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

[Ca$hflow]

How much does this save them in terms of PR costs? Not to mention the panels will in time pay for themselves and add value to the land. I fail to see how this is anything other than a calculated business move and a good investment when interest/bond rates are at an all time low.

I don't understand what interest/bond rates have anything to do with it. I'm sure apple payed cash for it and not went into debt.

 

[Liquorpuki]

There are at least a dozen policies for the state of California listed in this paper from 1995, which are given as reasons why Californian investor-owned utilities charge higher prices than equivalent producers elsewhere in the country. Whether one is regulating the types of fuel that are being used, the number of plants that can be built, the taxes paid, whatever, ultimately these decisions are increasing prices in the California electricity market. The RPS is just one of those things. All this paper is saying, is that the investor owned utilities are not charging more than they should, given the regulatory environment that they work in. It's not saying that the regulatory environment in California doesn't artificially inflate policies (it does).

Alright, I see the point you're trying to make. Do you have any proof (links, etc)?

 

[AidenShaw]

It's not saying that the regulatory environment in California doesn't artificially inflate policies (it does).

If you consider pressuring the market to encourage conservation and to encourage investment in clean and renewable sources of energy "artificial inflation" - then I'm all for it.

So is the 8.5 kW solar array on my roof.

 

[alephnull12]

Well, yeah. There are certain jurisdictions where solar panels have come close to residential grid parity, but aside from a few areas (arguably Hawaii), these are almost all jurisdictions where residential electricity prices are artificially inflated by government fiat.

In other words, they're not really competitive at all.

Such places might include California, but almost certainly do not include places like North Carolina.

I suppose there is an argument to be made for a consumption tax on household use of electricity, for example if you think energy prices will be going up in the future and think that such a tax will cause people to insulate their facilities and purchase more efficient appliances that will still be in use 20 years from now.

And I have no problem with gadget lovers buying their own panels for residential use for whatever reason, whether there is grid parity or not.

But applying these policies ubiquitously, to include electricity prices for businesses (including manufacturing facilities) is almost certainly bad policy and one among many reasons why manufacturing is fleeing this country.

Really, the jury is still out, whether there is any significant benefit (for anyone) to be had from installing solar facilities on a business before those technologies become competitive with traditional sources. It just reeks of bad management.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Well, yeah. There are certain jurisdictions where solar panels have come close to residential grid parity, but aside from a few areas (arguably Hawaii), these are almost all jurisdictions where residential electricity prices are artificially inflated by government fiat.

In other words, they're not really competitive at all.

Such places might include California, but almost certainly do not include places like North Carolina.

What's your metric for non-competition? Every state has prices set by their public utilities commission but you're okay with some of them, and others you're not.

I suppose there is an argument to be made for a consumption tax on household use of electricity, for example if you think energy prices will be going up in the future and think that such a tax will cause people to insulate their facilities and purchase more efficient appliances that will still be in use 20 years from now.

This is exactly what a tiered rate system is supposed to do, which you were against. And if you do make it a tax instead of rate-related, the money goes to the government instead of the utility that has to pay for extra fuel and infrastructure, which is counterproductive.

But applying these policies ubiquitously, to include electricity prices for businesses (including manufacturing facilities) is almost certainly bad policy and one among many reasons why manufacturing is fleeing this country.

What specific policies are you referring to?

Really, the jury is still out, whether there is any significant benefit (for anyone) to be had from installing solar facilities on a business before those technologies become competitive with traditional sources. It just reeks of bad management.

What you mean by traditional sources and why are renewables supposed to be competitive with them?

 

[highdough]

After Jobs left the first time, the company was left to be run by a bunch of hippies with big friendly ideas, who, though creative, had no practical sense of how to run a company and maintain long term profitability. The place was full of kindness, but was unstructured and undisciplined.

Huh? John Scully was the one in charge the only time Jobs left Apple, and he can, in no way, be described as a hippy with big friendly ideas. He was not creative and did not have an innovative idea.

The major problem when Jobs left was that creativity was not the focus and a lot of the real creative people felt ignored.

Let's see. A "new" iphone with the exact same design as the iPhone 4, only a slightly faster processor and a few additional software elements. An iPad with a higher resolution screen.

There have been no major changes in any of these products, and it is said that most all of those changes were put into motion when Jobs was still there. Even the upcoming iPhone 5 was supposedly put into motion by Jobs when he was still there.

Never mention that the 4S when it first came out was plagued by horrid battery problems for many users, and that a great many "New iPads" have problems maintaining a WiFi connection at a reasonable distance, particularly in the WiFi only model. There appears to have been little effort to reach out to make things right for customers who have improperly functioning devices; instead it appears the policy has been to silently replace units for those customers who are brash enough to complain.

So you complain that the devices put out since Jobs died haven't been much of an improvement, yet then go back and detail the problem the products had when Jobs was still alive and in charge.

In other words, not much has changed since Jobs died. Not sure how that backs up your argument in the least.

Besides, Apple products have some of the best customer satisfaction results in the tech industry and that seems to have actually improved since Tim Cook took over. Cook seems to put more emphasis on that than Jobs did.

Under John Scully, the company was able to coast along for many years after Jobs left as a very profitable enterprise (even more profitable than when Jobs was there) before things began to catch up. It remains to be seen if the current board of directors is up to the challenge of continuing to press innovation by creating "insanely great" nearly flawless products. In my mind, it's really just an open question.

It's not like it's enough to run a beauty pageant where everyone picks their favorite charity and everyone feels good about themselves. They have to continue making stuff that leaps and bounds beyond their competitors or the whole business model turns to crap.

Jobs was definitely a visionary, but there are still lots of people at Apple who are in the same mold.

It doesn't matter how much they spend on R&D if there is no-one around to pare away the garbage that isn't fit for sale. Having nice people floating around the company really doesn't cut it. You have to have people who are capable of saying something is crap when it is less than perfect, and who is willing to tread on people by refusing to release anything that isn't ready, or scrap a project that isn't being implemented correctly.

That's just the way it is. Nice people don't make good CEOs, particularly in tech.

You think someone who cares about the environment is too nice a guy to run a company? Have you heard anything about Tim Cook, because being too nice a guy is not something I've ever heard in reference to Cook.

It seems you've got an image in your head of something that does not appear to jibe with reality. Apple lost Steve Jobs, but it's not as if they also lost all the other people who helped make Apple into what it is. You seem to think that they've been suddenly taken over by "hippies" and have stopped caring about what they make. That's laughable on so many levels.