Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.
As far as nuclear, not true at all. By far the least expensive and less footprint on the environment. A singular nuclear plant can power an entire city. CA is creating the largest solar farm in the desert that is taking up 26 square miles to power 100k homes. This guy was involved in the $150 billion the Obama administration spent on renewables and he knows a thing or two on what doesn't and does work. https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
 
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.

Some solar farms do you rotating panels to follow the sun, but others are stationary with no moving parts at all. And some use goats to keep the grass mowed.
 
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!).


This is true. THey us some power bu the real thing Apple does is sell stuff and the stuff they sell is just horrible from an environmental point of view. The stuff they sell needs to be repairable.

Especially now that the rate of change with phones and computers has slowed down. Apple should be making equipment that has well over 5 years of supported lifetime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanBig
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.

Depends on the type of nuclear energy being proposed. Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) are inherently safe (walkaway safe). They use a much different system than current high pressure water cooled reactors. Safety Assessment of Molten Salt Reactors
  • Meltdown is not possible. With no human intervention and removal of all control mechanisms. They can't go out out of control. This is because as temperature increase the void between reactants increases. Reducing the rate of reaction. They can't reach critical temperatures. The max possible uncontrolled temperature of the system is about 1000K while the boiling point of the fuel salt is about 1700K.
  • The reactant systems operate at low or atmospheric pressures. In a calamitous event there is no danger of explosion releasing nuclear materials into the air and surrounding countryside. It would leak or dribble out like a busted sewer pipe into a pool underneath the reactor. It also gets rid of the need of a heavily fortified blast containment system.
  • In the event of a complete plant shutdown. A freeze plug will melt. The reactant will pour into the pool underneath the reactor. These freeze plugs are actively cooled. Meaning that for reaction to occur the plant needs power. A loss of power results in the shutdown of the reaction
From an environmental standpoint
  • MSR requires less fissile material than traditional reactors. They use fuel more efficiently. Less material is needed to produce the same amount of energy.
  • It can operate on low refined fuels rather. Meaning less energy needed for refining, less waste from refining, and less mining for fuel.
  • Increased efficiency also means less waste. MSR can use 95% to 99% of fissile material. Rather than 1-4% of current systems.
  • Nuclear proliferation is more difficult. The leftover waste is not useful for the production of nuclear weapons.
  • Waste returns to normal background radiation levels in hundreds of years, not hundreds of thousands of years. If mankind is wiped out or we revert back to the dark ages. Any waste stored underground will be radioactively inert long before it is likely to leak.
Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactors (WAMSR) also have huge potential and need development to bring to market.
  • They operate by using current nuclear waste.
  • Stockpiles of waste would be greatly reduced.
  • The remaining waste as with a regular MSR would have a radioactive life in the hundreds of years.
  • Current waste stockpiles could fulfill all energy needs for the next 70+ years when adjusted for expected increases in energy demands.
  • Using waste has other short term environmental benefits. There is a greatly reduced need to drill or mine for other energy sources for the better part of a century. Giving time to develop cleaner mining techniques and energy production. While eliminating current nuclear waste.
 
I have an 8.5KW array on the roof as part of our town's solar initiative as part of the MA solar initiative. Since 2015 we have generated 45MWH which given that MA has very high electric rates is great. Plus we've noted that the house is cooler in the summer from the shading of having the roof shaded by the panels. Definitely at our electric costs, will payback in about a year. About 200 houses in our town went for it during this initiative.

The only downside so far has been snow. Not that you don't generate power when there is snow (because you do generate a smidge) but the roof avalanches onto the front walk are pretty dangerous. In hindsight should have put in the little snow-blades to stop them (although then the snow doesn't leave quickly that way which would then lower generation). My son has almost been pummeled a few times when the tons of snow comes crashing down in a giant sheet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerryk
Depends on the type of nuclear energy being proposed.

My only question is ... are these "safe" nuclear systems built by human beings? If so, your arguments are just marketing points for the nuclear industry. It almost sounds EXACTLY like what we were told back in the 1970's.
Solar/Wind > Nuclear. Nuclear has already proven how "safe" it is.
 
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.

Hi there, I’d like to offer you a job in the White House, you’re just the kind of person we’re looking for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerryk
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!).

You are mixing two different concepts -- save money (for you) vs. save public resources.
 
As far as nuclear, not true at all. By far the least expensive and less footprint on the environment. A singular nuclear plant can power an entire city. CA is creating the largest solar farm in the desert that is taking up 26 square miles to power 100k homes. This guy was involved in the $150 billion the Obama administration spent on renewables and he knows a thing or two on what doesn't and does work. https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/

Interesting read, albeit with some fallacious reasoning. I'm not saying that nuclear (especially next generation nuclear) can't be part of the picture. But at least in the US, nuclear has had a messy past which adds to the cost considerably in terms of regulation and fighting citizen activism against new nuclear plants. And then there is the long-term cost of expensive and tricky transport and storage of radioactive material with a 1,000 year half-life. I disagree with the author's assertion that solar can't be made more efficient. It can be and will be increasingly more efficient, as will new battery technologies facilitate storage. And lastly the ridiculous notion of the expense of transmission and lack of space for solar ignores the simple solution that solar does not have to take up new space but can be put in place on house and building rooftops, etc. which obviates the need for transmission costs. If every parking lot in America had solar installed over it we'd have a hell of a lot of new capacity added to the power grid.
 
Apple can only do this because they are 100%. themselves. The "power"... doesn't it *feel* good. you HAVE to help others force into the same position ?

Its all very well getting there eventually, but its no rush.... Let other companies take time.. while Apple can say say "I'm the king of the castle"
 
Great!

But I'm just as curious about their corporate air force. What's in the hangar? How much fuel do they use? Is their stable of pilots, flight attendants, and mechanics diverse?
 
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.

That's a pretty different scale there, there's like ~700 total Costcos and ~11,000 Walmarts. There sure are a lot of empty roofed strip malls...
 
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!).


Longer support?? Apple leads the industry. They currently are still supporting the 5s, a six year old phone! Android users would love to only start falling behind after six years! And again, Apple will take in ANY Apple device and recycle it for free. Again, leading the industry. Always can get better, but thank heavens they are blazing the path for the others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: k1121j
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.
As far as land not sure to much since there are things called roof tops and even parking lots someday will be solar panels you park on
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.