Apple Building Solar Farm at North Carolina Data Center

[gnasher729]

I remember Greenpeace doing another bit of their usual Apple-bashing a while ago by claiming that Apple was building its data center in an area where much energy is produced from non-renewable sources like coal. Apart from the severe error in logic (if Apple built in an area where energy comes from renewable sources, the added demand would mean more "non-green" energy would have to be imported from outside or less "green" energy would be exported), this should just nicely shut them up.

Unless Greenpeace somehow finds an argument that solar energy is bad when Apple does it.

This reminds me of people who would pump water from a pool of some sort into a water tower at night and then release the water back to the pool through a turbine during the day.

Not a water tower. A reservoir holding a few million cubic meters of water. Which is a very effective way to use electricity produced in the night, unless you can find a way to change the energy production of a coal power station at the press of a button. (They take about 24 hours to go from zero to full capacity. You just cannot reduce the output of a coal power station in the night in any meaningful way. Once the water is in the reservoir, you can use it to supply energy on demand within minutes).

I admire the ingenuity, but from an energy standpoint its terribly inefficient.
Its essentially using electricity to pump water through a turbine to generate electricity.

Shows you don't have a clue. The energy used is energy that would otherwise have been wasted. And without it, you would get brownouts at times of peak demand or waste even more energy.

 

[vitzr]

<snip> you trust comes out of the mouths of those talking heads on Faux News, the same morons who believe the earth is only six thousand years old and that humans kept dinosaurs as pets.

Oh my, this must mean that Herman, my pet T-Rex is fake?

Or worse... Perhaps I'm seeing things?

No wonder my new MBA is blurry

 

[Liquorpuki]

I remember Greenpeace doing another bit of their usual Apple-bashing a while ago by claiming that Apple was building its data center in an area where much energy is produced from non-renewable sources like coal. Apart from the severe error in logic (if Apple built in an area where energy comes from renewable sources, the added demand would mean more "non-green" energy would have to be imported from outside or less "green" energy would be exported), this should just nicely shut them up.

Greenpeace was all wrong on that article. They pretended each state had its own grid separate from other states and used North Carolina's percentages to try and smear Apple. That's not how the grid works at all.

Fuel dependency? Since we are talking about solar we're talking about power and we CAN power ourselves for many many many generations on what we have here. So carbon footprints is only marginally related to global warming? Get a clue yourself.

Yeah, you're taking the whole Global Warming controversy and using it to backwards rationalize and conclude that all environmentalism is bad, which is an utterly stupid and illogical conclusion. A grounded person who doubted global warming would still think, coal is a pollutant, natural gas is expensive, green generation is still a worthy alternative for non base load generation because regardless of global warming, it lowers pollutants and weans us off fossil fuels. But your ass is so backwards you went further than that and concluded since you doubt global warming, higher pollutants and non-renewables is the right way to go. You have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Anaemik]

Please. By the way you sound, the only kind of scientific data (it's a joke to even call it scientific) you trust comes out of the mouths of those talking heads on Faux News, the same morons who believe the earth is only six thousand years old and that humans kept dinosaurs as pets.

There are numerous, highly qualified scientists out there that either question or totally reject the notion that human influence is the primary cause of climate change. To many, the popular consensus is less about solid science and more about a political power grab.

For one example of the type of individual I'm referring to, please see http://web.archive.org/web/20090210070155/http://www.nrsp.com/clark_letter_22-03-04.html


I could provide many more examples that ought to at least promote discussion of the currently accepted political standpoint, but I honestly doubt you would read them.

Oh, and I don't watch Fox news. Nor do I drive. I have flown twice in my life. I have no air con. I have a single height refrigerator, and I live in approx 500 sq feet. My carbon footprint is almost certainly much lower than that of most people in here posting "yay Al Gore!"

 

[markpalmer]

I admire the ingenuity, but from an energy standpoint its terribly inefficient.
Its essentially using electricity to pump water through a turbine to generate electricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

 

[MacSince1990]

Yet another move that you've got to figure Jobs is making from beyond the grave.

I quite like this idea. Even if it doesn't pay for itself in the short run, in the long run it will, in addition to helping the planet, at least a little. Plus where Apple goes, others follow; this could be the start of something good.

It also might be a good idea to think of investing in whatever solar company Apple is hooking up with... usually they start small, then rapidly apply what they've done everywhere... we could be looking at almost all solar/wind/kinetic powered plants (at least where possible) within 10 years.

Yes, harnessing free power from the sun is such a waste of time.

I know right

"Apple applied for the permit on Aug. 9, and the county reviewed and approved it on Aug. 10. "

Nothing like $85 billion in the bank to make bureaucracy jump for you

 

[divinox]

Yes, harnessing free power from the sun is such a waste of time.

Free? Like he said, its gonna cost time and money. How does that equal free?

 

[pewra]

They said power part of the data centre meaning that solar electricity will be able to contribute to part of the power. Solar electricity will be to unreliable to use for all the power as no sun equals no power.

While I can't, according to the forum rules, insult you for this post. I will point out it's stupidity.

During the night, power is drawn from the traditional grid. Solar provides energy during the day, and excess is sold back to the traditional grid, offsetting the cost of power during the night.

I use a similar system at home. In any given year I either break even, or earn a few dollars from the solar array.

Shows you don't have a clue. The energy used is energy that would otherwise have been wasted. And without it, you would get brownouts at times of peak demand or waste even more energy.

Sell it back to the grid instead, then there's no loss, and the traditional power plants run at a lower capacity to compensate.

 

[ipoppy]

"Apple applied for the permit on Aug. 9, and the county reviewed and approved it on Aug. 10."

No pressure

 

[divinox]

Apple obviously don't think so - they don't do anything randomly or spontaneously - everything is considered and thought out. This is the company that won't put Flash into iOS, but they'll do solar power for their massive data center. Obviously solar's more worthwhile to them than Flash.

Free energy just waiting to be collected. Imagine that: a company that doesn't want to be yet another scar on the world, acting as yet another drain on our resources, maybe lessen the load a bit. It'll also create more jobs, both initially and ongoing. Good on 'em.

Besides which, what do you care? If Apple thinks it's worthwhile to spend their money on solar, why do you care, any more than I should lecture you about buying an extra power adapter, iPod cable or notebook battery? You want to spend your money? Go for it. Ditto Apple.

Not leaving a scar? Good luck with that. Ever seen a REM-mine, for example?

 

[kryca]

Yes, harnessing free power from the sun is such a waste of time.

It's so easy to label anything solar environment-friendly.

The whole infrastructure needed for such a farm is pretty darn sure built with nuclear power. Then wrap the solar panels into nice ALUMINIUM casings, store excess power in BATTERIES and there you go...

Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to the energy challenge.

 

[lukarak]

I admire the ingenuity, but from an energy standpoint its terribly inefficient.
Its essentially using electricity to pump water through a turbine to generate electricity.

Yes. But, if you use the night's surplus of energy (termo and nuclear plants can't be adjusted for day night operations, hydro can be slightly adjusted) to pump the water up, and then during the day let it power the turbine while falling, that's terribly efficient.

 

[Watabou]

Show me scientific proof of MAN MADE global warming, please.

You really are clueless aren't you? Why don't you stop criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind and actually read the facts yourself? I will not make this any clearer: Global warming is a FACT. There are actually scientific evidence laid out for us by scientists. It is your choice whether to continually deny the evidence, like Creationists do about evolution, or whether to accept the facts and move into the future.

I will suggest you a book: here.

Best $13 you'll ever spend. If has a lot of eye opening data and graphs showing an increase in CO2 levels between pre-industrial times and today, fuel dependence and sea level increase and the problems it causes to the environment, the economies, habitats and many others. If you'd rather believe the deniers like the guys at Fox Propoganda and the Republicans, you'll forever be clueless and I cannot help you with that.

 

[lukarak]

Nuclear power is the most environmentally damaging energy sources known to man. Even if you could ignore the extremely harmful process of producing the fuel rods there is no escaping the fact that there is no way to dispose of the waste. Every country, including the US, simply uses a policy of hide it and hope for the best. This invariably leads to uninhabitable areas and increased cancer rates. Not to mention, that these problems will not go away because the half life of the fuel used in nuclear plants is so long.

Also, nuclear power is horribly inefficient. All the data contrary to that point is erroneously driven by analyses that only factors in the amount of fuel, but excludes the cost of that fuel and the waste produced.

It is not. A coal thermal power plant pumps out in the air more radioactive elements per Wh produced than a nuclear plant produces radioactive waste.

'Unspent' nuclear fuel is not nearly as radioactive as spent one, and it is not very damaging to the environment to produce it.
Nuclear waste can be dumped in coal mines. If coal was able to be created, it means that for millions of years there was no contact with the outside. No reason to think anything will change in the scope of a few hundred or thousand years. And a few hundred meters of rock and soil is good enough to keep any radiation bottled in.
Also, a human receives an order of magnitude more natural occurring radiation than radiation it would receive from living a mile from a nuclear power plant. And that's without medical exams, flights and so on.

 

[JorickF]

Show me scientific proof of MAN MADE global warming, please.

My god, I didn't know people ignorant like this were still around.

 

[lukarak]

You really are clueless aren't you? Why don't you stop criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind and actually read the facts yourself? I will not make this any clearer: Global warming is a FACT. There are actually scientific evidence laid out for us by scientists. It is your choice whether to continually deny the evidence, like Creationists do about evolution, or whether to accept the facts and move into the future.

I will suggest you a book: here.

Best $13 you'll ever spend. If has a lot of eye opening data and graphs showing an increase in CO2 levels between pre-industrial times and today, fuel dependence and sea level increase and the problems it causes to the environment, the economies, habitats and many others. If you'd rather believe the deniers like the guys at Fox Propoganda and the Republicans, you'll forever be clueless and I cannot help you with that.

It still doesn't prove that it is man made by any significant ammount.

 

[JorickF]

It still doesn't prove that it is man made by any significant ammount.

Come on, it's not that difficult to understand. We take carbon that has been fixated in oil or coal. We oxidize it to CO2, which causes a net input of the gas in the atmosphere. And as anyone with a M.Sc. should know, CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation such as upwelling sunlight and emits it back.
It's not rocket science.

Even if solar power is not that efficient right now, we should be happy that Apple at least takes the effort of investing in it anyway. It'll be beneficial to them too in the long run.
Besides, if you don't believe in climate change, that still doesn't mean you should disagree with Apple for doing this. Even if there was only a slight chance that global warming is true, isn't it logical that we shouldn't take the risk?

 

[gnasher729]

Sell it back to the grid instead, then there's no loss, and the traditional power plants run at a lower capacity to compensate.

"Whoosh" is the sound of an argument that went straight over your head.

You can't reduce the output of a traditional power plant at night when there is less demand. It takes ages (24 hours) to start a coal power plant or to shut it down. It's not like your car engine that you can start or stop at will any second.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

I hope they use USA made panels.

 

[Lennholm]

Yeah, I don't understand the hate on here. Utility scale solar plants are ramping up worldwide. The US is a little slower adopting this than some other developed countries. Makes perfect sense for the long haul and to also produce a backup source of power generation in the event that Duke Energy fails.

Although I'm also curious why they didn't start installation on their huge rooftop space first ...

Whenever some evironmentally positive project is discussed there's always these negative people who would rather be caught dead than acknowledge the benefit of an environmentalist initiative.

Or, you know, we could simply stop ****ing with ****, instead of playing chicken with the earth.
becasue at the end of the day, WE ALL DEPEND on her. she, DOES NOT depend on us. she can kick us off this ride at her will.

Exactly, many people seem to have the attitude that the earth is specially made for us and that it therefore will never change for the worse for us. The earth doesn't care about us, it will be perfectly well even if the climate changes and wipes us out. It doesn't matter if the climate change is man-made or not. Well, we can only hope that it's man made, because that probably means we can do something about it aswell. If it's not man-made, we're screwed, can only sit back and wait for the disaster

 

[lukarak]

Come on, it's not that difficult to understand. We take carbon that has been fixated in oil or coal. We oxidize it to CO2, which causes a net input of the gas in the atmosphere. And as anyone with a M.Sc. should know, CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation such as upwelling sunlight and emits it back.
It's not rocket science.

Even if solar power is not that efficient right now, we should be happy that Apple at least takes the effort of investing in it anyway. It'll be beneficial to them too in the long run.
Besides, if you don't believe in climate change, that still doesn't mean you should disagree with Apple for doing this. Even if there was only a slight chance that global warming is true, isn't it logical that we shouldn't take the risk?

I believe in climate change. I don't quite believe that humanity is the factor that's contributed the most. There have been far more significant changes when there were no humans.

Solar power is not that great. It requires too much area, and creates a wasteland beneath. As a supplement on for example roofs, it is great. As whole power plants, no thanks.

 

[Anaemik]

Come on, it's not that difficult to understand. We take carbon that has been fixated in oil or coal. We oxidize it to CO2, which causes a net input of the gas in the atmosphere. And as anyone with a M.Sc. should know, CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation such as upwelling sunlight and emits it back.
It's not rocket science.

No, it isn't. It's environmental science. Environmental science that requires a lot of data and variables to be taken into account, including (but obviously not limited to) changes in cloud coverage and patterns, as well as charting historical temperature changes against records of solar activity and sunspot clusters - to write it off with such a basic explanation for what is currently happening is to do the entire field of study a gross disservice and in all honesty smacks of semi-informed arrogance.

All you've done is explain how *some* extra CO2 has made it into the atmosphere. Your explanation does nothing to examine how an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere impacts global temperatures. According to many with PhDs in climatology and related fields (so let's go ahead and assume they might have that MSc), the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere does indeed have an impact on global temperatures, but its impact is minimal when compared to other, much more significant factors, such as solar activity. It doesn't help that falsehoods are perpetrated in widely regarded textbooks such as "climate increases have been historically preceded by increases in atmospheric CO2". The reality is the polar opposite (pardon the pun), with historical records clearly showing (when interpreted correctly, without political agenda), that the temperature increase comes first, followed by an increase in atmospheric CO2.

The extent of man's contribution to climate change is far from undisputed within the scientific community, so to smack somebody down and belittle them for no other reason than they requested scientific proof of what is essentially a political viewpoint is to do nothing more than to betray your own partisan allegiances and potential narrow-mindedness.

 

[divinox]

It is not. A coal thermal power plant pumps out in the air more radioactive elements per Wh produced than a nuclear plant produces radioactive waste.

'Unspent' nuclear fuel is not nearly as radioactive as spent one, and it is not very damaging to the environment to produce it.
Nuclear waste can be dumped in coal mines. If coal was able to be created, it means that for millions of years there was no contact with the outside. No reason to think anything will change in the scope of a few hundred or thousand years. And a few hundred meters of rock and soil is good enough to keep any radiation bottled in.
Also, a human receives an order of magnitude more natural occurring radiation than radiation it would receive from living a mile from a nuclear power plant. And that's without medical exams, flights and so on.

Orly? According to... you? And while certainly being less radioactive, even the ore is itself cancerogenous. Anyway, until we manage to successfully (read: viably) extract uranium from sea water (which we eventually will), theres nothing eco-friendly about it.

 

[wizzerandchips]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Amazes me why the middle east dont have deserts full of these farms, they just use oil power stations, how short sited is that, they could even export electricity and extended oil reserves. Solar is a no brainier in hot countries .

 

[*LTD*]

They said power part of the data centre meaning that solar electricity will be able to contribute to part of the power. Solar electricity will be to unreliable to use for all the power as no sun equals no power.

Yes, I'm sure their highly-paid engineers and experts on hand have considered none of this.

Better call them and let them know before it's too late.