Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Open Massive $850M Solar Farm in Monterey, California
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've been using my Macbook Aluminum Unibody since 2008, which has been compatible with every OS they have released since then, only now am I going to upgrade once the new rMBP comes out. Sooooo I would say they do support it.
you completely missed the point in my post. he was asking why build it where its cloudy, not specifically which rays hit the earth surface. And FYI, there are panels that capture UV rays but are not commercially available. *sigh* we done professor? FML people always tryna start net wars LOL
Not really, it's on the west side of the mountain range, which separates the Salinas from the San Joaquin.
Solar farms are very compatible with ecosystems and pasture based farming.
I've seen several now and am impressed.
In a desert situation the solar farm creates shade which conserves water by reducing evaporation and creating microclimates where life thrives. That's a good thing.
In non-desert situations livestock can be grazed around the panels. Especially smaller livestock like sheep, goats, pigs and chickens. Cattle are more of a problem from rubbing on the bases but with big strong bases this becomes a non-issue. The livestock do the mowing that otherwise would be done mechanically. Done as managed rotational grazing this results in the sequestering of about 1.4 tons of carbon a year per acre or more. That's good for the environment. It also produces food, meat, from solar, the sunshine and plant activity. The moving shade of the panels is also beneficial to the livestock while letting the forages, plants, grow between them.
Big win in either climate.
I've seen several now and am impressed.
In a desert situation the solar farm creates shade which conserves water by reducing evaporation and creating microclimates where life thrives. That's a good thing.
In non-desert situations livestock can be grazed around the panels. Especially smaller livestock like sheep, goats, pigs and chickens. Cattle are more of a problem from rubbing on the bases but with big strong bases this becomes a non-issue. The livestock do the mowing that otherwise would be done mechanically. Done as managed rotational grazing this results in the sequestering of about 1.4 tons of carbon a year per acre or more. That's good for the environment. It also produces food, meat, from solar, the sunshine and plant activity. The moving shade of the panels is also beneficial to the livestock while letting the forages, plants, grow between them.
Big win in either climate.
More information came out today which corrects this. The installation is planned for Cholame Valley, which is a small high desert valley at the edge of the Central Valley. It's protected from the coastal fog by a mountain range, and is high enough above the Central Valley to avoid valley or tule fog. It is almost literally in the middle of nowhere. In addition, the HV transmission line which connects the ill-fated Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant with the Central Valley runs right across the Cholame Valley. The site is about halfway between Apple in Cupertino and Los Angeles, and is about 100 miles from Monterey.
Looks like an ideal site for a major solar power installation.
I guess Apple only plans on working when it's sunny outside...
How long will it take $850 million worth of solar panels to pay for themselves?? It takes residential units about 20-25 years to break even on the cost. I'm sure Apple doesnt pay the exorbinant residential rates on the electricity they consume. I'm sure they pay the commercial rate which is probably about onlt 1/5th of the residential rate (based on the difference between commercial and residential rates in my state). So, that means these solar panels will pay for themselves in about 125 years. Yea, great use of investors' money.
How long will it take $850 million worth of solar panels to pay for themselves?? It takes residential units about 20-25 years to break even on the cost. I'm sure Apple doesnt pay the exorbinant residential rates on the electricity they consume. I'm sure they pay the commercial rate which is probably about onlt 1/5th of the residential rate (based on the difference between commercial and residential rates in my state). So, that means these solar panels will pay for themselves in about 125 years. Yea, great use of investors' money.
Corporate Social Responsibility. Look it up. Shareholders are not more important than stakeholders, which also includes the natural environment.
This.
I don't know if people here realize, but with this farm going up, Apple just offset all of the power they would consume in the following locations:
- All 55 retail stores in California,
- All offices in California,
- at least 1 of its data centers,
- the under-construction Campus 2, including the power used during construction.
Return to shareholders? ROI? Break Even? By doing this and offsetting the power used, that means more money for use for other things, like returns to shareholders, dividends, etc. To do this and actually care about the environment.. Your move, Koch Brothers.
Disclosure: I'm a shareholder as well.
BL.
You skipped reading my post.
This is not $850 million in solar panels. The headline number is the total expected payments for the electricity that Apple has agreed to buy through the power purchase agreement for the next 25 years. There is no attempt in that number to apply time value of money calculations.
Building 130 MW of First Solar Panels under good site conditions should run between $250 million and $300 million to build. More if these panels tilt to follow the sun. Interconnection and transmission lines would be extra, but not $100 million extra if (as a post above suggests) there are good lines and substations relatively nearby.
----------
And they locked in a predetermined price for the next 25 years. Think about how much that helps corporate planning.
Nah I think he's saying we want the others to care as much for the environment ad Apple do.
They don't pay "residential rates" to create the farm either.
When it pays off will depend mainly on future energy costs which we can't be sure about... seems likely that they'll trend up, but at what rate?
Also, smart investors know the value of the Apple brand and expect Apple to maintain it. Whether an investor personally gets a warm bubbly feeling about renewable energy or not, there are a lot of people who do. This project lets Apple tap into that in an emphatically credible and lasting way. These kinds of intangible assets are important when you want to live at the high-end of the market. I don't know how to value something like this (I bet Apple has a pretty good idea, though) so I couldn't guess if this has a significant effect on whether this is a good investment or not. Let's see... $850 million over 25 years is $34 million a year or about %3.5 of a $1B marketing budget (a number I got from a *quick* internet search -- I saw another page that claimed Samsung's marketing budget is $12B so maybe that's low?)... purely as a marketing thing it seems pretty expensive for what they get -- some "polish" on their brand for some people -- but, of course, there's all the electricity as well.
Doesn't seem crazy as a long term energy and marketing plan to me.
Investors don't want to tell executives how to run their companies to make money. They want the executives to figure all that out. Not that they shouldn't squawk when something major doesn't look right. But ultimately you need to either trust the people running the company to do it really well... or switch your investment to a company where you do.
Regardless of them breaking even for Apple. They will never save anything near the amount of energy they cost to actually produce.
Just like all the smug lot driving electric cars. The pollution made during production of the batteries alone is significantly more than they save from running fossil fuels.
Just like all the smug lot driving electric cars. The pollution made during production of the batteries alone is significantly more than they save from running fossil fuels.
Is this information verifiable? If so, what pollutants are created as a byproduct of manufacturing solar panels?
Any links where one can read this information?
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/...nmental-impacts-solar-power.html#.VN3yZFrpjHg
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html
http://business.financialpost.com/2...-waste-problem/?__lsa=6ad1-08f2#__federated=1
I am far from being a lefty tree hugger, but people who think PV panels are going to solve the problems we have with energy are sadly incorrect. Whilst they will help in the future, the technology has been rushed and mass produced far too quickly with little consideration for the possible pollutant effect.
Last edited:
Thanks, will read as soon as I get a chance. I thinks it's important for all to stayed informed.
Timescale has really nothing to do with the ability (or inability) of human to alter nature. We can easily destroy in a second a mineral billion years old, we can also pollute the atmosphere in a few decades enough to alter the climate, and we are doing it as most scientists agree.