Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't care if it's a tax stunt, publicity stunt, or just for the bottom line, getting renewable energy more popular is a good thing for all of us, and I applaud Apple for doing this.

Its too bad they have to clear cut so much forest land to do this type of thing. I think a better solution can be found than this one.
 
Just for reference, for those unfamiliar with fuel cells:

The "stack" that needs replacing periodically is the fuel cell. I don't know the details of the units from this particular manufacturer, but a fuel cell unit will consist of an actual "stack" of individual fuel cells (a solid or molten membrane of some kind, support framework, and gas transport/diffusion plates and/or media), and then the rest of the ancillary equipment that makes it work--gas plumbing, electrical equipment to convert DC to AC, cooling radiators, etc.

But if you're being precise, the stack is the only actual fuel cell. It's the engine in the gasoline generator equivalent, it's just that we've taken to calling generators "engines" in the case of fuel cells.

They're usually a large part of the expense of the overall system, but the part that lets the electrochemical reaction work degrades over time, hence the need for replacement (or rebuilding with new electrochemical membranes, in some cases) periodically. How frequently differs wildly depending on the particular technology and how much the cells are used.
 
I was more wondering about the impact of the loss of 100 acres of trees - but similar thoughts. (didn't see many solar cells on the building roof or over the parking lot either...)

Its too bad they have to clear cut so much forest land to do this type of thing. I think a better solution can be found than this one.

A quick look at the terrain seems to show the general area is not a heavily forested, with other tree-less spaces that seem big enough to accommodate the location, no?
 
A couple of days ago I was at a PC website reading about Google's solar power plants. And it's all nice and dandy, but it was amazing the pure anger that some people had over the fact that solar panels were being used, as apposed to nuclear/gas/coal. Like after reading that story, I couldn't imagine anybody caring, but political ideology, or ideology of any kind can really turn some people to lash out with blind emotions. Lashing out because they think Google is doing it to some how kiss the ass of tree huggers, as if that's going to bring them maximum cash or something.

----------

Really? I thought Google were really in to this sort of thing.

Seriously. MacRumors needs to do it's research. Or at least update their post.
 
I'm a bit concerned that Apple is wasting energy by having the sheep walk in and out every day to mow the lawn, as it were. If they could attach little wheels that the sheep could drag behind them to charge up some micro batteries, I'd feel better about it. And maybe they could use the wool is some way, perhaps have it spun into yarn by Tibeten monks who could make eco friendly iPod warmers.
 
Or…. It could be the fact that when analyzed over the entire life of the system - including the cost and environmental impact to create the "green tech", and then at end of lifetime to properly dispose the "green tech", usually the "tech" isn't very "green" at all.

It frustrates me no end how so many now think that things just grow on trees, that they don't require painful gathering from natural resources and extensive, complicated, and often dirty acts of creation. Or that they naturally compost into the ground after it has run its course, and a butterfly sanctuary will magically pop up in its place.

One of the beautiful things about fossil fuels is that they are an energy source as well as an energy storage system. Say what you will about the businesses involved, but that's a really solid "green" built-in advantage for those forms of energy.


No one thinks this stuff grows on trees, but neither do the control systems, infrastructure, and materials for a fossil fuel infrastructure. You are downplaying, like our entire economy does, the real cost of fossil fuels, which include the risks and eventual clean up of massive and also smaller spills. You also have to include pollution, like mercury and lead, that coal-fired power plants emit. Just those two pollutants alone account for millions of dollars in health complications. There's plenty of other considerations like runoff from strip mines, vented methane from oil fields (albeit that is sometimes captured), etc...

I think it's a matter of how many points of pollution there are for each energy source, and I think solar/wind/geothermal/wave/whatever else is far better than gas, oil, and coal. And that advantage will only increase as our economy/infrastructure transitions to more sustainable forms of energy.
 
I ask one question: What are you going to do with all that money when we have no climate, food, water, or earth to live with?

Kan-O-Z

That quote right there is the problem. You base all your facts on a completely FALSE premise. "no climate, food, water, or earth to live with?" It is laughable if you believe that. I just hope you drank ALL the koolaid and didn't leave much for the rest of the low information society!
 
Has been done for about 2000 years. Apple does it -> amazing

What's amazing is not that Apple is also using these technologies, it's that Apple uses them exclusively, which exponentially increase the cost. This is like a factory making sure to endlessly reuse all of the water they used.
 
A couple thoughts

So we have to mow down tons of trees to get these solar arrays to generate enough power to run these massive plants. And these solar panels are made from all these rare earth minerals & such. I just wonder sometimes what the real environmental advantage is there. I also wonder what the lifespan of these panels is. Additionally I don't know a lot about the "fuel cell" tech, I'm guessing it has similar trade-offs? I always think of the "fact" that material (energy) can neither be created nor destroyed and just how long it takes for this "energy saving" tech to pay off if it does.
 
Dirt? It looks like they're spraying with herbicides. Most likely RoundUp. Ick.

They should be grazing sheep and pigs under those solar electric panels or letting it be a meadow.
 
I'm a bit concerned that Apple is wasting energy by having the sheep walk in and out every day to mow the lawn, as it were. If they could attach little wheels that the sheep could drag behind them to charge up some micro batteries, I'd feel better about it. And maybe they could use the wool is some way, perhaps have it spun into yarn by Tibeten monks who could make eco friendly iPod warmers.

Or maybe iSheep provide the source for the biogas fuel cell? (poop to power) :D
 
Anyone else feel like if all they'd done was raised the solar panels by about 20 feet they could have used the rest of the 100 acres for something else? Kind of seems like a waste. Not to mention not a great use of square footage/solar panel..

Land is cheap out there. Raising the solar panels off the ground would have made installation much harder (folks would have had to work on elevated platforms), repair and maintenance gets harder, and more materials need to be purchased. For that effort and added cost you would have gotten some accessible land which is pretty much always in the shade but is covered by high powered electricity generators, has a consistent low "buzz" from inverters, and the possibility of electrocution. You really wouldn't want to hang out in this space every day for 8 hours a day, so who do you think would have used this land you freed up by placing the solar panels up high? The added construction costs alone for the elevation might have been more than just buying flat land out in that area. Land in a remote area can be only $5,000 per acre. Land perpetually covered by solar panels is probably worth far far less than that.

Sometimes they put solar panels on top of parking lots. That seems to work. But there aren't nearly enough cars in the entire county to justify a 100 acre parking lot.
 
A little off topic but two things baffle me:
Apple is winning either way. When the US gets more populated and people move into these areas, it doesn't leave them with much. Land is cheap but it'll be full of these solar panels instead of housing. Same with KY, full of warehouses.
The other: we harvest energy from the sun. Think about that for a second. Hundreds of thousands of miles away and using under 1% of its energy, yet still powering so much is baffling (in a good way). Off topic rant over.
On topic: kudos to you Apple.

Roughly 92,960,000 miles from the sun. Even MORE amazing! :eek:
 
It's simple and disturbing at the same time. Big business will do anything to keep their business running strong, including destroying the earth and our health so they can continue to make profits. They will spend $$$ on lobbyists and buying up politicians to ensure that the laws promote their business and hinder any sort of alternative. Finally they will spend $$$ on brain washing people to support de-regulation of our government (telling people that the government takes away our freedom) to get people to vote for politicians that support de-regulation. De-regulation is great for them as it allows them to continue with their unethical practices to make even more money.

I ask one question: What are you going to do with all that money when we have no climate, food, water, or earth to live with?

To those that are big business supporters and anti government....just know that big business is even worse than big government. They leave you with little to no choice in what you eat, drink, buy and breathe. Unlike big government, they actually have an agenda...to make money at any cost.

I applaud Apple for doing this. I applaud companies like Tesla to create our modern electric car. Times will change soon.

Kan-O-Z

It always amazes me how little faith "Green" folks have in the ability of the planet to overcome environmental influences. Look at how non green volcano's are and yet, the earth goes on. She's a lot tougher than you all give her credit for.

We are heavy users of non renewable resources, but technology will improve, and more alternate power sources will become available and more efficient. Don't look at non renewable as needing to be sustained for the next 10,000 years. We just need them now. Easy energy fuels progress.
 
Cost per KWH?

Why is it that they never include the expected total cost per Kilowatt Hour for these installations. It must be too expensive and stockholders would revolt if they knew the truth.

Costs:
Initial production byproduct polution
Cost of the units
Cost of the land
Cost to install
Ongoing maintenance costs (cleaning & repair)
Replacement costs
 
The question here, as with all "green projects", is the net result. What is the net of removing vegetation that consumes CO2 and generates oxygen versus the CO2 produced by burning gas to produce the electricity? Or the almost zero CO2 produced by nuclear power? What about the methane gas produced by the sheep? As well as the oxygen they consume and the CO2 they exhale? Compared to letting the grass simply grow, consuming CO2 in the process and producing oxygen? As mentioned previously we can't ignore the environmental costs in producing the solar panels themselves.

Many so called "Green projects" are all about the gross, with the net result ignored because its inconvenient.

Cheers
TT
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.