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

[alephnull12]

So you're criticizing Apple for thinking beyond simply making money and actually having a positive influence on the people and earth as a whole. No offense, but this attitude is exactly what is wrong with society: myopic, me-first thinking and why the capitalist system doesn't always work very well. It's nice to see a company that goes beyond just trying to please it's shareholders and actually wanting to have a social conscience.

This type of thinking is exactly what landed Apple in the crapper once already, back in the 90's. Steve Jobs had to come back to save their lousy asses, now what?

I don't have the exact numbers, but it looks like management may be getting ready to throw $100 million dollars into the garbage, and people are clapping their hands like this means something good for the company.

Not a good sign, as far as evaluating corporate governance and management. And people wonder why I sold this dog. Sell high, buy low. Only, this time no more Jobs to rescue Apple's sorry ass again.

 

[breising]

What's the payoff for this?

I hope Apple will publish how much this thing will cost and when they expect to break even.

If it's not economically feasible at the present time more 'power' to them...

But if it's close to break even, it's a great lesson to us all to try the same thing!

Either way, it kind of makes sense.

 

[east85]

Apple needs to forget about its "green" image and compete to bring us nicer things. Why should all that profit go to benefit the environment! Imagine how much better it would be if they just sent everyone free MacBooks for the cost of this program! Or donated them to the homeless and hungry in third world countries!

Global climate change isn't even proven!

 

[ebouwman]

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.

Why would it cost more to build a smaller facility? I'm guessing that land values cant be 40% higher in north carolina or apple would have built their facility in texas.

 

[ebouwman]

Global climate change isn't even proven!

YES IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IS CHANGING. PROVEN FACT.

That statement right there is so ******* ignorant its ridiculous. What you MEAN to say is something like "global climate change being as a result of our environmental footprint" isn't proven. The climate is changing, polar ice caps are melting, lots of species are going extinct AND THATS A PROVEN DAMNED FACT.

 

[shinobi-81]

YES IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IS CHANGING. PROVEN FACT.

That statement right there is so ******* ignorant its ridiculous. What you MEAN to say is something like "global climate change being as a result of our environmental footprint" isn't proven. The climate is changing, polar ice caps are melting, lots of species are going extinct AND THATS A PROVEN DAMNED FACT.

The changes are obvious, but their cause aren't.

 

[east85]

YES IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IS CHANGING. PROVEN FACT.

That statement right there is so ******* ignorant its ridiculous. What you MEAN to say is something like "global climate change being as a result of our environmental footprint" isn't proven. The climate is changing, polar ice caps are melting, lots of species are going extinct AND THATS A PROVEN DAMNED FACT.

Your formatting makes it hard to follow. I tried to read this over and over and I don't see any clear point or references to back up any attempted claims (which I'm not sure of, due to your odd formatting).

Your caps lock also appears to be stuck in the on position, you should have that fixed at your local genius bar.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Horsepucky. Maybe in a state like California with its artificially inflated electricity prices and ridiculous subsidies, some of these installations can barely scrape by. In North Carolina, with its comparatively cheap electricity prices, I'm pretty sure this is a big loser

There haven't been any artifically inflated electricity prices here since 2001 and that was Enron's fault. And green energy subsidies, at least the ones that make a difference, are Federal

Electricity in Germany costs an average of $0.38 per kWh, yet solar panels are not economical unless people are given guarantees that utilities will be legally obligated to buy back electricity from solar users at this ridiculously inflated price. Despite this ridiculously high electricity price, it appears that solar panels are not economical in Germany without subsidies -- which Germans are getting ready to roll back, because they now realize solar is just too damn expensive.

If you're looking just at $/KWH, solar is not economical anywhere on earth without subsidies. Here in the US though, there are generous subsidies, courtesy of Obama's 09 stimulus bill.

Also Germany's grid is screwed up anyway, thanks to Merkel dropping nuclear and causing rolling blackouts. They're not a good example of how an energy market should work

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.

Nobody knows what Apple would be paying Duke Energy. You guys are going by 8 cents but the real value is proprietary and worked out in a power purchase agreement. With 2x 20 MW solar farms + a 5 MW fuel cell and only a 20 MW load, Apple also has the ability to generate more than it consumes at peak hours. They would have the ability to backfeed into the grid and sell their generation on the energy market to some utility willing to pay a ton of money for it so they can meet an RPS and not get fined. We also don't know how much of the solar installation was subsidized. We don't know how much Apple will save through tax breaks either. So basically the math you guys are doing to determine the ROI is too simple.

Above all that, the fact Apple is going for a 100% renewable generation profile is a dead giveaway they're not doing it for a return on investment and are doing it for environmental reasons. That portion of their load that isn't covered by their solar farms/fuelcell, they could've saved money buying nuclear or coal but they chose to buy renewable, which goes for a premium on the energy market and will continue to go for a premium as utilities start buying it up so they can meet mandatory RPS's.

I know a lot of shareholders would rather they spend their cash on things that raise the stock price but I don't think Apple cares. Their board already decided

 

[3282868]

No, you're not.

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

Oh, my mistake. You're just crazy.

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.

Thank you

 

[3282868]

No, you're not.

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

Wow... I just... wow... how old are you?

Being environmentally conscientious does not make one environmentally "religious", that is quite an uncorrelated leap in logic (and in that case, I suppose my love of ice cream makes me "Ice cream religious", or my love of design and on and on). I'd rather people be cautious instead of assuming it's all one big lie; if that means I have to take more pains in recycling and being aware of the waste I produce so be it. I'd rather be safe than sorry. However, religion has nothing to do with this issue, being environmentally aware is not a religion and simply demonstrates (again) your inability to fully understand an important issue you are aggressively debating. I'd take a stress pill, relax, stop insulting people, read [much] more on the science of this matter, and return when you can civilly discuss this topic.

 

[manu chao]

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.

If you look at the economic costs of the Fukushima disaster, they are enormous. Not just at the plant site, but in the 30 km exclusion zone and far beyond if you look at losses of farmers and fishers in the wider area. And how close were we to an even more catastrophic release of radioactive material? Imagine the economic costs if part of Tokyo had be abandoned, strong winds from the wrong direction could have easily produced such a result.

And given that in the Western world essentially no new nuclear plant has been built since Chernobyl, they are all at least 25 years old and the average is not that far away from 40.

----------

Also Germany's grid is screwed up anyway, thanks to Merkel dropping nuclear and causing rolling blackouts. They're not a good example of how an energy market should work.

The German grid was under severe stress at times, mostly in the very cold winter days due to the sudden shutdown of several nuclear power plants. But talking of rolling blackouts is just pure propaganda. There was no single blackout beyond maybe a few local screw-ups that happen everywhere (and the U.S. with its unwillingness to pay for earth cables for local distribution is more susceptible to such bad weather related local blackouts). There never was any planned (aka rolling blackout) in Germany in the last two years since the shutdown of the nuclear reactors.

 

[thermodynamic]

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.

Agreed.

There used to be a website (computertakeback.org/badapple) that railed on Apple time and again and rightly so...

Granted, by 2007 they went down... (computertakeback.com being a different entity...)

But the more Apple does this sort of thing, the less that watchdog would find fodder to exploit.

 

[manu chao]

The changes are obvious, but their cause aren't.

Not to people actually knowing a thing or two about climate. Remember that survey that 98% of all climate scientists in the U.S. agreed that there is man-made climate change? One can argue how perfect that survey was but given that we can do election polls that come within a few percentage points of the actual election result, changing a few percentage points in that survey hardly changes the result.

 

[Renzatic]

I personally disapprove of these eco-mentalists. Some stuff they do are really stupid. It would be funny to see them campaigning against Apple, only to see their house full of macs and they own iphones and ipads.
Unless they want to use plastic, which is very dangerous to the environment when dumped or burnt.
Or they use other computers with arsenic displays complete with PVCs and BFRs.

This reminds me of funny thing that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the subject of this thread. About 4-5 years ago, we had this weird outbreak of self stylized anti-capitalist socialist extremists rising up about town. They did all the usual revolutionary-wannabe stuff. Handed out fliers, went into places of business screaming how everyone there were all slaves to The System, threw bricks at things, spray painted slogans on buildings, threw more bricks at things. I think they even went so far as to cut the power running to a bunch of restaurants downtown one time.

We called them Commie Kids, and it was all fairly obnoxious. It pretty much died down once their moms and dads let them use their credit card to play WoW again. But the one thing I always found funny was how you could spot one of these Commie Kids from a mile away. They all wore American Eagle hoodies (you could tell because they all had the big AE emblazoned on them), Converse sneakers, and were texting what I guessed were pithy revolutionary catchphrases about sheeple to each other nonstop on their at-the-time high end Blackberries. Hell, I bet they all owned iMacs, too.

Now call it common sense, but if I were an anti-capitalist socialist extremist, the last thing I'd wear while pimping out my beliefs via civil disobedience and random diatribes printed up in Pages would be trendy clothing and expensive electronics bought at the mall. I'd wear something like a burlap sack and some straps of leather wrapped around my feet for shoes. Maybe even paint the hammer and sickle on the front of that burlap sack. You know. For effect. I'd be like some slovenly superhero, all fighting for the downtrodden against the robber barons while not shaving at all. Here. Have a piece of bread. It was bought by that guy over there, which was thusly handed to you by me. That's socialism. Woosh.

But anyway. Yeah. Back to the subject at hand. I think any company going renewable is a good thing. While I'm not absolutely overzealous about the subject, I do think it's something we as a society need to be working towards.

 

[alephnull12]

Why would it cost more to build a smaller facility? I'm guessing that land values cant be 40% higher in north carolina or apple would have built their facility in texas.

Two 20 MW facilities (40 MW total) in North Carolina are almost certainly going to be larger than one 30 MW facility in Texas.

$250 million x 40 MW / 30 MW = $333 million, which should be a pretty good estimate. It doesn't really matter though. Say it's $250 million. Same thing.

I can understand a business blowing $50,000 or even $100,000 on some some pet PR project saving puppies or chimps or whatever. But by the time your company starts throwing how much will it be? $100 million or more into the garbage for no good reason, the backward slide is underway, and it's time to move on to a different company.

 

[alephnull12]

There haven't been any artifically inflated electricity prices here since 2001 and that was Enron's fault.

California electricity rates average approximately $0.14 per kWh, with charges even higher for high demand users, and peak rates often as high as $0.40 per kWh. It has the 10th highest electricity rates of all 50 states. This is as opposed to most midwestern and southern states, where electricity often runs at $0.07 per kWh, with little difference between peak and off-peak rates. Why little difference? Because they have provided adequate supply.

State control over powerplant construction have generally constrained supply over many years, essentially creating this problem. The cheapest energy sources are unused by fiat of state legislators.

So yes, California has artificially inflated electricity prices.

 

[MacinDoc]

YES IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IS CHANGING. PROVEN FACT.

That statement right there is so ******* ignorant its ridiculous. What you MEAN to say is something like "global climate change being as a result of our environmental footprint" isn't proven. The climate is changing, polar ice caps are melting, lots of species are going extinct AND THATS A PROVEN DAMNED FACT.

I agree that global warming is a proven fact, but melting ice caps don't actually prove it. Even when the Earth's climate eventually starts to cool, the ice caps will still be melting for the first few centuries.

What few people seem to appreciate in the whole global warming debate is that global warming and global cooling are both inevitable; they are a part of the Earth's natural history, compared to which we are insignificant. We don't know enough about the Earth's climatologic history to be sure exactly when the global warming will stop or what temperatures will be reached before that happens (or what percentage we are contributing to it), but we do know that eventually, we will be heading toward another ice age (actually, 30 years ago, global cooling was the big environmental scare). We also know that biologic diversity increases during a time of global warming, while natural selection takes a heavier toll during times of cooling. The point is, there is no such thing as global thermal stasis (staying the same). Either the Earth is warming, or the next ice age is coming; there are no other alternatives.

I do have concerns about the high cost and environmental impact of many energy generating technologies purported to be "green". Dams promote the growth of microorganisms that produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide, and destroy huge areas of sensitive habitat, and in some cases have led to the extinction or near extinction of some species. The production of solar panels entails the use of toxic substances, and there is no great way to recycle them when their photovoltaic output eventually drops. I do think that nuclear fusion, which produces less radioactive waste than fission, has some promise, as does geothermal energy. And biofuel generators could put what would otherwise be waste to good use. But I think the best way to make our energy use greener is to reduce it through the use of more energy efficient appliances, better insulation, programmable thermostats, and for heaven's sake, when you leave the room, turn the lights off!

 

[alephnull12]

I'd rather people be cautious instead of assuming it's all one big lie; if that means I have to take more pains in recycling and being aware of the waste I produce so be it. I'd rather be safe than sorry. However, religion has nothing to do with this issue, being environmentally aware is not a religion and simply demonstrates (again) your inability to fully understand an important issue you are aggressively debating. I'd take a stress pill, relax, stop insulting people..

Knock yourself out. Nothing wrong with religion -- just don't blow $100 million of other people's money while you're doing whatever it is you do.

 

[blow45]

This is outstanding, and I do sincerely hope that more corporations will follow.

I sincerely hope that greenpeace whoops the ass of other corporations too so they follow.

----------

I agree that global warming is a proven fact, but melting ice caps don't actually prove it. Even when the Earth's climate eventually starts to cool, the ice caps will still be melting for the first few centuries.

What few people seem to appreciate in the whole global warming debate is that global warming and global cooling are both inevitable; they are a part of the Earth's natural history, compared to which we are insignificant. We don't know enough about the Earth's climatologic history to be sure exactly when the global warming will stop or what temperatures will be reached before that happens (or what percentage we are contributing to it), but we do know that eventually, we will be heading toward another ice age (actually, 30 years ago, global cooling was the big environmental scare). We also know that biologic diversity increases during a time of global warming, while natural selection takes a heavier toll during times of cooling. The point is, there is no such thing as global thermal stasis (staying the same). Either the Earth is warming, or the next ice age is coming; there are no other alternatives.

I do have concerns about the high cost and environmental impact of many energy generating technologies purported to be "green". Dams promote the growth of microorganisms that produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide, and destroy huge areas of sensitive habitat, and in some cases have led to the extinction or near extinction of some species. The production of solar panels entails the use of toxic substances, and there is no great way to recycle them when their photovoltaic output eventually drops. I do think that nuclear fusion, which produces less radioactive waste than fission, has some promise, as does geothermal energy. And biofuel generators could put what would otherwise be waste to good use. But I think the best way to make our energy use greener is to reduce it through the use of more energy efficient appliances, better insulation, programmable thermostats, and for heaven's sake, when you leave the room, turn the lights off!

there are environmental impact analysis techniques to see the trade offs between each option, so that's not really an issue, you seem knowledgeable enough so not knowing this makes you look very suspect. Also the perennial debate about is it really warming or not is a false dichotomy. The planet is being brutalized by man made toxics and chemicals, this is a fact. You seem to have reservations though the toxic byproducts of solar panels and you make no mention about the unprecedented, almost irreversible, mass scale catastrophes caused by oil spills? Something about what you are saying is very very suspect.

As far as lights off go, I m with you, but I am not going to save the bleeding planet if i turn my lights off and then some bp or other goes and throws an oil spill that creates such dramatic devastation to the planet. Corporations rule the world and they have to be pressured cause the toxics they are damping in the sea and in the air are the real problem dwarfing the issues of insulation and programable thermostats.

It's not a for heaven's sake to turn off your lights when you leave the room, people forget you know, it's for heavens sake put the death penalty on someone going and damping nuclear waste in a sea somewhere, and this happens, scarily often. This is the real for heaven's sake don't do it.

----------

This type of thinking is exactly what landed Apple in the crapper once already, back in the 90's. Steve Jobs had to come back to save their lousy asses, now what?

I don't have the exact numbers, but it looks like management may be getting ready to throw $100 million dollars into the garbage, and people are clapping their hands like this means something good for the company.

Not a good sign, as far as evaluating corporate governance and management. And people wonder why I sold this dog. Sell high, buy low. Only, this time no more Jobs to rescue Apple's sorry ass again.

someone bought at $600 and is getting a little uneasy?

 

[Sol]

With all the money, influence and land Apple owns, they could rebuild the Tesla Tower, allowing their devices around the globe to be powered and have a constant internet connection using its signals.

 

[AppleFan115]

Knock yourself out. Nothing wrong with religion -- just don't blow $100 million of other people's money while you're doing whatever it is you do.

Dude stop being a troll. I love how you keep replying to the comments where you have some chance of defending your idiotic viewpoint. All the posts the where people show your view is flawed, you don't even answer. Can't you see by the fact that you are getting multiple thumbs down on each of you posts that people don't agree with you. Also, do you not realize how much money Apple has? Stop making a big stink about it. This is a great move by Apple because it makes them look that much better in the consumers' eyes. You realize people are bashing them about Foxconn, their other data centers, etc? Apple has been facing some tough criticism and this move makes them look great. When people appreciate what a company does socially, which is extremely important nowadays, they buy more stuff from that company because they're proud of what that company stands for. This is a brilliant move all around. If you are going to reply to me, which you probably won't, please quote everything I say and not take one small piece where you can dodge what people are saying, and find a way to keep trolling.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you are not answering any of the people that show how flawed your view is. For example mine, even one benefit from this move is PR. Not to mention increased sales, etc.

 

[funman895]

I agree that global warming is a proven fact, but melting ice caps don't actually prove it. Even when the Earth's climate eventually starts to cool, the ice caps will still be melting for the first few centuries.

What few people seem to appreciate in the whole global warming debate is that global warming and global cooling are both inevitable; they are a part of the Earth's natural history, compared to which we are insignificant. We don't know enough about the Earth's climatologic history to be sure exactly when the global warming will stop or what temperatures will be reached before that happens (or what percentage we are contributing to it), but we do know that eventually, we will be heading toward another ice age (actually, 30 years ago, global cooling was the big environmental scare). We also know that biologic diversity increases during a time of global warming, while natural selection takes a heavier toll during times of cooling. The point is, there is no such thing as global thermal stasis (staying the same). Either the Earth is warming, or the next ice age is coming; there are no other alternatives.

I do have concerns about the high cost and environmental impact of many energy generating technologies purported to be "green". Dams promote the growth of microorganisms that produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide, and destroy huge areas of sensitive habitat, and in some cases have led to the extinction or near extinction of some species. The production of solar panels entails the use of toxic substances, and there is no great way to recycle them when their photovoltaic output eventually drops. I do think that nuclear fusion, which produces less radioactive waste than fission, has some promise, as does geothermal energy. And biofuel generators could put what would otherwise be waste to good use. But I think the best way to make our energy use greener is to reduce it through the use of more energy efficient appliances, better insulation, programmable thermostats, and for heaven's sake, when you leave the room, turn the lights off!

www.skepticalscience.com

Please people, stop trying to use basic hearsay as definitive fact when it comes to climate change. If you read that site, they have a plethora of relevant, peer-reviewed information that completely supports the hypothesis that the Earth IS going through climate change directly caused by humans.

Starting at the industrial revolution, there is a clear increase in the CO2 present in the atmosphere, which as many of you know, causes the "greenhouse gas" effect that we have been warned about. The only thing I've heard of an ice age is decreased solar activity having an effect on the Earth, and all of that cooling would be counteracted (were it to even take place; there isn't much evidence for it) by global warming caused by humans.

I'm not trying to bash people or try to say I'm better than anyone, let's not bring our egos into this, I am putting this information out there simply with the hope that you are informed and aren't acting off of faulty information.

Apple reducing it's dependency on carbon-dioxide heavy power solutions is a great step for the future of renewable energy in the computer industry. Though I would like other companies to follow suit, it seems many are turning a blind eye to many moral issues. I haven't heard of Dell or HP providing the same effort Apple has when it comes to Foxconn working conditions.

I'm not trying to argue that X company is better that Y company, I'm just hopeful that companies will try to do their business without always relying on whether or not it's financially beneficial for them.

 

[blow45]

www.skepticalscience.com

Please people, stop trying to use basic hearsay as definitive fact when it comes to climate change. If you read that site, they have a plethora of relevant, peer-reviewed information that completely supports the hypothesis that the Earth IS going through climate change directly caused by humans.

Starting at the industrial revolution, there is a clear increase in the CO2 present in the atmosphere, which as many of you know, causes the "greenhouse gas" effect that we have been warned about. The only thing I've heard of an ice age is decreased solar activity having an effect on the Earth, and all of that cooling would be counteracted (were it to even take place; there isn't much evidence for it) by global warming caused by humans.

I'm not trying to bash people or try to say I'm better than anyone, let's not bring our egos into this, I am putting this information out there simply with the hope that you are informed and aren't acting off of faulty information.

Apple reducing it's dependency on carbon-dioxide heavy power solutions is a great step for the future of renewable energy in the computer industry. Though I would like other companies to follow suit, it seems many are turning a blind eye to many moral issues. I haven't heard of Dell or HP providing the same effort Apple has when it comes to Foxconn working conditions.

I'm not trying to argue that X company is better that Y company, I'm just hopeful that companies will try to do their business without always relying on whether or not it's financially beneficial for them.

don't you understand he has vested interests? It was very apparent in his post. No one has "concerns" about toxic byproducts of solar panels and omits the mention of bp's worldwide ecological nightmares of unprecedented proportions with oil spills if they don't have vested interests.

 

[Liquorpuki]

California electricity rates average approximately $0.14 per kWh, with charges even higher for high demand users, and peak rates often as high as $0.40 per kWh. It has the 10th highest electricity rates of all 50 states. This is as opposed to most midwestern and southern states, where electricity often runs at $0.07 per kWh, with little difference between peak and off-peak rates. Why little difference? Because they have provided adequate supply.

State control over powerplant construction have generally constrained supply over many years, essentially creating this problem. The cheapest energy sources are unused by fiat of state legislators.

So yes, California has artificially inflated electricity prices.

I know some states offer flat rates but California utilities use tiered pricing to encourage conservation. That $.40/KWH is PG&E pricing at the highest tier if you leave your AC, lights and devices on 24/7 and try to use your house to overload the nearest substation

With the higher rates, California has one of the most ambitious RPS's in the nation. Every utility is required to have 33% renewable penetration by 2020 under penalty of fines. This is major infrastructure work that was mandated in 2006 that only gets paid for through rates. So most utilities have had multiple rate increases over the past half a decade to fund the building of renewable generation and related programs. Most other states either have less ambitious RPS's or no RPS at all, thus the lower rates.

There's also the effect of higher cost of living but I'm not gonna get into that.

Far as state permits and powerplant construction, the state government is slow but the California grid isn't an island. You don't need to build a plant in California to match load in California. IE Los Angeles gets most of its power from Utah and Arizona

The German grid was under severe stress at times, mostly in the very cold winter days due to the sudden shutdown of several nuclear power plants. But talking of rolling blackouts is just pure propaganda. There was no single blackout beyond maybe a few local screw-ups that happen everywhere (and the U.S. with its unwillingness to pay for earth cables for local distribution is more susceptible to such bad weather related local blackouts). There never was any planned (aka rolling blackout) in Germany in the last two years since the shutdown of the nuclear reactors.

It's only been a year since the shutdown but that's still good to know. I haven't followed Germany, I just assumed that's what would happen because that's the danger of removing a big chunk of capacity without having replacement sources (which is what Merkel basically did - she removed something like 7-8 GW from the portfolio in one swoop).

I did read the number of incidents where they were close to creating blackouts quadrupled this winter from the previous year because of transmission issues like overloading. I also read Germany doesn't even have 1 GW of reserve generation available for the whole country during times of peak load. For comparison Los Angeles alone has 1 GW reserve capacity available daily in case a plant goes offline or something like that. This is not good and they better fix that by next winter. Otherwise a line goes down or equipment gets overloaded and blows up and half the country goes dark.

Far as the US not wanting to put cables underground, converting existing overhead to underground is a process and we're bigger than Germany. So it takes longer.

 

[maviso5]

Nice use of their new mapping software right there!