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

[Renzatic]

In what sense is gas "more efficient"?

In terms of energy required to energy produced, none of the renewable resources currently comes close to fossil fuels. Biodiesel, for instance, takes almost as much energy to produce it as you end up producing. Fossil fuels? The ratio of energy consumed vs. energy acquired is something ridiculously high, like 1 unit of energy for every 8 gained.

Green energy is nice, and will one day be a viable alternative. But right now? Not so much. It's only good as a supplementary source rather than a main one.

 

[AidenShaw]

That may or may not matter.

Of course my 12 tons of carbon offset won't save the earth any more than a butterfly flapping its wings will destroy it.

But, current California solar projects are offsetting about 1.6 million tons of carbon per year, and rapidly expanding. Most of California is Californians live in places ideal for PV solar - because we have long, hot, dry summers. Just when the power demand for air conditioning peaks is the same time that PV production peaks. A big win. ( http://www.californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/ ) Any datacenter that's in a temperate zone has similar issues - the power needed for air conditioning is comparable to the power used for the systems.

There are also some interesting solar/hydro projects that help deal with the "no sun at night" issue with all solar power.

The pawns of "big energy" chanting "drill, drill, drill" aren't solving any problem - other than short term profits for the energy companies at the expense of the environment.

Hurray for Apple looking beyond the bottom line, and doing something to mitigate their impact on the planet.

Green energy is nice, and will one day be a viable alternative. But right now? Not so much. It's only good as a supplementary source rather than a main one.

But it is good as a supplementary source!

PV is good in places with high temperatures and lots of sun (often correllated ) for flattening the mid-day peak loads due to air conditioning. (My home does not have central air-condtioning - it's not necessary. My panels, though, feed the grid to power other people's/companies' air conditioning.)

The people who bought my parents' home in Iowa put in a geo-thermal heating/cooling system. Much more efficient than many standard systems - and carbon-free at the house.

But you're right that few or none of these green systems are viable today as a total energy solution - but they can still offset some of the damage caused by burning fossil fuels.

Hurray for Apple for helping.

 

[alephnull12]

But, current California solar projects are offsetting about 1.6 million tons of carbon per year, and rapidly expanding.

That may or may not matter.

But you're right that few or none of these green systems are viable today as a total energy solution - but they can still offset some of the damage caused by burning fossil fuels.

What damage? The environment is fine.

 

[Renzatic]

Snip

Yup. Right now, supplementing our usual sources of energy with the newer, greener alternatives is current best answer for the very reasons you describe. But I do know that there are some people who believe we should begin doing a complete switch over NOW. No waiting! We don't have time! If things keep going as they are, then the Earth will have an atmosphere like Venus sometime next Wednesday! GREEN OR DIE!

...that won't lead to anything except a massive expenditure, one we can't afford, for a fraction of a fraction of the energy output of our current fossil fuel based system. Now I'm all for finding alternative, renewable forms of energy. But it should be something we come to gradually. Ween ourselves off fossil fuels first by supplementing it with other energy sources, then replacing it as these other sources become more robust. Relying on old tech isn't the end of the world (as much as some people make it out to be), especially when the old tech is so much more efficient.

And this leads me to the nuclear power scare, which pisses me off so much. We now have the technology to not only build far more efficient nuclear reactors, but also make it so they can consume their own waste, along with the waste of older plants. That's amazing! Why haven't we built one yet?

Cuz nuclear power is scary, and it'll eventually kill us all. I mean have you seen what happened over in Japan? Yeah. I have. It was a tragedy on top of an already unimaginable tragedy. But it also took a disaster movie scale event to occur before there was even a problem. Why are we willing to give up our best source of energy for what might-could-possibly statistically happen in a worst of a worst case scenario?

I gotta say, if earthquakes are cracking open reactors all over the country, and tsunamis are hitting Denver on a regular basis, the last thing we'll be worried about is radiation leakage.

What damage? The environment is fine.

The Earth is heating up. I don't know if that means the environment is bad exactly, but it is changing. Something is going on.

 

[AidenShaw]

The Earth is heating up. I don't know if that means the environment is bad exactly, but it is changing. Something is going on.

Something *bad* is going on.

And while it can't be proven that our generation of CO2 is the cause, it certainly doesn't help. (Note that I've not said "global warming" - because "global climate change" is the PC description, and since climate change will make some regions cooler in the short term.)

And "drill, drill, drill" and "we have lots of natural gas" isn't the short term or long term answer (unless you're 65 years old, have no children, and most of your retirement funds are in energy stocks).

No fracking subsidies for pipelines. No fracking subsidies for drilling. No fracking subsidies for fracking. Give the subsidies to cleaner energy.

And hurray for Apple for investing in our future.

 

[alephnull12]

Silly people.

 

[alephnull12]

The Earth is heating up. I don't know if that means the environment is bad exactly, but it is changing. Something is going on.

This ought to put things into perspective for you kids.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/RSL-HouseOfCommons-2012.pdf

 

[AidenShaw]

This ought to put things into perspective for you kids.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/RSL-HouseOfCommons-2012.pdf

Your link:

Page Not Found

The page /storage/RSL-HouseOfCommons-2012.pdf could not be located on this website.

We recommend using the navigation bar to get back on track within our site. If you feel you have reached this page in error, please contact a site operator. Thank you!

And from Wikipedia:

Andrew William Montford is an English writer and editor who is the owner of the Bishop Hill blog for climate-change sceptics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Hill_(Blog)

 

[alephnull12]

Your link:

Page Not Found

The page /storage/RSL-HouseOfCommons-2012.pdf could not be located on this website.

Sorry, the link was to the recent lecture to the House of Commons given by Prof. Richard Lindzen. It is here:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

Some interesting research being done recently:

http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/...onfirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/

Some interesting philosophy:

http://hawaiifreepress.com/main/Art.../Crichton-Environmentalism-is-a-religion.aspx

Anyway, bottom line, the science is not yet settled.

 

[AidenShaw]

Anyway, bottom line, the science is not yet settled.

On the other hand, science often deals in probabilities - and at some point the probabilities are so high that the prudent thing is to act.

You don't need to wait until the sea levels rise so high from melting ice caps that the Hudson flows through the 5th Avenue Apple Store before you take action.

 

[alephnull12]

On the other hand, science often deals in probabilities - and at some point the probabilities are so high that the prudent thing is to act.

You don't need to wait until the sea levels rise so high from melting ice caps that the Hudson flows through the 5th Avenue Apple Store before you take action.

What makes you think that the probabilities are "so high"? As opposed to people only being able to imagine that things might be "so horrible?" due to their religious proclivities?

Do you really honestly think that the probability is "so high" that the Hudson will begin flowing through the 5th Avenue Apple Store any time soon?

And why is carbon mitigation assumed to be the most prudent way to address the problem, as opposed to other alternatives (e.g. geoengineering)? Why sink huge amounts of grant money and taxation solely into alternative energy and taxing conventional activities, without spending hardly anything at all on researching geoengineering?

Religious bias, that's why. But religion and government policy really don't mix very well.

 

[alephnull12]

On the other hand, science often deals in probabilities - and at some point the probabilities are so high that the prudent thing is to act.

You don't need to wait until the sea levels rise so high from melting ice caps that the Hudson flows through the 5th Avenue Apple Store before you take action.

If you have a particular proclivity towards a certain worldview (e.g. religion), it's always very easy to point to a potential cataclysmic scenario, whether real, exaggerated, or just imagined, which justifies a government policy that conforms to your worldview.

Despots have always pointed to plausible but unverified potential scenarios on the horizon to justify over-reaching and suppressive policies -- just look to the former Soviet Union. And it isn't always despots. Historically, it's also often been scientists (eugenics, miscegenation as "unnatural", nuclear scientists working for totalitarian regimes).

For example, conjure up a scenario where promiscuous sex and depleted morals lead to an increasing incidence of public health hazards, such as untreatable sexually transmitted disease:

http://blogs.ajc.com/news-to-me/201...ving-untreatable-vd/?cxntfid=blogs_news_to_me

What are the most suppressive policies you can think of to contend with that potential scenario?

... just because somebody thinks something might happen in case things turn out badly for some reason for another, is no reason to conclude that it necessarily will, or that only the worst possible cataclysmic scenarios should be considered, and allow politicians to impose their world-view on others using the most intrusive policies out of many options for a unrealized and largely uncertain problem.

 

[AidenShaw]

Sure, if you don't mind the earthquakes (got a lot of experience here with that seeing as I live 12 miles from a well that just caused over a half dozen minor earthquakes in the past year including the largest one in this area in recorded history (i.e. 3.8).

Apropos: