Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Leads All U.S. Companies in Domestic Solar Energy Capacity

Sp1281 said:
I know this sounds good. But have you ever calculated the land required per MW?
Not to mention what it takes to manufacture the Panels.
Click to expand...

It depends on the business. Just think of all the wasted space of Costco and Walmart buildings and parking lots. It may not cover all their energy usage. It would reduce it a lot. With the added side benefit of shading customer cars and shading the roofs of their buildings. The same could be said for strip malls and office parks. In the long term. Solar panel installations can pay for themselves. Depending on power prices (and expected increases), solar energy potential and installation and maintenance costs in a region.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
Mac-lover3 said:
Longer support really? We still got updates for an iPhone 4S this week? You still want support for your iPhone 3GS or something??
Click to expand...
The 4s patch isn't a security patch though, it has not had a security update since the last for iOS 9. When a Mac gets security support for 7-10 years it is not unreasonable to expect the same for modern phones now especially as we probably use them more than our computers. Apple does a reasonable job at 5-6 years but they could do better, I'd not even mind if they charged a bit for it after 5 years.
 
cjboffoli97 said:
Fossil fuel and nuclear electric plants also are expensive to set up and require many years for taxpayers or rate payers to pay off the many billions of dollars in bonds. And that doesn't even scratch the surface of the costs to source the fuel (including spending trillions on foreign wars) and the inherent costs to the environment and to human health. Solar and wind looks pretty good to me when you consider the entire value proposition, as opposed to looking at it selectively. I applaud Apple and other tech companies for the investment in this space.
Click to expand...

In the UK a few years ago, we had a Government funded subsidy to help home owners install solar panels on their rooftops. Even after the subsidy was factored in, it still took several years to pay back. I believe the funding was cancelled eventually.

My point was not that solar energy is bad. I'd love to be able to afford to have it installed and even be a net contributor to the grid, but it is just way too expensive. Hence the point about Apple being able to afford it.

Now, if only there was a way to make Virtue Signalling generate electricity .......
 
  • Like
Reactions: kriebe and AdonisSMU
Funny how the state of California despite of very strict regulation against global warming the whole state is burning down into the ground and all the calamities. I would assume that this time around it would have been the most ideal state clean and welcoming state. What's next after every single building in the state has solar panels they probably gonna ran out of birds.
 
Porco said:
I applaud the positive stuff Apple does, but being the best at being least-bad still has a lot of room for improvement.

I like what Tim says, but if he means it then we need fewer glued-in batteries and a move away from proprietary/soldered-in/inaccessible storage/memory please, and longer support (even if only security updates) for older devices so that people feel less pressure to upgrade as quickly. That is called putting your money where your mouth is, and er, Apple have enough money to fill all their mouths (or something!).
Click to expand...

Yes!! Making computers more disposable, but with clean energy, comes across as a marketing initiative lacking conviction.
 
cjboffoli97 said:
Fossil fuel and nuclear electric plants also are expensive to set up and require many years for taxpayers or rate payers to pay off the many billions of dollars in bonds. And that doesn't even scratch the surface of the costs to source the fuel (including spending trillions on foreign wars) and the inherent costs to the environment and to human health. Solar and wind looks pretty good to me when you consider the entire value proposition, as opposed to looking at it selectively. I applaud Apple and other tech companies for the investment in this space.
Click to expand...

If you think solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, then perhaps you should read this, as France and Germany took those separate paths to very different results: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/...and-cheaper-than-germanys-solar-and-wind.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
And how much of the environment had to be mined and poisoned to create this power, and how many decades will it take to see a net positive?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kriebe
Psychicbob said:
Solar and wind energy generation is expensive to set up and takes quite a few years to pay back. If a particular company has the most spare cash then it should be no surprise that they can afford to have the highest number of solar panels.
Click to expand...
I like to agree with you. Nevertheless, energy policy (e.g. Nuclear power or coal burners) is always exclusively government policy, which is controlled by advisors or lobbyists. Innovation can work surprisingly well, such as the switch to solar and wind energy in Germany.
Or end up a flop if lobbyists disagree (Project Desertec).
But innovation is always driven by courageous people, rarely by conservative spirits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kebabselector
Achiever said:
While Apple is indisputably trying to do the "right" thing long term, I do wonder why more companies don't give more thought to putting their weight behind building nuclear plants, which are clean, renewable, safe and take up a LOT less ground space than solar panels for the equivalent energy output, making it much more scalable and efficient to larger communities and the world as a whole. I want to believe these considerations are taken into account, but hard to understand the short sightedness of it all. Solar and wind just seem so much more trendy and less practical, at least with currently available tech and limitations.
Click to expand...

Not sure how "clean," "renewable," and "safe" equate with nuclear. There are some pretty scary examples of how those promises can go wrong :)::cough::: Chernobyl, :::cough::: Fukushima). Reactor waste is poisonous for extended periods, as are parts of the plants themselves, once decommissioned. That stuff needs to be quarantined somewhere for very extended periods, and though the land required for that waste is likely to be much smaller than the area needed for solar, it's hardly an inconsequential consideration. We're capable of producing hot waste far faster than it subsequently cools, so it's a problem that will expand over time.

Though the chances of a major nuclear disaster aren't large, companies like Apple aren't going to risk their reputations on the possibility that something horrible might go wrong (it's been that way since before the "unsinkable" Titanic went down). Nuclear has always faced public opposition (whether you think justified or not), so not only would a company be buying into a small risk of major disaster, but they'd be walking into immediate and ongoing opposition. Solar on the other hand has a generally warm, happy PR halo about it.

Yes, solar panels require a lot of land. However, they are several times more efficient at producing energy than an equivalent acreage used to produce biofuels. The only advantage biofuels have is low initial investment. Of course, we also need all the green acres we can get for CO2 sequestration...
 
OneBagTravel said:
Anyone in the business of solar panels here? I'd love to know what the maintenance is for a high volume company like Apple. I imagine they have an on site staff just for when things break.
Click to expand...

Solar panels are pretty low maintenance, especially in Northern California where we don't get big hail. Hose off the panel every 6 months or so to get rid of dust. Warranties run from 15 to 25 years on the panels. Probably less on inverters. No doubt repairs and maintenance are handled by Apple staff and contractors with full maintenance plans in place. Also backup power sources, etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
lederermc said:
Apple's only competition for iPhone sales is Apple itself. (It is a major PITA to switch). Upgradability interferes with new sales.
Click to expand...
It's literally a first world problem to switch to a new device. People just want the government to legislate customer service that a business is under no obligation to provide.
 
WOW, what an achievement. I dare Apple to stop using any oil-related products. Oh wait, they will cease to exist. What a waste of resources on the solar crap!

PS But it's their money, so they can do whatever they want.
 
RightMACatU said:
Solar-powered iPads anyone :D
Click to expand...
My old (G4) iPad was successfully recharged by a portable solar panel for the first time yesterday. It worked great!!!
Love the Apple HQ and the fact that they are so into solar. Thinking about getting an emergency "House Lite" solar system like the Inergy Apex. Solar has matured into finally being practical and affordable.
 
Achiever said:
While Apple is indisputably trying to do the "right" thing long term, I do wonder why more companies don't give more thought to putting their weight behind building nuclear plants, which are clean, renewable, safe and take up a LOT less ground space than solar panels for the equivalent energy output
Click to expand...

Using the word "clean" in association with nuclear energy is whistling past the graveyard. How quickly we forget about Chernobyl and Fukushima. One nuclear disaster can poison a large area for centuries. Fukushima is STILL leaking tons of radioactive water into the Pacific. It has been the cause of large swaths of die-offs, mutations, and sea-life destruction. The radiation even made it to the USA not only on the western beaches (where it could be measured with a Geiger Counter) but inland in the form of precipitation that seeped into water supplies and the food chain. Nuclear is NOT worth the risk and anything built by man is inherently flawed with respect to failure scenarios and safeguards. Fukushima was deemed 100% safe...until it became the biggest nuclear disaster on the planet.

When Solar or Wind based power systems fail...you only have a maintenance action.
 
Apple also has the number 1 recycling process for old iPhones. They extract 99 percent of materials to be used in new phones. Liam the robot has been upgraded since then as well. Does Samsung or any other manufacturer have such a high tech recycling process? Nope. Move on haters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Admiral Ashik, citysnaps and SeattleMoose
I commend Apple on being resourceful on their power needs. Its a good start, but its not the biggest source of carbon being produced by Apple. The manufacturing processes used to make the parts is likely around 50% of the carbon. Then there is the flip side of the picture we the buyers of the gear being forced into the throwaway model Apple has now pushed since 2016. Year to year its becoming harder to maintain ones system beyond just replacing it.
 
icymountain said:
I am not sure I understand the reference to the 4s. The 4s updates to iOS 9 at best, if I understand well the iOS support diagram:
http://iossupportmatrix.com

Does Apple still provide updates to iOS 9, or am I missing something else ?
Click to expand...
They just released an update for those devices stuck on iOS 9
[doublepost=1564074068][/doublepost]Google’s lack of support for aging devices makes them the number one e-waste producer on the planet
 
Porco said:
I applaud the positive stuff Apple does, but being the best at being least-bad still has a lot of room for improvement.

I like what Tim says, but if he means it then we need fewer glued-in batteries and a move away from proprietary/soldered-in/inaccessible storage/memory please, and longer support (even if only security updates) for older devices so that people feel less pressure to upgrade as quickly. That is called putting your money where your mouth is, and er, Apple have enough money to fill all their mouths (or something!).
Click to expand...

Throwing away broken components is way worse than recycling whole devices, which is what they focus on
 
Psychicbob said:
Solar and wind energy generation is expensive to set up and takes quite a few years to pay back. If a particular company has the most spare cash then it should be no surprise that they can afford to have the highest number of solar panels.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that Target is on the list! Do they have solar installations on the roofs of every store?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back