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.
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.
A Closer Look at Apple's North Carolina Renewable Energy Power Plant
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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.
----------
Seriously. MacRumors needs to do it's research. Or at least update their post.
----------
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
They should be grazing sheep and pigs under those solar electric panels or letting it be a meadow.
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.
I still have yet to drive by and check this thing out. I'll need to head through that area one day soon.
Yeah, google has been a leader in investing in renewables and earning a nice return at the same time. Just read a good article with an overview this morning:
http://breakingenergy.com/2013/11/15/a-timeline-of-googles-clean-energy-investment/
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
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
Many so called "Green projects" are all about the gross, with the net result ignored because its inconvenient.
Cheers
TT