Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Apple to Build Two of the World's Largest Wind Turbines in Net-Zero Climate Impact Pledge

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
50,969
12,470


Apple has today announced that it will construct two of the world's largest onshore wind turbines near Esbjerg in Denmark, in an expansion of its investment in renewable energy.



Via a press release, Apple explained that the new 200-meter-tall turbines will produce 62 gigawatt hours of energy every year, enough to power almost 20,000 homes. The area will also function as a test site for more powerful offshore wind turbines that may be constructed in the future.

The power produced at Esbjerg will support the Apple data center in Viborg, with all surplus energy going to the Danish grid. The Viborg data center helps to power the App Store, Apple Music, iMessage, Siri, and other services in Europe. Apple has already constructed one of Scandinavia's largest solar arrays to power the data center.

"Combatting climate change demands urgent action and global partnership — and the Viborg data center is powerful proof that we can rise to this generational challenge," said Apple's vice president of Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives, Lisa Jackson. "Investments in clean energy deliver breakthrough innovations that bring clean energy and good jobs to businesses and local communities. This is an area where we have to lead — for the sake of our planet and future generations."

Last month, Apple announced its intention to become completely carbon neutral by 2030. The new investment in onshore wind turbines is expected to help the company achieve its net-zero climate impact goal within the next decade, and will aid Apple's effort to transition all of its Europe-based suppliers to renewable power.

European Apple suppliers Henkel and tesa SE, DSM Engineering Materials, STMicroelectronics, and Solvay are reportedly working towards clean energy solutions for their Apple fulfillment. German Apple supplier Varta has this week committed to running all Apple production with 100 percent renewable energy.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple to Build Two of the World's Largest Wind Turbines in Net-Zero Climate Impact Pledge
 
Last edited:

PinkyMacGodess

macrumors 603
Mar 7, 2007
5,401
2,185
Midwest America.
Great idea!!! We've got windmill farms around here. It's flat. REALLY flat, and areas here get ripping winds. People used to say that they should put windmills in here, and now that they have, people complain about them. *shrug*.

The wind is free. It's always here, well almost always. In order to win the future, we will have to rely on things to power it that don't come from the ground. At some point, there won't be any gas, or oil. Humans need to start now to plan for that eventuality, otherwise it will decimate the global economy, and destroy many nations.

What I wish is that more companies would get into battery research. I hear that is what is holding up widespread adoption of wind and solar power. Those home solar kits can cost $60,000 or more. It's hard to get a payback in a reasonable time with an outlay like that. Yikes.
[automerge]1599135923[/automerge]
I had no idea a single wind turbine could generate enough power for 10,000 homes.

Sure they cause cancer but we need more, lots more.

Windmills don't cause cancer. Ignorance causes cancer...o_O
 
Comment

Schranke

macrumors 6502a
Apr 3, 2010
950
978
Copenhagen, Denmark
As a Dane I am a little disappointed in this. We are one of the countries which have the most experience with offshore wind turbines and have a test center (Østerild) dedicated to testing massive wind turbines. There is plenty of good options to build these offshore, but adding another place to construct such massive wind turbines will make it stick out like a sore thumb as the country is rather flat.
 
Comment

PinkyMacGodess

macrumors 603
Mar 7, 2007
5,401
2,185
Midwest America.
As a Dane I am a little disappointed in this. We are one of the countries which have the most experience with offshore wind turbines and have a test center (Østerild) dedicated to testing massive wind turbines. There is plenty of good options to build these offshore, but adding another place to construct such massive wind turbines will make it stick out like a sore thumb as the country is rather flat.

But the best places to install them is in either hilly areas like the hills and mountains in California, or flater places, that get lots of wind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BorgCube
Comment

PinkyMacGodess

macrumors 603
Mar 7, 2007
5,401
2,185
Midwest America.
Not sure if serious?

The people that are pushing that lie get money from the petroleum companies. The idea is that the sound of the blades causes cancer. If that were true, where are the cancer victims of Nickleback and Phish? Not to mention all the other sad excuses for 'music' that have been produced in the past.
 
Comment

Schranke

macrumors 6502a
Apr 3, 2010
950
978
Copenhagen, Denmark
But the best places to install them is in either hilly areas like the hills and mountains in California, or flater places, that get lots of wind.
I don't think it gets more "flat" then the sea...

And what is the point of adding yet another test center, especially one which if its located near Esbjerg will be close to a larger nature reservation specially targeted birds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ddtmm
Comment

Pangalactic

macrumors 6502
Nov 28, 2016
472
1,244
Nuclear is way better. The main problem with solar and wind is that they are really inefficient, as we don't have any good energy-storing technology at the moment. Too much wind or sun gets totally wasted, whilst too little wind or sun requires using other technologies to provide the electricity in times of deficit.
 
Comment

kingofwale

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
981
1,403
" Apple explained that the new 200-meter-tall turbines will produce 62 gigawatt hours of energy every year, enough to power almost 20,000 homes. "
there is no way 1 of them can power 10K homes..

maybe each working 1 whole year can power 10K home for 1 day. if so, this article is very misleading
 
Comment

Lukian52

macrumors newbie
Aug 12, 2013
4
10
Renewables can't follow the load, so every single watt they offer must be backed up by a load following plant - or storage. The combination equals an energy sink in the long run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huck and rgbrock1
Comment

Schranke

macrumors 6502a
Apr 3, 2010
950
978
Copenhagen, Denmark
Nuclear is way better. The main problem with solar and wind is that they are really inefficient, as we don't have any good energy-storing technology at the moment. Too much wind or sun gets totally wasted, whilst too little wind or sun requires using other technologies to provide the electricity in times of deficit.
Actually a lot of the wind energy created at night in Denmark when the demand is low, is used in Norway to refill hydroelectric reservoir by pumping the water back up. We might not be able to store the energy perfectly, but storing it as potential energy still saves some of it.
 
Comment

PinkyMacGodess

macrumors 603
Mar 7, 2007
5,401
2,185
Midwest America.
Nuclear is way better. The main problem with solar and wind is that they are really inefficient, as we don't have any good energy-storing technology at the moment. Too much wind or sun gets totally wasted, whilst too little wind or sun requires using other technologies to provide the electricity in times of deficit.

Nuclear is better, if there was a way to deal with the waste. Well, and the eventual oops that causes a meltdown, and the eventual decommisioning. Unlikely as that might be, the effects of a meltdown far outweigh the convenience of nuclear power. A meltdown will ruin your day, even if it's 100 miles away. There was a working nuclear power plant south west of here. On an inspection, they found that batts of insulation had fallen into the cooling water. There were literally batts of insulation flowing through the cooling system. Not ideal by any stretch. They finally closed it down. Crazy...
 
Comment

ELman

macrumors regular
Jul 6, 2017
125
172
Build them off shore or in a location where we don't see or hear them. Living in a state that has wind turbines. I can confirm they are ugle taking away from the natural beauty of the environment.
 
Comment

pedzsan

macrumors regular
May 22, 2016
166
44
Leander, TX
The basic raw unpopular truth is that Global Climate Change, just like we've seen with the CCP Virus, is and has always been based upon models. And the models have never been correct. You can go back and find fear mongering about climate change for countless decades. Indeed, in the 70s, the basic fear was an ice age was coming. Search for "letter to nixon from brown university about ice age" (without the quotes)

Compare today's temperatures with the 1930s (high) or the 1970s (lows) and you will find that we are rather comfortably between those two "extremes" which, historically over 2000+ year time frames are not the historic highs or lows (i.e. Medieval Warm Period)

You can also look at "catastrophic" weather events and find that we are having fewer and smaller not more and bigger as the fear mongers claim.

The other problems with wind turbines is in 20 years, the huge blades are disposed of in landfills and not recycled. The materials they are made of will almost never deteriorate back into the environment. Wind turbines tend to kill birds, especially raptors. These are relatively rare birds that are being needlessly slaughtered just to make SJWs feel good about themselves. And, you still need to add gas power generation to fill the peak needs when there is no sun or wind. i.e. we still have no real viable large scape storage except for water pump back stations which are few. This ultimately raises prices of energy. The currently occurring rolling blackouts. CA assumed they could buy power from other states but when the other states need the power, there is none to buy.

If you really want to dig into climate change, all the data is at NOAAs FTP site. Go find it and analyze it yourself; otherwise you are just assuming "the experts" are unbiased which we've seen (e.g. HCQ retracted "scientific" studies) is not true.
 
Comment

cupcakes2000

macrumors 65816
Apr 13, 2010
1,102
1,046
The basic raw unpopular truth is that Global Climate Change, just like we've seen with the CCP Virus, is and has always been based upon models. And the models have never been correct. You can go back and find fear mongering about climate change for countless decades. Indeed, in the 70s, the basic fear was an ice age was coming. Search for "letter to nixon from brown university about ice age" (without the quotes)

Compare today's temperatures with the 1930s (high) or the 1970s (lows) and you will find that we are rather comfortably between those two "extremes" which, historically over 2000+ year time frames are not the historic highs or lows (i.e. Medieval Warm Period)

You can also look at "catastrophic" weather events and find that we are having fewer and smaller not more and bigger as the fear mongers claim.

The other problems with wind turbines is in 20 years, the huge blades are disposed of in landfills and not recycled. The materials they are made of will almost never deteriorate back into the environment. Wind turbines tend to kill birds, especially raptors. These are relatively rare birds that are being needlessly slaughtered just to make SJWs feel good about themselves. And, you still need to add gas power generation to fill the peak needs when there is no sun or wind. i.e. we still have no real viable large scape storage except for water pump back stations which are few. This ultimately raises prices of energy. The currently occurring rolling blackouts. CA assumed they could buy power from other states but when the other states need the power, there is none to buy.

If you really want to dig into climate change, all the data is at NOAAs FTP site. Go find it and analyze it yourself; otherwise you are just assuming "the experts" are unbiased which we've seen (e.g. HCQ retracted "scientific" studies) is not true.
Except, of course, pumping all of of the gasses which we do pump into the atmosphere, many of which are known and proven greenhouse gasses - is a known quantity.

It’s undeniable as you can look out o your window and watch it in action.

To suggest it’s not having an effect on the planet is absolutely absurd as it can’t NOT be, by any form of logical or critical thinking, whether you’re an expert or just an ordinary person.

Many of these gasses are known to heat up the planet, and many of them occur naturally - however, we are multiplying the natural amount of these gasses historically being released into the atmosphere by many thousands of times. Logic can only dictate this will speed up the natural warming and cooling cycle of the planet by many thousands of times.

If one can’t see that, regardless of your beliefs around scaremongering on such subjects, then it’s true that only fools keep their eyes closed.

Edit* Of course, I’m talking to a brick wall as the OP has already given their game away in the first sentence by referring to the coronavirus as the ccp virus. Avoiding experts whilst relying on YouTube channels for ‘real news’, is laughable at best - although this is becoming worryingly standard behaviour.
 
Comment

Theyayarealivin

macrumors demi-goddess
Jun 18, 2013
4,622
8,709
Las Vegas, Nevada
It's fine, but Apple, where Special Event Announcement?
Don’t think we’re getting anything this month
[automerge]1599139307[/automerge]
Build them off shore or in a location where we don't see or hear them. Living in a state that has wind turbines. I can confirm they are ugle taking away from the natural beauty of the environment.
I think they look pretty cool and they dont make any noises
 
Comment

jimbo1975

macrumors newbie
Oct 26, 2017
2
5
" Apple explained that the new 200-meter-tall turbines will produce 62 gigawatt hours of energy every year, enough to power almost 20,000 homes. "
there is no way 1 of them can power 10K homes..

maybe each working 1 whole year can power 10K home for 1 day. if so, this article is very misleading

I looked into this for you, this is very much possible. An upcoming turbine from GE is 260m and can power 16,000 homes so 200m turbine powering 10,000 makes sense.


One Haliade-X 12 MW turbine can generate up to 67 GWh* of gross annual energy production, providing enough clean energy to power 16,000* European households and save up to 42,000 metric tons of CO2, which is the equivalent of the emissions generated by 9,000 vehicles* in one year.
 
Comment

Lukian52

macrumors newbie
Aug 12, 2013
4
10
Actually a lot of the wind energy created at night in Denmark when the demand is low, is used in Norway to refill hydroelectric reservoir by pumping the water back up. We might not be able to store the energy perfectly, but storing it as potential energy still saves some of it.
Pumped hydro is useful and economical for peak power.

Note that Denmark has the highest prices for current in Europe (together with Germany) - and their backup relies heavily on fossil fuel.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ
Comment

Lukian52

macrumors newbie
Aug 12, 2013
4
10
Nuclear is better, if there was a way to deal with the waste. Well, and the eventual oops that causes a meltdown, and the eventual decommisioning. Unlikely as that might be, the effects of a meltdown far outweigh the convenience of nuclear power. A meltdown will ruin your day, even if it's 100 miles away. There was a working nuclear power plant south west of here. On an inspection, they found that batts of insulation had fallen into the cooling water. There were literally batts of insulation flowing through the cooling system. Not ideal by any stretch. They finally closed it down. Crazy...
Waste is no problem, it is fuel for Fast Reactors. And meltdowns are not a danger for the public, as Fukushima paradoxically demonstrated (zero radiation deaths, zero cancers, unnecessary evacuation - the information is available at UNSCEAR and WHO).
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.