for heating and electricity use that are green and often save the company money. So while they try to get a PR boost, that isn't always the only aspect.

True. But profit is a plus. My company, for example, makes thousands of dollars recycling paper. That money is a bonus to us. We don't recycle this paper, though, becuase we make money off it.

Companies look for intiniatives that will not be a finanical drain to the company in the long run. As long as they can get close to breaking even, those are the ones persued. Except in certain industries, profit is the the primary objective.

 

[iGrip]

And the problem with this is ???

I have no problem with it. IMO, apple is a huge corporate behemoth that exists only to shovel money out of the pockets of regular people and put it into the pockets of the hedge funds.

However, some other people seem to have a problem with that. They think that Apple is an organization which exists to bring change the world or some other such happy horse hockey.

 

[rbrian]

My company has the 2nd largest vehicle fleet in the UK, and the highest electricity use in the 2nd largest buildings estate. By 2020 - only 7 years away - we're aiming to be carbon negative by a factor of 3 - that is, for every tonne of carbon our activities produce, our customers will be able to save 3 tonnes. It's ambitious, but definitely possible. We're doing it for commercial reasons of course; the cost of energy is projected to rise higher and higher; but also because many of the people who work here, including our CEO, genuinely believe that it's the right thing to do.

We're not installing solar panels on our buildings, except for a pilot scheme. The payback time is around 8 years, so we're concentrating on fast payback efficiency instead - automatic lights replacing ones which used to be left on all night pay for themselves in months; running fewer data centres at closer to full capacity; retuning the vans; increasing the quality of work thus reducing repeat visits; adjusting the air conditioning; and other schemes pay for themselves within 1 year. We're buying more and more of our energy from renewable sources, but there isn't yet enough installed capacity to cover our energy use.

That energy is used to provide communications services which can in some cases replace travel; which is a large part of the saving we're counting on.

 

[iGrip]

Some people always find something to complain ....

Honestly I don't care too much about their true motivation (which no one here on the forum knows) - but I love that they are investing in renewable energy and setting an example that hopefully others follow

If they do it for 'PR', fine by me ... if they do it because they love our planet, even better.

Now Google & Samsung: it is your turn to 'copy' this. (and if you do, I won't blame you for it, I will applaud)

How does anything I said constitute complaining? And how does your reply counter anything I said?

 

[Squilly]

That's impressive. Kudos to you Apple.

 

[0815]

My company has the 2nd largest vehicle fleet in the UK, and the highest electricity use in the 2nd largest buildings estate. By 2020 - only 7 years away - we're aiming to be carbon negative by a factor of 3 - that is, for every tonne of carbon our activities produce, our customers will be able to save 3 tonnes. It's ambitious, but definitely possible. We're doing it for commercial reasons of course; the cost of energy is projected to rise higher and higher; but also because many of the people who work here, including our CEO, genuinely believe that it's the right thing to do.

We're not installing solar panels on our buildings, except for a pilot scheme. The payback time is around 8 years, so we're concentrating on fast payback efficiency instead - automatic lights replacing ones which used to be left on all night pay for themselves in months; running fewer data centres at closer to full capacity; retuning the vans; increasing the quality of work thus reducing repeat visits; adjusting the air conditioning; and other schemes pay for themselves within 1 year. We're buying more and more of our energy from renewable sources, but there isn't yet enough installed capacity to cover our energy use.

That energy is used to provide communications services which can in some cases replace travel; which is a large part of the saving we're counting on.

Would solar panels work in the UK? I thought it is always cloudy and raining there

 

[2457282]

This is apples next big thing. Not the tv, but the renewable energy. Keep building out their energy production and sell excess back to the grid. Just log in to iTunes and download the energy you need. Awesome!!

 

[iGrip]

We just installed solar panels at our house. It's costing us $50 less a month than without them. We paid nothing down, got $1000 back, its a $20 year lease. No upfront cost, nothing down, $1000 instant rebate and we save $50 a month right away.

Granted we are in California.

That sounds like the sort of deal offered by Elon Musk's company, SolarCity. Is that who you used to get set up?

 

[rbrian]

Would solar panels work in the UK? I thought it is always cloudy and raining there

That's simply not true! Sometimes it snows.

 

[iGrip]

Here is what is happening....the resources are pumping power into the grid. To the extent the power offsets or exceeds Apple's demand...great, they may even receive a credit from their local utility. To the extent there is no wind, sun, or low water levels, Apple is buying from the local utility.

Well, yeah. I would be pretty amazed if Apple was not grid-connected.

But keep in mind that they set up fuel cells too. So whenever the solar system is not putting out much juice (which would likely be most of the time, given that it is nighttime much of the time) the fuel cells kick in. Despite the fuel cells burning natural gas to operate, Apple has some sort of deal with agricultural sources to get "renewable" gas to run the fuel cells.

So I'm not at all sceptical that Apple's actual generation of "renewable energy" equals or exceeds its consumption, averaged out over some reasonable length of time. Maybe not moment-to-moment. But on average? Why not?