Apple's Data Centers to Be Powered by 100% Renewable Energy

[alephnull12]

Duke Energy also charges non-manufacturing commercial facilities a demand rate of $3.19 per month for every kW of peak demand (beyond the first 30 kW of peak demand) that the facility places on the grid. This is independent of the rate charged for the kWh actually delivered.

If we accept Apple's figures that their facility will draw approximately 20 MW at peak capacity (this value will vary somewhat over the course of a day), then with conventional electrical service they would be paying $63704.30 per month just for the service demand -- before they even start paying the per-kWh rate.

Ignorant.

The number of hours in a month = 24 * 30 = 720.

For simplicity, assume that data center uses a constant amount of electricity throughout the day.

($3.19 kW / mo ) / 720 hours per month = approximate added cost of $0.005 per kWh in addition to the normal fee per kWh.

Of course, the data center doesn't use exactly the same amount of power throughout the day, but ballpark figure, this cost is completely trivial. The electricity cost in North Carolina is on the order of $0.08 per kWh, so even including this fee you are talking about, the cost is on the order of $0.08 to $0.09 per kWh.

Even if Apple's data center uses all of its electricity in only 4 hours out of the day, resulting in high peak demand and comparatively high fee, the fee you are talking about still only adds $0.027 per kWh to the base per kWh cost.

Do the math. Someone just posted here about their data center consuming $1 million per month in electricity. Is that data center as large as Apple's? Probably not. Your $63,000 / mo is a trivial amount in comparison to the per kWh cost, and also trivial in relation to the cost of installing several megawatts of solar power.

 

[smoledman]

Far more environmental destruction is caused by mining for rare earth minerals, aluminum and development of plastics used in Apple products then whatever is being "saved" by using solar energy for this 1 datacenter. It's all so convenient.

 

[Pez555]

Why would you suspect I'm joking? This wanton spending does nothing for Apple's consumers, and it does nothing for Apple shareholders. It's really just a sign that management is concerned with spending their time and corporate money on their own self-absorbed bourgeois fantasies, instead of, you know, making insanely great products.

They could have added a bottle opener to my iPhone and it would have been a more useful feature upgrade than this.

I sold my shares. Now I understand why Forstall and Mansfield did to. Apple needs to fire their board of directors and replace it with people who have a clue, since obviously Steve Jobs isn't there to babysit them anymore.

are you insane? most idiotic post ive seen for a while around here, and ive seen a fair few.

 

[applesith]

All of that solar space for the relatively small center? What a waste. Just use regular electricity. More efficient.

 

[Ieo]

Solar and wind are not reliable sources and must be augmented by reliable traditional sources, so it can't be 100% renewable. A 5MW fuel cell won't come anywhere near what's needed at night or on windless days.

Initial equipment costs and maintenance expenses are going to be catastrophic. We all know who's going to have to foot the bill for this, and it won't be Android or Microsoft users. They'll continue to provide products at far less cost using good old fashon and reliable coal and gas.

It's a grid-tied system. Apple (of all companies) should be able to negotiate a good rate at which they can sell back their excess energy to the power companies, then draw from the grid at night. It's done ALL the time, and if you have enough excess (for example- the sun is highest at noon, but peak traffic isn't until 4 or so) you end up ahead.

And initial equipment costs will come out of Apple's ridiculous stash of cash, and be recouped later.

 

[Lennholm]

Bull. It's a good way for people who have money to burn to buy positive sentiment from childish people. In the long term, it gets you nowhere though.

The environment is fine.

Sure, it's fine, it will always be "fine". The earth doesn't care if the environment is suitable for us humans or not. If the environment changes to become completely uninhabitable for our species it will still be "fine" as far as the earth itself is concerned.
There's nothing that protects us from this likely scenario, so everyone should do what they can to minimize the risk.

 

[3282868]

Sure, it's fine, it will always be "fine". The earth doesn't care if the environment is suitable for us humans or not. If the environment changes to become completely uninhabitable for our species it will still be "fine" as far as the earth itself is concerned.
There's nothing that protects us from this likely scenario, so everyone should do what they can to minimize the risk.

One of the most intelligent comments regarding this matter on MacRumors I have read. Thank you sir!

I wonder how the people who have lost their homes in record tornadoes with billions in damages this year, with every year breaking last year's record? Or perhaps the record tsunami's and earthquakes, no, we'll be fine (and no, it's not the media that sensationalizes headlines, check out statistics). In the end, this planet will shake us off like fleas on a dog, and another species will have their chance. That's the way it's been that we know of so far.

 

[thekris1234]

Now do you love me greenpeace..... Now do you love me

 

[JHankwitz]

Judging from the amount of praise for the decision in this thread as well as the amount of negative votes you've accumulated....I would say it's YOU who is out of touch.

Receiving negative votes does not mean someone is out of touch. It means they may not want to accept reality.

The point of this venture is pure PR, plain and simple. It's important to the general public to be green, therefore green companies look better and sell more. Not only is green about image, it really DOES save on energy costs, and down the road will pay for itself.

This will not save energy costs because you need to include maintenance, which will be catastrophic. There is no payback on solar or wind because equipment has to be replaced well before it approaches break-even. A solar panel with an 8-year payback will be lucky to make it through its 3rd year without having spent as much on maintaining it as it originally cost. I found this out the hard way, buying into all the bogus hype.

Watch the price of Apple stock over the next week or so to see what the 'owners' think of this move.

If being green weren't so important for image....why is everyone doing it?

Why do lemmings jump off the cliff?

 

[darkslide29]

Soemthing like this doesn't just happen overnight. If I were Apple, I'd be sure to rub it into Green Peace's faces that this had nothing to do with them, they're proud to be more environmentally friendly than most others, and still improving.

 

[dhart.mac]

Why would you suspect I'm joking?

I agree with alephnull12. Anybody that thinks this is a good thing environmentally or financially can't see the unintended consequences.

First, environmentally... 100 acres is a lot of land. What about the trees and the wildlife that destroys? How much food could be grown on that much land? How much OIL will be used to build the panels?

Second, there is no financial gain here. San Ramon Valley School District, CA spent $23M on 10,000 panels in 2011. San Ramon won't see a return on that money for 16 years! How out of date will those panels be in 16 years? Do you really think those panels won't be replaced by another round of crazy costs in 16 years? How much do you think these 100 acres of Apple panels will cost? It has to be at least 100 million. Somebody on here suggested Apple would "save" $30K a month in energy costs. Actually, it will take 277 years at $30,000 a month to recover the $100,000,000.

Nobody wants to pollute. But solar and wind energy are not viable technologies. Anybody sinking this kind of money into a failed technology is making a poor decision.

 

[goosnarrggh]

For simplicity, assume that data center uses a constant amount of electricity throughout the day.

($3.19 kW / mo ) / 720 hours per month = approximate added cost of $0.005 per kWh in addition to the normal fee per kWh.

Of course, the data center doesn't use exactly the same amount of power throughout the day, but ballpark figure, this cost is completely trivial. The electricity cost in North Carolina is on the order of $0.08 per kWh, so even including this fee you are talking about, the cost is on the order of $0.08 to $0.09 per kWh.

Even if Apple's data center uses all of its electricity in only 4 hours out of the day, resulting in high peak demand and comparatively high fee, the fee you are talking about still only adds $0.027 per kWh to the base per kWh cost.

Do the math. Someone just posted here about their data center consuming $1 million per month in electricity. Is that data center as large as Apple's? Probably not. Your $63,000 / mo is a trivial amount in comparison to the per kWh cost, and also trivial in relation to the cost of installing several megawatts of solar power.

Here's all the math (for the solar portion of the deal only - assume for the moment that the biogas facility and the Duke Energy costs are rolled into one.

They pay $15.75 per month to be a customer of Duke Energy. This is negligible and can be discarded from the math.

Then they need a hook-up capable of satisfying the peak demand of 20 MW. That costs approximately $63K per month, or approximately $756K per year. That's nothing to cough at, but you're right, it's actually chump change compared to what comes next.

Then they consume (by Apple's figures) approximately 206,000,000 kWh of energy per year. (60% of that, or 124,0000,000 kWh, will be replaced by renewables; 84,000,000 kWh of those renewables will be solar.) If they pay an average of $0.08 per kWh, then they would pay approximately $16M per year in per-kWh electrical costs.

After replacing 84,000,000 kWh per year with solar, they will end up consuming only 122,000,000 kWh per year from Duke Energy. They'd then by paying Duke Energy approximately $9.8M per year in electrical costs.

The difference - approximately $6.5M per year if you account for both the kWh reduction and the peak service load reduction - can go directly into amortizing and maintaining the solar facilities.

 

[alephnull12]

I wonder how the people who have lost their homes in record tornadoes with billions in damages this year, with every year breaking last year's record? Or perhaps the record tsunami's and earthquakes, no, we'll be fine (and no, it's not the media that sensationalizes headlines, check out statistics).

An interesting religious theory. Not based in fact.

May your <insert religious dogma here> strike you down for... whatever.

 

[3282868]

An interesting religious theory. Not based in fact.

May your <insert religious dogma here> strike you down for, whatever.

Religion??? I'm an atheist! Where did you get religion? What are you smoking?

If I believed in any organized dogma I wouldn't have written any of that as it is antithetical to supposed Industrial Design, god created the earth rhetoric. Check your facts cause you're gettin' schooled on here.

Some [charming] quotes by you since joining in Feb:

Journalism is a sh*thole of liberal arts majors with a few hidden gems here and there.

Guess you know your journalism too

Beatles suck.

What does any of this have to do with selling phones & computers? If they want to be a media company, they have to look politically agnostic to remain appealing as a tech company.

All this makes me want to do is make the switch to a more agnostic platform, for example Android.

This is among many things that could make Apple better by simply removing it.

Is Apple now run by a bunch of moralizing silly philanthropists? What the crap? I just want a functional phone and computer with as little bull attached to it (physically or karmically) as possible. Is Siri next going to break out in song and start lecturing me on how to be nicer? I'll throw it in the trash.

(that one got a nice -33 on Feb 8th)

Great. Article says takes crappy photos too. What an upgrade.

Guess you hate the iPod Nano as well...

I love Goldman Sachs. Those guys know how to make bank

That's rich *pun intended*

They have environmental laws in China.

I just don't have a mental disorder that makes me think every imaginary threat is a real one.

Why on Earth should Apple do solar when natural gas is much cheaper, and we now have it in surplus?

Why would it be regarded as influential for Apple to make economically bad decisions?

(Feb article on "Apple Touts Plans for Massive Solar Farm...)

Seems you got a bone to pick, and you're in the wrong neighborhood with the wrong math

 

[dhart.mac]

As dangerous as normally functioning nuclear power plant, not quite as dangerous as the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

How many people where killed by that 9+ earthquake on a 40 year old plant that was not properly maintained? Zero. How many people have died construction and maintaining wind mills? Nuclear has a far better safety record.

 

[Ieo]

Also, I like how all the negative-nancys assume they know more than the legions of accountants, lawyers, specialists, CEOs, board members, etc that went into making this decision.

A single, diluted news article is enough for you to make a multi-billion dollar decision? God damn you're impressive.

Ultimatley, as a company that produces goods and services for THE CONSUMER, the value of this move to solar is entirely up to THE CONSUMER. And judging for the overwhelming majority in support of it here, i'm just guessing it's a good move. I could definitely be wrong, but I personally doubt it.

Also: "The environment is fine"? Give me a break....Come hang out with me over the summer and be "fine" in the middle of our record breaking drought and heat. You should have been around for the tornados...digging my sister's belongings out of rubble was pretty "fine". If you're so into math, tell me how putting thousands and thousands of years worth of carbon into the atmosphere overt the span of a few decades adds up. I'm sure it'll be "Fine".

"Fine" my ass.

 

[jkichline]

Is it just me?

Is it just me, or does that plot of land shaded in Android green look a lot like a decapitated Android logo? Maybe I'm just seeing things... optimistically.

----------

I'm sort of impressed of how nearsighted some of these comments have been. But it only makes sense. Apple has always pushed the envelope of the future in ways that many through was stupid at the time. Apple invented the usable, personal computer at a time when most people were soldering them together in their basements. They took something and perfected it as a consumer product.

Who's to say that's not EXACTLY what they are doing now?

Apple is no longer in the "computer" business so anything is open for exploration. In the same way that Google is inventing self-driving cars, Apple may be discovering ways to build better building with glass or power data centers with renewable energy. All that thought and energy comes back around and increases the intellectual property and forward momentum of the company.

It's up to all of you if you want to think in the past or present, but Apple's DNA is firmly planted in the future and at the intersection of the liberal arts and technology.

 

[Macist]

I really hate the fact that Apple has invested in green technology and caved in to this tree-hugger nonsense.

I also read Ayn Rand and stamp on kittens.

 

[shinobi-81]

I also ... stamp on kittens.

You mean like that nurse from Hangzhou?

 

[Apple...]

Yes, and he chose John Scully too. Means nothing.

I'm not saying Tim Cook isn't a good CEO. I'm just saying, it doesn't look like the company is very focused on what it should be doing. Jobs knew well, it's as important, even more important, to decide NOT to do things as it is to decide what to do. Is this contributing to the making of a great product? No. Is it a hassle and expensive? Yes.

I really think you're over-thinking things. What's the hassle? What else are they supposed to do with an over $100 billion and growing cash pile? What's wrong with helping the environment? You really think they're not focusing on building great products? They have more than enough employees and cash to stay focused on multiple projects.

 

[alephnull12]

Then they consume (by Apple's figures) approximately 206,000,000 kWh of energy per year. (60% of that, or 124,0000,000 kWh, will be replaced by renewables; 84,000,000 kWh of those renewables will be solar.) If they pay an average of $0.08 per kWh, then they would pay approximately $16M per year in per-kWh electrical costs.

After replacing 84,000,000 kWh per year with solar, they will end up consuming only 122,000,000 kWh per year from Duke Energy. They'd then by paying Duke Energy approximately $9.8M per year in electrical costs.

Austin, Texas is planning a 30 MW photovoltaic installation at a cost of $250 million.

They get more sunlight, so their panels are going to produce more, but let's ignore that -- as a rough estimate, it suggests Apple will be paying about $333 million for its two 20 MW solar installations in North Carolina.

These two installations combined are to produce 84 million kWh electricity per year. At a cost of $0.08 per kWh, this these facilities produce an aggregate of approximately $6.7 million of electricity per year.

That means Apple should probably spend about $333 million for $6.7 million of electricity per year for the next 20 years or so. At that rate, it would take 50 years just to recoup the money spent.

This doesn't even factor in the costs of maintaining 200 acres of solar panels.

Now if instead of building the solar installations, if Apple took that $333 million, and invested it at a piddly 1% annual return, they would reap $3.3 million per year or so income, which could go toward purchasing already half of the electricity produced by the installations, PLUS Apple would still have the $333 million, PLUS they would have no costs to maintain the facility.

There is no way that this project implemented at this time ends up being anything but a money pit.

The peak service load fee as we've established is trivial. But I also bet that Apple has to continue paying it, because solar isn't reliable enough to run ****, ad they still need the capability to buy enough electricity from Duke to keep the place running when the sky is cloudy or it's nighttime. Not that it's a significant factor, but hey, you brought it up.

 

[charlituna]

It's for Greenpeace to pick on another manufacturer now. I know of no other major tech company that has gone this far to be green.

They will go weeks on the news that they got Apple to change. Even though this has likely been in the works since day one

----------

Renewable energy gives you cancer. It's a fact

Everything gives you cancer

 

[highdough]

Bull. It's a good way for people who have money to burn to buy positive sentiment from childish people. In the long term, it gets you nowhere though.

The environment is fine.

Bull.

And the fact that you believe that says pretty much everything we need to know about why you're so adamantly against this.

Be secure in the knowledge that your place in history is secure along with the people who used to say:
Smoking doesn't cause cancer
Women weren't smart enough to vote
The world is flat
Among others....

----------

How many people where killed by that 9+ earthquake on a 40 year old plant that was not properly maintained? Zero. How many people have died construction and maintaining wind mills? Nuclear has a far better safety record.

Actually a number of people have or will die from the fallout from the reactor.

And the danger to those around a windmill failing is negligible. The danger to those around a nuclear powerplant failing is not.

We don't ultimately know what the final impact will be of the plant failing in Japan, just as it took decades to discover the true impact of Cherobyl.

 

[alephnull12]

Religion??? I'm an atheist!

No, you're not.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080514...ial.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

 

[Lennholm]

No, you're not.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080514...ial.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

Quite presumptuous of you to place bedifferent into the social structure Crichton is writing about based only on that post.
Furthermore, to call environmentalism a religion and claim that an "environmentalist" can't be an atheist only shows ignorance on what the words religion and atheism means.