Apple Now Powered by 100 Percent Renewable Energy Worldwide

[TaviDuprix]

Don't get me wrong, Apple's accomplishment is fantastic, but a 100% claim is marketing material, it's just a statistical paperwork exercise. Their accomplishment is commendable, but let's get real on a few things...

All of Apple's facilities worldwide are going to be connected to their respective local power grids. Not all buildings are going to have solar panels and wind turbines on top, or a fuel-cell station nearby. Apple apparently has calculated that all of their properties consume a total of 626MW currently, and they have brought 626MW of power generation online. Whoo! Whoo! 100%! But, that's just on paper, it's not where the actual power is coming from, physically.

Apple is putting 626MW into the world's electrical grids, but the juice for any single given property is not necessarily physically connected to Apple's power generation systems, and even those that are connected will not be serviced every minute by Apple's "renewables." This is where "offsets" come into play. The majority of power generated around the globe comes from coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, and then other methods.

Many of Apple's facilities are connected to grids where only a small percentage of the power comes from "renewables," if any. So while Apple is injecting 626MW in total to the world's power grids, Store A may be physically using none of that, or maybe 20% of that. Store B might be using 70% "renewable" sources, and Store C might be receiving power from 50% "renewable" sources, physically, at any given moment. That is why this becomes a paperwork exercise, and not a 100% physical reality. This fact does not diminish Apple's accomplishment - their impressive power generation capabilities are, well, impressive.

Okay folks, now it's time to put on your critical thinking caps... What happens at night? What happens when it's a cloudy, rainy day? What if the wind is not blowing? Well, guess what? We don't store electricity. There are not enough batteries in the world to store even a fraction of 1 day's worth of power generation. Electricity generation is an on-demand service (for example, with a hydro plant, if customers demand more power, the plant routes water to another turbine and brings it online). How much power do all those PV panels generate at night? Oh, that's right - zero. What about on a cloudy day? That depends on how cloudy it is - maybe 50% on average? How much electricity do wind turbines generate when the wind is not blowing? Oh yeah, zero again.

When "renewables" are not generating power, then the power has to come from another source, a source that doesn't suffer from disruptions. Those sources are "fossil" fuels. Apple's efforts to cover every building with solar panels and squeak out additional power from wind and methane are great, and encouraging, and I hope they continue. People should just be aware that there are realistic limitations, and solar panels are not going to replace coal anytime soon. As more companies around the globe bring more solar, wind and other technologies online, our reliance on "fossil" fuels should diminish over time, at least during daylight hours.

You should read this article and other's like it regarding Tesla power storage. Obviously, various renewable power sources are limited in when they can produce power but when coupled with solutions like this they can fully replace fossil fuels.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ery-is-bringing-australias-gas-cartel-to-heel

 

[RemE]

It's amazing what you can do when you are made of money, you're welcome Apple.

 

[TaviDuprix]

Why, so they can go bankrupt? Apple could only do this because they have piles and piles of cash on hand. It would be business suicide for most companies, large or small, to follow this. As an added bonus, it would do absolutely nothing to enhance the environment. The costs in upkeep for solar panels, windmills and other such nonsense will cancel out any perceived benefit. I'm glad Apple can do it, though I don't know why they would do it--it's tilting at windmills (pun intended). If they ever get into financial straits (which they will if they persist in boondoggles like this), this endeavor will likely be one of the first things to go.

Do you have any source material to back up this claim?

 

[leman]

They know most won’t bother to recycle it and will just throw it away.

You know, in civilised countries that is a criminal offence. Not to mention that its also rather dumb thing to do especially since your already paid a recycling fee. Besides, I find it funny that you would blame Apple for people being idiots and not properly disposing of their old hardware.

 

[Michael Goff]

You know, in civilised countries that is a criminal offence. Not to mention that its also rather dumb thing to do especially since your already paid a recycling fee. Besides, I find it funny that you would blame Apple for people being idiots and not properly disposing of their old hardware.

Some people blame Apple for anything and everything.

 

[sunapple]

Don't get me wrong, Apple's accomplishment is fantastic, but a 100% claim is marketing material, it's just a statistical paperwork exercise. Their accomplishment is commendable, but let's get real on a few things...

All of Apple's facilities worldwide are going to be connected to their respective local power grids. Not all buildings are going to have solar panels and wind turbines on top, or a fuel-cell station nearby. Apple apparently has calculated that all of their properties consume a total of 626MW currently, and they have brought 626MW of power generation online. Whoo! Whoo! 100%! But, that's just on paper, it's not where the actual power is coming from, physically.

Apple is putting 626MW into the world's electrical grids, but the juice for any single given property is not necessarily physically connected to Apple's power generation systems, and even those that are connected will not be serviced every minute by Apple's "renewables." This is where "offsets" come into play. The majority of power generated around the globe comes from coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, and then other methods.

Many of Apple's facilities are connected to grids where only a small percentage of the power comes from "renewables," if any. So while Apple is injecting 626MW in total to the world's power grids, Store A may be physically using none of that, or maybe 20% of that. Store B might be using 70% "renewable" sources, and Store C might be receiving power from 50% "renewable" sources, physically, at any given moment. That is why this becomes a paperwork exercise, and not a 100% physical reality. This fact does not diminish Apple's accomplishment - their impressive power generation capabilities are, well, impressive.

Okay folks, now it's time to put on your critical thinking caps... What happens at night? What happens when it's a cloudy, rainy day? What if the wind is not blowing? Well, guess what? We don't store electricity. There are not enough batteries in the world to store even a fraction of 1 day's worth of power generation. Electricity generation is an on-demand service (for example, with a hydro plant, if customers demand more power, the plant routes water to another turbine and brings it online). How much power do all those PV panels generate at night? Oh, that's right - zero. What about on a cloudy day? That depends on how cloudy it is - maybe 50% on average? How much electricity do wind turbines generate when the wind is not blowing? Oh yeah, zero again.

When "renewables" are not generating power, then the power has to come from another source, a source that doesn't suffer from disruptions. Those sources are "fossil" fuels. Apple's efforts to cover every building with solar panels and squeak out additional power from wind and methane are great, and encouraging, and I hope they continue. People should just be aware that there are realistic limitations, and solar panels are not going to replace coal anytime soon. As more companies around the globe bring more solar, wind and other technologies online, our reliance on "fossil" fuels should diminish over time, at least during daylight hours.

I like that you went to all this effort drafting up your comment, now maybe consider getting some facts straight. As was previously mentioned by me in this thread, the so-called offsets are not being used by Apple and the renewable energy is actually being generated in a nearby facility. You can get this information here: https://www.fastcompany.com/40554151/how-apple-got-to-100-renewable-energy-the-right-way

Furthermore, Apple is on some location also using biogas fuel cells to be able to generate power when there is not enough available from the sun. This isn't renewable, but it's also not the easy way out.

Solar farm that can generate power at night are already a reality, as can be found in this article: https://www.fastcompany.com/3057288...m-near-las-vegas-provides-power-even-at-night

We can't yet live without fossil fuels, but that doesn't mean it's impossible or that it isn't worth investing in renewable energy. Most of the shortcoming are possible to solve, and should be solved since fossil fuels aren't the long-term solution.

 

[TallManNY]

Apple uses a myriad of classical buildings as offices, headquarters and stores in city centers and shopping malls all over the world. Many of these are conventionally heated and still mostly depend on fossil energy. Nobody ever saw Apple repleting gas and oil in the soil where those fuels came from. This makes the claim that they solved the energy transition for 100% outright ridiculous.
The energy puzzle is not a matter of energy generation, but energy distribution.
In that context, Apple has hardly started.
Given their wealth they could also buy x times their own emission rights (without even noticing on their P/L) and then claim they solved the issue.

Right, but they make clear that they don't just buy emission rights or renewable energy credits. This is just for electricity, so they aren't talking about heating here. But for electricity they only count electricity generated from new renewable resources that they were involved in getting constructed (either because they are the owner or because they entered into a power purchase agreement to buy the electricity/renewable energy credit).
So I think all they are saying is that their total yearly electricity usage is equal to or less than the renewable generated electricity that they helped get produced.

 

[sunapple]

Why, so they can go bankrupt? Apple could only do this because they have piles and piles of cash on hand. It would be business suicide for most companies, large or small, to follow this.

You need the cash to invest, but the ROI is already quite high even though the renewable tech is still quite new.

As an added bonus, it would do absolutely nothing to enhance the environment. The costs in upkeep for solar panels, windmills and other such nonsense will cancel out any perceived benefit.

Reducing the emissions of CO2 54% on such a gigantic scale has a huge impact on the environment. Furthermore, they've also invested in solar and wind farms that will generate electricity for others where green energy is scarce.

Even though the costs of producing, installing, maintaining and recycling windturbines at sea are very high, they still are a viable investment. In The Netherlands they just gave the green light for the world's first off-shore wind farm that's not being subsidized by the government. This is only possible because the technological advances from the last few years were very high and they're being installed in much greater numbers.

I'm glad Apple can do it, though I don't know why they would do it--it's tilting at windmills (pun intended). If they ever get into financial straits (which they will if they persist in boondoggles like this), this endeavor will likely be one of the first things to go.

In the future everyone will invest in renewable energy simply because it will become the cheapest source of energy.

 

[robbyx]

Answered several times before you jumped in and provided your condescending response, actually.

And yet you felt compelled to jump in with a rude response of your own. My response wasn't condescending. If anything, the comment I responded to was condescending, not to mention completely void of critical thinking.
[doublepost=1523387929][/doublepost]

It’s a lot of marketing PR garbage. Someone posted a Forbes article earlier showing how Apple does the smoke and mirrors with respect to renewables.

Oh, well if Forbes said it, it must be true! Forbes is known for its Apple hate. Try to find anything positive about Apple written in that has-been rag. When I check Apple's stock price in the Stocks app on my iPhone, I regularly see Forbes articles in the news section. Almost every single one is negative. As someone who has used and made a living with Apple products for 35 years, I have a strong understanding of the company and their technology. Forbes gets it wildly wrong again and again. Either they are incredibly biased against Apple or their writers are dumber than dirt.

 

[justperry]

While much of that is well and good. Biofuels are not clean energy.

Biofuel
- Requires converting massive amounts of wilderness into farmland. Displacing wild species. Since you need to keep producing the fuel. This displacement is permanent.
- Requires massive amounts of fresh water. We already are using far more than can be replaced naturally. The aquifers are already being drained way too quickly. Eventually they will be tapped out. Growing bio-fuels will just exacerbate the process.
- More farmland means use of more fertilizers and pesticides. Which eventually runoff into lakes, rivers and oceans.
- Takes nearly a half gallon of fuel to produce one gallon.
- Still produces greenhouse gases when burned.

I add one

In Indonesia vast areas of rainforest are cut down for biofuel, underneath lies peatlands, they get drained, when lightning strikes are farmers set those on fire to clear land the peatlands can burn, you see this each and every year when several neighbouring countries are affected by smog around August/September.
I lived in Indonesia and have been in south east Asia multiple times, it's a plague and effects millions of people in and outside of Indonesia.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

They still encourage people to keep buying new stuff every few years... making people upgrade instead of allowing people to swap out ram or the battery. They know most won’t bother to recycle it and will just throw it away. Especially if they think their phone needs replacing due to slowdown thanks to a crap battery

Ok, I'll bite:

Show me a tech OEM that DOESN'T "encourage people to keep buying new stuff every few years".

I'll wait.

Oh, and no one MAKES people upgrade.

 

[Wiesenlooser]

The biggest environmental impact of Apple will likely be in manufacturing. Aluminium alone uses a lot of energy to being produced. As long as they cant to get their manufacturers and suppliers to go fully green this stat is admirable, but ultimately futile.

 

[Hedwigg]

Dig deeper, maybe then you'll understand.

Wonderfully vague and needlessly cryptic response. Bravo!
[doublepost=1523391349][/doublepost]

I’m sure many people don’t recall their 5th grade science lessons. For me, that was 30 years ago. No need to sneer at those who might have forgotten. I’m certain there are some 5th grade subjects you’ve forgotten and could use a refresher on.

My statement was sarcastic, with the implication that how wind power works should be relatively common knowledge. Only someone ignorant to how it works would make a statement like "it only works when it's windy". My apologies... from now on, I'll make sure to label my sarcasm with some sort of <sarcasm> tag.

<sarcasm>.

 

[mi7chy]

Aren't they riding on Google and Amazon data centers?

 

[mbmoore]

Do you have any source material to back up this claim?

You can start with these:
1. https://www.doityourself.com/stry/the-longterm-cost-of-solar-energy-panels
2. "Global Warming and Other Eco-myths" by Ronald Bailey
3. Numerous books and articles by Roy Spencer, climate specialist in Huntsville AL

Most online articles on solar tend to be solar companies or advocates trumpeting how much money you will save, but that isn't reality. Here's the commons sense view of it:

There is no cheaper energy source than fossil fuels unless you consider nuclear power, which has extremely high up front costs. Energy efficiency is measured by an energy ratio: Energy obtained/Energy expended. Ethanol, solar panels, wind mills and the like have a very low energy ratio--2/1 at best, most of the time lower. Fossil fuels are on the order of 20/1 or better. If you want 'clean' energy that doesn't drive your economy back to the Stone Age, then natural gas is a good choice, and it's not as polluting as some of the other fossil fuels. The fear mongering about climate change (or global warming as it was once called) is mostly false science.

I would absolutely love for there to be a breakthrough in solar technology (panels, windmills, etc.); I even wrote a paper on solar when I was in high school. I would buy into it in a heartbeat if I thought we were close to getting there, but we're not. Maybe that's what Apple is doing, and if so, I hope their investment pays off with a huge breakthrough--they would deserve great accolades if they did.

In the meantime, it is pure folly to drive the country's economy into the ground for the sake of 'clean energy'. There is no such thing, unless you consider that, short of a nuclear holocaust, the earth's ecosystem processes most of the pollution out of air and water on a regular, efficient basis, on its own. In that sense, most all energy is 'clean'. Man can help nature out a little by implementing 'clean-er' technology when it gets cheap enough, but there's no reason to force energy costs to skyrocket to 'save the planet'. It's fool's gold. Thanks for reading.

 

[ctdonath]

The way of the future is solar.

Solar produces about 10 watts per square meter. Period.
1300 watts per square meter absolute max: that's simply how much sunlight reaches Earth.
Solar panels run about 10% efficiency in large-scale quantities. That's an optimistic 130 watts / m^2.
From there: night, angles, cloud cover, air density, dust, malfunctions, weather, etc cut output another 10% or so.
That leaves an optimistic output average of 13 w/m^2.
Optimistic rarely happens, so for reliability expect 10 watts per square meter.

From there, it's just a simple matter of identifying how much power you need, and how many square meters of panels you need install.

Nuclear is _way_ more compact.

Don't get me wrong: I love solar, and am starting to plan a home with a "solar roof". The simplicity & localized independence is fantastic.
Just know the physical limits: 10 watts per square meter.

 

[Glockworkorange]

And yet you felt compelled to jump in with a rude response of your own. My response wasn't condescending. If anything, the comment I responded to was condescending, not to mention completely void of critical thinking.
[doublepost=1523387929][/doublepost]

Oh, well if Forbes said it, it must be true! Forbes is known for its Apple hate. Try to find anything positive about Apple written in that has-been rag. When I check Apple's stock price in the Stocks app on my iPhone, I regularly see Forbes articles in the news section. Almost every single one is negative. As someone who has used and made a living with Apple products for 35 years, I have a strong understanding of the company and their technology. Forbes gets it wildly wrong again and again. Either they are incredibly biased against Apple or their writers are dumber than dirt.

I see. Evil Forbes, out to get Apple again.
[doublepost=1523392552][/doublepost]

Perhaps you should read The Birth of the Anthropocene by Jeremy Davies. Or maybe you could just drive up and down the road and notice all the trash strewn about. Obviously, there is a lot we need to do to resolve the poor choices of past generations and those less committed to sustainability today.
[doublepost=1523382783][/doublepost]

*Ahem* https://www.tesla.com/solarroof You should be able to replace your roof with solar for essentially the same price as getting it restored when it comes due for replacement.

Conserving the environment and not leaving trash strewn around is necessary and respectful for the planet. Climate change is politics.
[doublepost=1523392622][/doublepost]

Perhaps you should read The Birth of the Anthropocene by Jeremy Davies. Or maybe you could just drive up and down the road and notice all the trash strewn about. Obviously, there is a lot we need to do to resolve the poor choices of past generations and those less committed to sustainability today.
[doublepost=1523382783][/doublepost]

*Ahem* https://www.tesla.com/solarroof You should be able to replace your roof with solar for essentially the same price as getting it restored when it comes due for replacement.

No—we looked into replacing with Tesla. Not at all the same price as a new, regular roof.

 

[TaviDuprix]

You can start with these:
1. https://www.doityourself.com/stry/the-longterm-cost-of-solar-energy-panels
2. "Global Warming and Other Eco-myths" by Ronald Bailey
3. Numerous books and articles by Roy Spencer, climate specialist in Huntsville AL

Most online articles on solar tend to be solar companies or advocates trumpeting how much money you will save, but that isn't reality. Here's the commons sense view of it:

There is no cheaper energy source than fossil fuels unless you consider nuclear power, which has extremely high up front costs. Energy efficiency is measured by an energy ratio: Energy obtained/Energy expended. Ethanol, solar panels, wind mills and the like have a very low energy ratio--2/1 at best, most of the time lower. Fossil fuels are on the order of 20/1 or better. If you want 'clean' energy that doesn't drive your economy back to the Stone Age, then natural gas is a good choice, and it's not as polluting as some of the other fossil fuels. The fear mongering about climate change (or global warming as it was once called) is mostly false science.

I would absolutely love for there to be a breakthrough in solar technology (panels, windmills, etc.); I even wrote a paper on solar when I was in high school. I would buy into it in a heartbeat if I thought we were close to getting there, but we're not. Maybe that's what Apple is doing, and if so, I hope their investment pays off with a huge breakthrough--they would deserve great accolades if they did.

In the meantime, it is pure folly to drive the country's economy into the ground for the sake of 'clean energy'. There is no such thing, unless you consider that, short of a nuclear holocaust, the earth's ecosystem processes most of the pollution out of air and water on a regular, efficient basis, on its own. In that sense, most all energy is 'clean'. Man can help nature out a little by implementing 'clean-er' technology when it gets cheap enough, but there's no reason to force energy costs to skyrocket to 'save the planet'. It's fool's gold. Thanks for reading.

In regards to #1, the article itself says that you will realize cost savings after about a decade. I also wonder when this was written as the cost of solar deployment has significantly come down in recent years.

In regards to #3, it would seem that his own work on the subject has been revised a number of times to soften on his all out dissent on the broader scientific community: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates

As for #2, I would need to read the book which is more than I can do obviously in a few minutes. I will say that the fact that it was published in 2002 when there was still a decent amount of dispute among scientists on climate impacts is somewhat telling. I have no doubt that some of what he stated is probably right as those on the other side of the argument are not without fault.

Nonetheless, I would welcome anything further you care to share.

 

[ohbrilliance]

Don't get me wrong: I love solar, and am starting to plan a home with a "solar roof". The simplicity & localized independence is fantastic.
Just know the physical limits: 10 watts per square meter.

10 watts/square meter is overly-pessimistic. We get 18 w/square meter averaged year-round. We're in Melbourne, Australia, a fairly southerly and cloudy city, and have significant shading for half of the year. I'd say 20-25 watts on a well-designed and well-placed solar farm would be reasonably attainable.
[doublepost=1523395681][/doublepost]

Climate change is politics.

Climate change is happening and the science settled. Whether we accept it and how we attempt to solve the problem is where it gets political.

 

[fokmik]

Can someone explain to me how they power apple stores inside malls

 

[mytdave]

You should read this article and other's like it regarding Tesla power storage. Obviously, various renewable power sources are limited in when they can produce power but when coupled with solutions like this they can fully replace fossil fuels.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ery-is-bringing-australias-gas-cartel-to-heel

I am fully aware of the Tesla Powerwall (home) and Powerpack (industrial) batteries (PP 2's capacity is up to 200kWh now). That's nice, and it's a good start, and it's also a hell of a lot of lithium sitting there, of which there is not an endless supply...

By way of comparison, Hoover Dam's generation capacity is 2080MWh (4.2TWh annually). That used to be considered huge, but that only services 1.3 million people, just a fraction of today's Cali population. If Hoover Dam was a solar panel field instead of hydro-electric, you would have to install thousands of acres of solar panels, and 10,400 Tesla Powerpacks (not small, not cheap) to store that kind of capacity for night time consumption.

Now let's set aside for the moment how many more panels it would take to supply electric demand, plus charge all the batteries at the same time, and let's also assume that only 10,400 Powerpacks could sustain a full night time's worth of consumption on the grid. So, these packs have a limited life - about 5000 full charge cycles, or 14 years, but keep in mind charge capacity diminishes over time, so useful life at this scale might only be 7 years. You would then be replacing the batteries every 7 years at about $150,000 each, or $223 million/year. Ouch. Some day lithium will run out too. Again by comparison, Hoover Dam has been operating for 82 years and cost $50 million to build ($650 million, inflation adjusted).

Tesla's packs are good for sub-station use, for smoothing out peaks and dips in the grid distribution system, and making it possible to avoid building some small supplemental power stations, but that's about it. Methinks people are not grasping the sheer size and scale of the world's power generation and consumption. We all also realize "fossil" fuels won't last forever, but neither will lithium. I'm just saying that what Apple and other companies have worked on is great and it should continue, but let's have that reality check so we understand we still have a long, long way to go.

 

[Bacillus]

.....
This is just for electricity, so they aren't talking about heating here.
.....

Wrong assumption...

 

[Tech198]

They purchase electricity from green energy companies, which feed it into the grid. The energy they consume may not be directly green, but it is offset by the supply of green energy.

That sounds like there could be a hiccup.

 

[ohbrilliance]

That sounds like there could be a hiccup.

That sounds like you don’t know how green energy works. Electricity is fungible (thanks ctdonath for introducing that apt word). So long as you put energy generated from renewables into the grid you can take any energy out and it is effectively renewable energy you are using.

 

[Glockworkorange]

10 watts/square meter is overly-pessimistic. We get 18 w/square meter averaged year-round. We're in Melbourne, Australia, a fairly southerly and cloudy city, and have significant shading for half of the year. I'd say 20-25 watts on a well-designed and well-placed solar farm would be reasonably attainable.
[doublepost=1523395681][/doublepost]

Climate change is happening and the science settled. Whether we accept it and how we attempt to solve the problem is where it gets political.

Ah, it's settled. Zero debate allowed about this issue, you see. If you question it, why you must be like one of those wacky holocaust deniers.

If you don't see the problem with what you are saying, then it is pointless to have a discussion with you.