Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Options for North Carolina Fuel Cell Installation Point to Bloom Energy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Worked out well for all parties then didn't it? 🙄
Bush got to invade two countries to destabilize the Middle East and drive prices constantly upwards to nearly $5 a gallon back in 2008 and Obama can now reap the benefits.
Apple's packaging...
I'm not sure if I agree with the above. Take Amazon for example; they use the shipping process as a means to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Check out what they call 'frustration free packaging' for more info (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_rel_topic?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200392050
) Essentially it seems they'll try to match the product to the right size of packaging in an effort to prevent waste. This reduces waste, cost to Amazon and, possibly, customer frustration with hard to open packages.
Amazon will have far, far more unique sizes and shapes to package, if you consider that they sell much more than just books. Apple's own product catalogue by comparison is pretty slim. Consider finally that Apple are obsessive about the details, which influences everything from the UI to the way in which your product is unpacked from it's sales box. I'm surprised therefore that they don't use the correct size packaging container for every item shipped individually.
I'm not sure if I agree with the above. Take Amazon for example; they use the shipping process as a means to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Check out what they call 'frustration free packaging' for more info (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_rel_topic?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200392050
) Essentially it seems they'll try to match the product to the right size of packaging in an effort to prevent waste. This reduces waste, cost to Amazon and, possibly, customer frustration with hard to open packages.
Amazon will have far, far more unique sizes and shapes to package, if you consider that they sell much more than just books. Apple's own product catalogue by comparison is pretty slim. Consider finally that Apple are obsessive about the details, which influences everything from the UI to the way in which your product is unpacked from it's sales box. I'm surprised therefore that they don't use the correct size packaging container for every item shipped individually.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
It's marketing. You sell more of them.
Or are you talking about the planned Apple campus and not the Apple stores? Yes, curved glass on a building of that diameter seems to be an excess to me, but then I don't have the foggiest idea how much they'd be paying for it compared to flat glass.
They do need a few really good employees though, and having a pleasant building to work in helps somewhat that regard.
The data center looks like a warehouse though, which is fine, since servers don't care what the building looks like or where the electricity comes from just so long as it doesn't turn off.
mrxak
macrumors 68000
Apple doesn't really care about the environment. They do, however, care that their customers care about the environment, so it's good marketing. Apple also wants to get their power at cost, by producing it on-site without loss in transmission over long distances from the plant run by somebody else. Don't be fooled that this is Apple being "good" this is just Apple being business smart. Same with their minimalistic packaging. It's so it looks good on a shelf, and doesn't cost them as much to make their boxes.
Good for us, though, if we get a cleaner environment, cheaper power because these data centers aren't drawing from the grid, and perhaps new technologies will be developed so they're cheaper and cleaner and trickle down to the rest of us someday.
Good for us, though, if we get a cleaner environment, cheaper power because these data centers aren't drawing from the grid, and perhaps new technologies will be developed so they're cheaper and cleaner and trickle down to the rest of us someday.
Clearly you do. By using these marketing symbols Jobs created one of he mt valuable brands and the most valuable public company in the world.
----------
What is your evidence that they don't? Is Apple staffed by evil little munchkins that would destroy the environment if the consumer the depend upon wouldn't object?
Those are the energy prices without the cost of transmission. So they're misleading. Also, Apple needs redundant power systems because it's a data center. Large data centers need at least 3 power sources because of reliability considerations. So using Fuel Cells allows Apple to save on the cost of Diesel Generators and Diesel fuel. It also has the advantage of using the Grid as a backup, which is much more reliable than using Diesel Generators as backup.
Interesting that it will be powered on biogas. There must be a landfill nearby? Otherwise, where will they get the biogas from?
Ugg
macrumors 68000
Data centres need 100% reliability. The eastern grid can't supply that. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that?
mrxak
macrumors 68000
I'm sure individuals at Apple do care, but as a company they don't, because they're a company. They are motivated by what reduces their costs and increases their income.
Yeah I know, Al Gore's on the board. He doesn't practice what he preaches though, it's all a political act.
Being somebody who works at an alternative energy research lab, and who does programming for fuel cell control and test systems, this is particularly cool to hear for me--good to see the technology finally in use in the real world, and that a company whose way of doing things I like is applying it.
I do, however, think it's somewhat inaccurate to call it a "fuel cell farm". They're solar or wind "farms" because that's what they do--gather an available natural resource. (Solar farms, in fact, gather the same natural resource as, say, corn farms do.) Similar to what an oil well does, except it's tapping an available resource, not extracting a finite one.
Fuel cells, however, are just a generation technology--they convert stored fuel into usable energy. Same thing a car engine or coal-fired power plant does. So it's really a "fuel cell power plant" or "fuel cell generator" or something similar; "farm," it's really not.
This isn't to say that fuel cells aren't a good technology--they are. They're just not an energy "source" by any real definition of the word. One advantage to buying fuel cells now, even if you're currently running them off a non-renewable source, is to build out infrastructure and fund future development, for when renewable fuels like solar-hydrogen become available.
Also important is the 100% uptime needs of the plant. If the power grid goes down, Apple NEEDS to keep the servers running, and the only way to do that is onsite generation. You can use diesel generators, but a large-scall natural-gas fed fuel cell installation might well be the best way to do that. And it's almost certainly cheaper than a bunch of UPSes, with no real runtime limit as long as the natural gas pipe holds out.
I do, however, think it's somewhat inaccurate to call it a "fuel cell farm". They're solar or wind "farms" because that's what they do--gather an available natural resource. (Solar farms, in fact, gather the same natural resource as, say, corn farms do.) Similar to what an oil well does, except it's tapping an available resource, not extracting a finite one.
Fuel cells, however, are just a generation technology--they convert stored fuel into usable energy. Same thing a car engine or coal-fired power plant does. So it's really a "fuel cell power plant" or "fuel cell generator" or something similar; "farm," it's really not.
As above, they are not a source of renewable energy at all. They're a way of converting a gaseous fuel to electricity. If that energy source is hydrogen produced by a wind farm, then it's renewable. If it's biogas from a landfill or hog farm, that's semi-renewable. If it's natural gas from an oil field, it might be more efficient than an internal combustion generator, but it's not renewable at all.
This isn't to say that fuel cells aren't a good technology--they are. They're just not an energy "source" by any real definition of the word. One advantage to buying fuel cells now, even if you're currently running them off a non-renewable source, is to build out infrastructure and fund future development, for when renewable fuels like solar-hydrogen become available.
Probably never, but that's going to depend a lot on distribution costs for where it is, and how impacted the local electric grid is. If the power company needs to build a new power plant to supply the growing needs of Apple's facility, then it might well be cheaper for Apple do just build a mini one themselves.
Also important is the 100% uptime needs of the plant. If the power grid goes down, Apple NEEDS to keep the servers running, and the only way to do that is onsite generation. You can use diesel generators, but a large-scall natural-gas fed fuel cell installation might well be the best way to do that. And it's almost certainly cheaper than a bunch of UPSes, with no real runtime limit as long as the natural gas pipe holds out.
This is just a random guess, but maybe hog farms? There are a LOT of them in that general region, and they produce vast amounts of waste that could easily be tapped for biogas.
Coincidentally, our national average gasoline price was about $1.90 on Jan 20th 2009 (one source (that's a nifty graph eh?) and another but this is the day before) with the significance of the 20th being Obama's inauguration day. Clearly though, prices are on the rise & I'm not a huge fan of politics, on either side of the fence, these days. 😉
iScott428
macrumors regular
You use generalities to tar a company without being able to state specifics. When I worked at Apple we were continually drilled on ethical and acceptable behavior. The first recycling program I ever participated in was at Apple. Even in the late 80s, the environment was a concern.
Since I know your generalization is incorrect for Apple, I can assume it is wrong in many other cases too.
----------
I was curious about this too so did some research. As far as I can tell, Distributed Biogas is distributed through the normal natural gas system. So, its not like Apple with be pumping it from the source or storing it. It is actually more of a trade. The biogas enters the normal natural gas distribution system anywhere and Apple gets credit.
Why do you keep saying this?
It doesn't matter whether or not the North Carolina data center has a fuel cell system or not -- they are still going to need backup.
Plenty of data centers use grid power as their primary source, with backup generators, such as diesel generators, as backup.
Most data centers have zero fuel cells, zero solar, and zero wind power, yet reliability is obtained.
If fuel cells cannot produce electricity below the large commercial grid price, then it would seem like there would be little point in installing them. If fuel cell electricity is more expensive than grid power, then just use grid power, with backup provided by a conventional source (diesel, small gas turbine) which would seem likely to be much easier to install.
Unless they got some sort of sweetheart deal from the fuel cell manufacturer...
Anyhow, I think shareholders deserve an explanation on how this is cost effective in comparison to alternative grid / backup power alternatives.
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Exactly....
Whether Duke burns natural gas to feed Apple through the grid, or whether Apple "burns" natural gas in fuel cells - carbon is going into the atmosphere to run Apple's servers.
I do applaud Apple, however, for the solar work to reduce peak daytime air condtioning loads. It's good science, and good economics, to have auxiliary solar for "load leveling".
As far as Apple's needs for backup power - whether it's diesel or coal or fuel cells doesn't much matter. Lots of carbon is going into the atmosphere (but hopefully no worse than the carbon generated to supply them with grid power).
In my small office site (about 5,000 workers) there are four diesel backup generators in the parking lots. In the event of a grid failure (which happens a couple of times a year - most recently associated with a puff of squirrel-flavored smoke near a neighbourhood high voltage transformer), the backup generators kick in within 10 to 15 seconds. The site-wide servers and other big iron in the raised floor labs have major UPS systems to bridge this gap. (By major, I mean SUV-sized UPS equipment.) Few of the satellite server rooms, and none of the offices (except for emergency lighting), are connected to the diesel backups. Critical systems in the satellite labs and offices will have internal UPS systems, or be connected to APC UPS systems - mostly programmed to do an orderly shutdown if the power is off for more than a few minutes.
No, I don't think they are. Here is the list of applicable riders on those rates from Duke energy:
http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/ncridersummary.pdf
Total riders, including point-to-point transmission riders, are on the order of $0.0016 per kWh.
This is on top of the rates in the range of $0.05 to $0.07 per kWh for NC large commercial and industrial electricity rates, but the riders don't seem enough to make a difference.
North Carolina is known for its low electricity rates, as I understand it, one of the main reasons for building the data center in North Carolina in the first place.
Why install what seems like must be an expensive fuel cell system, when it would seem likely to be far cheaper to rely on NC grid power for main power, and have a cheap diesel or turbine backup system?
It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me. Shareholders deserve an explanation.
Well, my understanding is that rates for large business customers in NC have for a while been on the order of $0.05 to $0.07 cents per kWh.
http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/ncridersummary.pdf
Rider adjustments to these rates are on the order of $ 0.0016 per kWh:
http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/ncridersummary.pdf
... so I don't see where additional transmission costs over and above these rates are charged:
http://www.considerthecarolinas.com/rates/commercial-rate-comparisons.asp
----------
Hm.. well, as of this past August, Bloomberg is saying cost of electricity from a Bloom box is on the order of $0.14 per kWh, which seems substantially above the NC large business rate ($0.05 to $0.07 per kWh).
http://www.ecomagination.com/biogas-offers-organic-option-for-energy-savings
"Bloom Energy’s CEO, KR Sridhar, says with long-term natural gas contracts and government incentives, the price for customers will be below $0.07/kWh." But what government incentives in North Carolina are we talking about here? Does anybody know if there are any?
Here's hoping that Apple isn't embarking on an ego-inflating boondoggle here.
Anyway. Bloom Energy is a very promising company. I hope they can expand their marker presence fast. Should be particularly good where heating is also needed on site in addition to power, possibly even residential if scales down well enough and maintenance costs not too high.
Even better with such great natural gas reserves being tapped in the US in recent years.
Would be a good investment, if it weren't still closed to investors. Damn you, SEC.
Even better with such great natural gas reserves being tapped in the US in recent years.
Would be a good investment, if it weren't still closed to investors. Damn you, SEC.
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Not so good, though, when you consider the CO2 produced and the negative effects of that on the environment.
There's no question to which the proper answer is "burn more fossil fuels".
Last edited:
Aiden, why do you hate plants and other things that use CO2?
There is no evidence whatsoever that the manmade portion of CO2 is harmful to the environment or the future of the planet. If it's such a bad thing then please convince a lot of people to stop exhaling.
And please don't respond that it's SCIENCE!!! The so called scientists that put forward the idea that CO2 is bad refuse to reveal the details behind their science, such as data, conversion techniques, and the computing models that lead to catastrophic results, so they are not true scientists to me.
Back on topic, I see the installation of these fuel cells as a positive. Anything that stabilizes the energy market is a positive. Less dependence on foreign governments that do not wish us well. If this technology indeed burns the by-product of raising pigs for human consumption, then it seems to be a case of serendipity, where a product was wasted, and is now used ... hence ... free.
Sorry to go off topic there, but I didn't raise the subject, and I refuse to accept the premise that this is a settled subject.
Bloom's fuel cells would still be cheaper to operate than a diesel generator.
Plus there are tax credits, and possibly accelerated depreciation available for the 'green' technologies (solar panels, fuel cells) not available for diesel generators.
Shoot, I'd love a residential fuel cell - it would be much more efficient (and more quiet) to operate than any conventional 'whole-house' backup generator.
Plus there are tax credits, and possibly accelerated depreciation available for the 'green' technologies (solar panels, fuel cells) not available for diesel generators.
Shoot, I'd love a residential fuel cell - it would be much more efficient (and more quiet) to operate than any conventional 'whole-house' backup generator.