Apple Touts Plans for Massive Solar Farm and Fuel Cell Facilities at North Carolina Data Center

[applecomputer76]

If they really cared, they would have solar panels on their more open roofed stores and on the Apple campus, in addition to buying into a carbon credit scheme.

It isn't widely known, but in Apple's latest plans for their new campus they are covering both the big new parking structure and the entire massive circular building with solar panels. The entire roof! Of course they know it will save them money in the long term, but that's what's so great - they think long term as opposed to most companies.

Apple has consistently made progress in every single area in terms of the environment and I think they deserve a lot of credit for what they do. High quality products that are highly recyclable and have a higher second hand value than other manufacturers, tiny packaging compared to their peers, the lowest possible energy consumption in their products - they all save energy by default which no others do - and an iPad uses only 2.5 watts of energy. Best customer satisfaction, stores that are gorgeous and don't look like stores, and on.

In a perfect world they wouldn't make everything in the far east and use planes to ship iPhones around the world, but the world isn't perfect and Apple is doing the best - and succeeding - in reversing the trend of competing by price. Apple = quality.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Nice straw-man. I never said oil wasn't toxic, however CO2, the thing that has you all hot and bothered is converted into oxygen by a process called photosynthesis by every green plant on the planet.

Dream on! The CO2/O2 conversion requires living plants, which do not exist in the atmospheric layers which contain the CO2.

 

[John.B]

I realize there are only so many shades of green that render well on flat panel displays, but that android-green they are using for this graphic has got to go.

 

[TMay]

So, you buy the PRIUS - because it's sooooo green, but in China there is radioactive pollution - but China you don't care about ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/b...aysia-refinery-expects-to-open-this-year.html

HONG KONG — Malaysian regulators granted an initial operating license late Wednesday for a giant rare earth metals refinery that has been at the center of a dispute over radioactive waste management

I'm guessing that Malaysian regulators regulate businesses in Malaysia. Since you linked to the NY Times which I have not registered, I read an earlier article.

I'm having difficulty understanding what this has to do with China.

 

[Ugg]

I think this "green" kick is nothing but marketing.

I would love to see how much of that solar farm was allocated to "Marketing Expense." Furthermore while possible with "instant on" diesel generators, I would also imagine this solar farm secondary (primary perhaps) justification is energy independence of the power grid. Can one imagine the outcry if there was a power outage, and everyone everywhere lost their iCloud.

It would be a RIM-style failure that I believe Apple is trying to prevent, while trying to appear "green" at the same time.

You obviously didn't read the article, did you?

building the largest nonutility fuel cell installation in the United States.

Natural gas is readily available in the USA, Diesel may or may not be depending upon any number of factors. Anyone operating an energy intensive data center absolutely needs to cover all bases. Apple clearly has done this because it is immensely important to their business to have a reliable service. Diesel generation is not the best option for them. Too bad you failed to read the facts before spouting off with your opinion.

Someone at Apple has gone nuts. I am glad Apple is so rich they can waste time on stuff like this, but it is a bad sign when a company leaves its core compentencies to waste time and resources on trendy political fads.

"Going green" is a rich person first world fad that is mostly harmless, unless Apple starts to lose focus. Often this sort of thing means a company is losing focus. I like Apple stuff, so prefer they stay focused on what they know, not appesing a few oddball organizations with "going green".

However, I guess this also ties in with modern expectations. Rich first worlders like feeling good about going green and want to feel good about the "morality" of their products as well as their functionality - so maybe this will help the bottom line by appealing to other green fadists, who on average probably are a larger buying percentage of Apple products than non-fadists. I think this is probably exceptional popular among age groups Apple sells to. Heck, my daughter comes home from public school all the time telling me fairy tales about the green fads - I suspect this sort of thing would induce her to buy more products and think more positively about Apple.

I can't believe your ignorance. Nobody but nobody declares the longer battery life of an iPhone or an iPad to be a green 'fad'.

Apple's data center is a core part of iCloud and will be a core part of their future. In order for it to be successful, they need to have the best and most secure power sources available. The grid can hardly be considered the best option, nor can diesel generation. However, fuel cells and solar power are not only highly efficient but also allow Apple to secure iCloud from market and weather related vagaries.

If Apple wants to paint such moves as 'green' then great, but don't for a second think that any company that relies so much on 99.9999% reliability can afford to rely on the shoddy US energy transportation grid.

 

[tbrinkma]

I left out solar because I discredited in a previous post. It is toxic to produce, and impossible to recycle.

Why is that scary? Because I refuse to buy the neo-militant environmentalism you have bought hook-line and sinker? I would imagine I am way more eco-friendly than you. I drive a fuel-efficient (non hybrid), I recycle, and try to purchase products that can be recycled when I cannot use them anymore.

Have fun recycling your 400lb nickel-cadmium Prius battery. . . . oh wait . . . you can't.

You're right, he can't! I don't imagine you know *why* though. I'll give you a hint. It's not because the Prius battery pack can't be recycled. It's not even that it's not economically feasible to recycle the a Prius battery pack. So why can't he recycle his "400lb nickel-cadmium Prius battery"?

Because the battery pack doesn't contain a single nickel-cadmium cell. They're Ni-MH (Nickel-Metal Hydride) battery packs, which are easily (and commonly) recycled.

 

[AgRacer]

Solar farm when the power goes down...does it cover the entire state to provide enough power for a DATA CENTER? Does everyone hear realize the power requirements of a data center? I also mean beyond just the electronic equipment? You have to keep that stuff cool or it fails so, Chillers, cooling towers, air handling units, pumps, etc.....LOTS and LOTS of power.

And King Josh, in what fairy tale did you learn the world is going to "run out of oil'? The US has enough oil under the 48-states to last 400-years at current consumption levels.

 

[theart666]

recycled materials?

I pay good money for apple products. I don't want some filthy used bottle, or recycled urine being used to build my expensive fancy pants gadgets!, save your green for the 3rd World!, Burn more fossil fuel!

 

[BuddyTronic]

Someone at Apple has gone nuts. I am glad Apple is so rich they can waste time on stuff like this, but it is a bad sign when a company leaves its core compentencies to waste time and resources on trendy political fads.

"Going green" is a rich person first world fad that is mostly harmless, unless Apple starts to lose focus. Often this sort of thing means a company is losing focus. I like Apple stuff, so prefer they stay focused on what they know, not appesing a few oddball organizations with "going green".

Wait until Apple becomes more profitable by going green. They will demonstrate it to people with your attitude, and then you will scramble trying to copy it once the concept has hit you like a slap on the forehead.

Going Green doesn't have to be a fad at all - hopefully some day it will make sense to even the most cut throat exploiters out there. It's the only way to really become green - make it profitable.

With giant sized buildings, the economies of scale might make "green" energy pay off. There are some hotels out there who heat their massive outdoor pools with solar heat and "save" a ton of cash. True- the spa they create is not really a conservative "green" thing to do, but it's really nice luxury to have a heated outdoor spa. I think the break even point was like 3 years for a particular installation I heard about. Maybe the big Apple building will have good success.

 

[thaifood]

2012: Apple Datacenter solar farm is operational

2013: iTV released with Siri and iTunes match (LOLRUMORS)

2014: Foxconn introduces fully automated and robot-controlled assembly line for Apple products

2015: Apple manufacturing and datacenters become 100% powered by solar/fuel cell and wind - negating the need to connect to the main grid

2016: Siri becomes self-aware

 

[KingJosh]

I see a lot of GOV-organisations in this table:
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/toplists/top50.htm

ah yes. Sorry I was mainly targeting the opposition to my Australian government who are basically the demons of the Earth lol

 

[Thunderhawks]

You must be a child.

See, I live in Southern California where the People's Republic spent untold billions of dollars building the 2nd largest wind farm in the world on I-10 in-between Palm Springs and LA. It runs only 3 days a week because it was "killing the birds"

Hydro is great, however the a freeze on building hydro-electric plants in the US until a full study can be completed on the effects of these dams on fish populations.

Geo Thermal is great . . . too bad there are no hot springs near this site.

Geo Thermal doesn't need hot springs. I am sure you know!

You are sure out there with "clean" nuclear energy.

What is clean about stuff humans can't control and we have no way to get rid off ?

Did you read what happened in Japan? Boy are they glad that that was all clean stuff that leaked out. Phew, they really got lucky.

Tchernobyl, almost Harrisburg. Yes I know the answer already: Too long ago and technology is just better now.

Technology involving humans who make errors will eventually always fail.

Only decision to make is how many lives is okay to lose.

None of the energy needs of today are covered without problems.

It's easy to find fault with everything, but to get back to Apple, they are doing something about it.

Already proving that they are by using better material and trying to recycle what they sell.

 

[AidenShaw]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Other companies doing this: none.

Oh really? Just because you're ignorant of what other companies are doing doesn't make Apple the only one doing solar.

Google: Rent your solar panels from us

by Candace Lombardi | September 28, 2011 10:55 AM PDT

A $75 million investment via Clean Power Finance will help homeowners install solar panels owned by Google, getting solar-generated electricity for a monthly fee.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20112778-54/google-rent-your-solar-panels-from-us/#ixzz1mxuK5H8y

Googleplex rooftops: (attachment 1)

Microsoft SV rooftops: (attachment 2) (about 1.4 km from the Googleplex)

 

[mytdave]

not mentioned

Not mentioned is the decrease of emissions in other sectors of the world economy from companies that have been supplanted by Apple's products.

For example, the number of brick & mortar record stores has dwindled to almost nonexistent, and with that, the amount of emissions those retail locations contributed to the environment.

Of course, one could argue that those retail locations have been taken over by some other type of business, but such results are an endless argument...

I would wager though, that any market in which Apple does business has seen a net reduction in emissions due to the efficiency of the products and services Apple provides.

 

[AidenShaw]

Not mentioned is the decrease of emissions in other sectors of the world economy from companies that have been supplanted by Apple's products.

For example, the number of brick & mortar record stores has dwindled to almost nonexistent, and with that, the amount of emissions those retail locations contributed to the environment.

Of course, one could argue that those retail locations have been taken over by some other type of business, but such results are an endless argument...

I would wager though, that any market in which Apple does business has seen a net reduction in emissions due to the efficiency of the products and services Apple provides.

On the other hand, most of Apple's products depend on highly toxic batteries that should go to the toxic eWaste dump when the non-replaceable batteries fail.

 

[decksnap]

On the other hand, most of Apple's products depend on highly toxic batteries that should go to the toxic eWaste dump when the non-replaceable batteries fail.

And if they were replaceable, you'd plant them in the garden?

 

[xnu]

Carbonated water

If I drink a lot of seltzer, will my carbon footprint get bigger?

 

[AidenShaw]

And if they were replaceable, you'd plant them in the garden?

If the batteries were replaceable, I'd send the battery to the toxic waste dump, rather than the whole phone/tablet/music player.

How has Apple managed to create a culture where it's almost seen to be a character flaw if you're not using this week's/month's/quarter's device?

A few solar panels in North Carolina won't offset the environmental damage from building and disposing of millions of Itoys a week.

 

[TMay]

On the other hand, most of Apple's products depend on highly toxic batteries that should go to the toxic eWaste dump when the non-replaceable batteries fail.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/3285

"According to the U.S. government, lithium ion batteries aren't an environmental hazard. "Lithium Ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream," says Kate Krebs at the National Recycling Coalition. While other types of batteries include toxic metals such as cadmium, the metals in lithium ion batteries - cobalt, copper, nickel and iron - are considered safe for landfills or incinerators (Interestingly enough, lithium ion batteries contain an ionic form of lithium but no lithium metal)."

I've seen recycling bins as Best Buy, so I'm guessing that these are common at Fry's and such, but except an arcane and illegal use in production of meth, and lithium oxide in the water supply, I wouldn't consider these batteries "highly toxic".

 

[Erasmus]

Nuclear station would be a great target for a suicide bomber and an extremely easy way to wipe out america in a couple of hours. Fault line or not. Earth quakes are not the only natural disaster than can occur. Nuclear is too risky. Plus you get nuclear wastage that has a half life of around 20,000 years.

If you want to evolve into a toad if not die be my guest but please go to another planet to do it

As far as I am aware, there have only been three instances of "large amounts" of nuclear waste being released into the environment.

Chernobyl was caused by the Russians FORCING their reactor to melt down by physically disabling the safety systems.

Three mile island again was caused by human factors that would not have resulted with anything like a modern fully automatic, fully redundant system.

Fukushima (or however it is spelled) was caused by an unprecedented earthquake and tsunami.

The idea that a suicide bomber could damage a nuclear reactor AT ALL is ill-conceived. A few pounds of explosive, or even a few tonnes of car-bomb explosive detonating near a reactor would likely barely breach the outer containment shielding, and only put the reactor out of commission for a few months for repairs. Nuclear waste is similarly transported in shielded canisters that any bomb would have a hard time breaching.

Finally, yes Nuclear waste tends to have extremely long life, and can be dangerous for tens of thousands of years. But it seems safe to me that our world scientists and engineers will come up with a solution to this problem within a few tens of years, let alone the thousands of years that today's long term storage solutions are guaranteed for.

 

[Nostromo]

Bravo for Apple's foray into green (solar) technology.

Hopefully they will set up camp there, and expand.

 

[AidenShaw]

...here, they're toxic....

http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/3285

"According to the U.S. government, lithium ion batteries aren't an environmental hazard. "Lithium Ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream," says Kate Krebs at the National Recycling Coalition. While other types of batteries include toxic metals such as cadmium, the metals in lithium ion batteries - cobalt, copper, nickel and iron - are considered safe for landfills or incinerators (Interestingly enough, lithium ion batteries contain an ionic form of lithium but no lithium metal)."

I've seen recycling bins as Best Buy, so I'm guessing that these are common at Fry's and such, but except an arcane and illegal use in production of meth, and lithium oxide in the water supply, I wouldn't consider these batteries "highly toxic".

I should have qualified my statement by locale....

Why should household batteries be recycled?
Household batteries including alkaline and rechargeable batteries cannot be landfilled in California because they contain acids and toxic metals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, and nickel. These metals may harm people and the environment.

Definition: Alkaline batteries are AAA, AA, C, D button cell and 9-volt batteries.

Definition: Rechargeable batteries are typically found in cordless phones, power tools and laptops. Types include: Nickel Cadmium (Ni-Cd), Nickel Metal Hydride (Ni-MH), Lithium Ion (Li-Ion), Nickel Zinc (Ni-Zn) and Small Sealed Lead (SSLA/Pb).

http://recyclenow.org/toxics/house_batteries.asp

 

[Erasmus]

I have to disagree with your last point...While I'm not a physicist, I do have some elementary knowledge of nuclear reactors, and they are quite different than nuclear or thermonuclear (hydrogen) warheads. (Not sure if you were implying that someone could initiate a nuclear detonation, but this isn't possible).

Only fission produces nuclear fallout, which is simply the unstable fragments of the splitting of either Uranium-235, or Plutonium-239. Nuclear fusion does not result in the creation of large amounts of unstable large elements. However as the fusion process in a thermonuclear bomb is triggered by a traditional fission explosion, the result is much the same.

Sure, a terrorists could somehow gain access to fissile (I guess, distinct from fissionable; maybe someone can explain the difference in further detail than what Wikipedia can provide) material or spent fuel rods and make a dirty bomb (conventional explosive wrapped in radioactive material, which, when detonated, spreads radiation everywhere), but the likelihood of this happening, I think, is slim.

Only U-235 and Pu-239 are fissile. I don't think fissionable is a real scientific word. A dirty bomb is just a wad of explosive with some normal radioactive material, like would be found in any hospital, or in smoke alarms, or the by-product of nuclear fission in a reactor, or collected from a wide number of natural sources.

And I think it would be far easier to access this material outside the United States.

Very true. Anyways, if a terrorist's goal is just to kill as many people as possible, there are far easier and more effective ways. Like toxic chemical bombs.

Of course, nuclear waste is a problem, but you can recycle spent Uranium 235 rods into usable Plutonium (I think France does this).

Fast breeder nuclear reactors use fissile U-235 and Pu-239, and the large number of neutrons released to turn the most common isotope of Uranium, U-238, otherwise known as "depleted uranium" into Pu-239. This is a much more difficult process than a normal nuclear reactor.

Sure, Japan should give us pause, but if we can implement thorough safety measures, then I think we have a pretty good chance of operating these things safely.

How many people die from coal mine accidents? How many people will die from increasingly hostile weather and rising seawater caused by global warming? How long until mid to high range radiation exposure is easily treatable in hospitals? I've got to say, I'm sick of the negative campaigning nuclear power gets. Especially when the fuel can be safely open-cut mined out in the desert of Oz. Which also doubles as probably the safest place in the world to store the radioactive waste generated.

 

[mplsdude]

Here is a pic a friend posted on FB of the aerial shot of the area showing the fields already bulldozed.

 

[Ugg]

Solar farm when the power goes down...does it cover the entire state to provide enough power for a DATA CENTER? Does everyone hear realize the power requirements of a data center? I also mean beyond just the electronic equipment? You have to keep that stuff cool or it fails so, Chillers, cooling towers, air handling units, pumps, etc.....LOTS and LOTS of power.

And King Josh, in what fairy tale did you learn the world is going to "run out of oil'? The US has enough oil under the 48-states to last 400-years at current consumption levels.

You didn't read the article.

Apple is not relying on solar power for all of its electricity needs, in fact, it's building the largest fuel cell installation in the USA. The fuel cells will provide the bulk of its needs. Solar panels are there to help provide cooling power during the hottest times of the year. Times when the entire grid is likely to fail. Just like in aircraft manufacturing, redundancy is extremely important in the power planning for data centers.

If Apple were to rely on unstable, outside sources for its electricity, iCloud would be plagued by outages. By investing heavily in reliable and renewable power, they will be at the head of the race.

I don't know why that is so difficult for so many people to understand.

IF the US has so much oil as you claim, why are we currently importing so much? Perhaps you could supply verifiable sources to back up your rather outrageous claims?

As far as I am aware, there have only been three instances of "large amounts" of nuclear waste being released into the environment.

Chernobyl was caused by the Russians FORCING their reactor to melt down by physically disabling the safety systems.

Three mile island again was caused by human factors that would not have resulted with anything like a modern fully automatic, fully redundant system.

Fukushima (or however it is spelled) was caused by an unprecedented earthquake and tsunami.

Finally, yes Nuclear waste tends to have extremely long life, and can be dangerous for tens of thousands of years. But it seems safe to me that our world scientists and engineers will come up with a solution to this problem within a few tens of years, let alone the thousands of years that today's long term storage solutions are guaranteed for.

So, what about the cumulative impact of all the 'small' amounts of nuclear waste releases? Are they irrelevant because of their size? Or simply convenient to ignore?

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are prime examples of why nuclear will always be dangerous to humans. The reason being is that they are designed, built and operated by humans. There's no way to get around that.

The size of the Fukushima earthquake was hardly 'unprecedented'. There have been much larger earthquakes and there will continue to be larger earthquakes.

I highlighted the word will because it seems sort of idiotic to believe that we will when after more than 75 years, we still haven't come up with any truly safe and long term solution for nuclear waste storage.

----------

How many people die from coal mine accidents? How many people will die from increasingly hostile weather and rising seawater caused by global warming? How long until mid to high range radiation exposure is easily treatable in hospitals? I've got to say, I'm sick of the negative campaigning nuclear power gets. Especially when the fuel can be safely open-cut mined out in the desert of Oz. Which also doubles as probably the safest place in the world to store the radioactive waste generated.

How many nuclear reactors will be under water from rising seawater or will have to shut down because of prolonged drought? You can't just up and move them, now can you?

Let's see, you need to spend vast sums mining the ore which is incredibly destructive to the environment, then transport it to a processing facility, then to the power plant, then send it somewhere for storage. The problem is that there's no way that nuclear will ever be cost effective and it's mostly because of the future storage costs as well as the inevitable damage that the transportation and use will cause. Solar and fuel cells have clearly defined costs and lifespans. There's no question of how much it will cost 5,000 years from now to deal with solar panel waste. It's a no brainer. Nuclear has no future, simply because it will consume the future.