Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Panel Installation Nearly Complete at Apple's Massive North Carolina Solar Farm

Rocketman said:
It may be green after it is installed and running but the manufacturing of the panels is far from green, their disposal at EOL is far from green and the impact on the land while unclear is at least not green.

I am curious if the more expert here know what is used to keep the panels from getting dirty from rain? I am guessing one of those films that make water sheen off. Probably a form of silicone.

Again not green.

I feel a centralized natural gas plant is a viable option to be "somewhat green". It's a greenhouse gas worth disposing of on its own merit. Every well and refinery already burns it off into the atmosphere to convert methane to CO2, a 40x less powerful greenhouse gas. Totally wasted energy on a huge scale.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

Yeah they probably didn't do their research before starting this project. They probably just said to themselves "People will think we're green if we do this." and they did it without any thought at all.

They should have harvested the kinetic energy from the raccoons and chipmunks they displaced...
 
Apple bulldozed a 100 acre forest to install solar panels, and Greenpeace is happy about this? Ironically the so-called "green" energy sources are literally destroying our environment while a "dirty" natural gas plant would in reality be essentially harmless. That's our politically correct times for you.
 
thasan said:
wow! that many! getting a significant part of the total requirement i assume! but solar cells always seem too gimmicky for me TBH
Click to expand...

Then hydroelectric power generation much seem too gimmicky to you as well. What is the point of commenting on a subject(s) [Heat Transfer and many more] you know nothing about, other than to stir the implied political pot?

Seriously, I don't see a lot of people questioning the internal combustion engine and it's paltry 20-25% engine efficiency, but solar arrays are getting critiqued constantly for not surpassing 50%.
 
gigabytex said:
Apple bulldozed a 100 acre forest to install solar panels, and Greenpeace is happy about this? Ironically the so-called "green" energy sources are literally destroying our environment while a "dirty" natural gas plant would in reality be essentially harmless. That's our politically correct times for you.
Click to expand...

Apple is planting well over 100 acres of trees on its properties, a net win.
 
Dreyrugr said:
Deserts are full of life.
Click to expand...
I shoot rockets in the desert(s) and they are far from lifeless. One is a desert tortoise preserve and has lots of rabbits, ground squirrels, snakes, and a bunch of other stuff. Even the dry lakes have creatures that enter and exit the edges.

There is a plan by some firm to put solar panels on dry lakes which are unique and rare sporting areas. I thought they should consider putting them in parts of the desert that are very common, but they seem more focused on the flattest possible spot to reduce their install cost. I say go up a notch on the install cost and dispense with the total land clearing and leveling and just have then follow the terrain and be a couple feet higher than now. The ones I have seen are about eye level when parallel with the ground. It would allow the flora and natural creatures to remain if only they would let them.

I think that net net, they are more trouble than they are worth and are proposed by people with agendas other than reason and logic.

Build a dozen 4th gen nukes instead. Problem solved. Everywhere.

Rocketman
 
Solar Panels

Does look like a waste of land and unfortunate damage to the local ecosystem. The real longer term solutions will probably be even lower-power computing, so that so many solar panels aren't needed (SSD drives will help), which will reduce the need for air conditioning, and using the rooftops. This looks more like an experiment and proof-of-concept more than the future of power generation.
 
That is one mega solar farm.

Solar panels are quite an easy way to get renewable energy, but stupidly inefficient in terms of power per unit area covered.

For example, a nuclear power station can produce around 1.8 kilowatts and will use 1 100 acres of land. To produce the same, solar panels need around 13 320 acres of land, depending on the location of course. However, this is better than wind turbines at 108 000 acres.
 
Makes one wonder if it can blast planet destroying superlaser rays once it's fully operational.
 
For one building?

So am I reading this wrong or is the solar field for one building or compound?

Also what is the life span on a solar panel? I know they need replacement at sometime due to weather and wear and tear over years but I'm curious as to how often.
 
xodiak said:
So am I reading this wrong or is the solar field for one building or compound?

Also what is the life span on a solar panel? I know they need replacement at sometime due to weather and wear and tear over years but I'm curious as to how often.
Click to expand...
Yep. For PART of its needs. Solar is not base load power. The life span is pretty long, like 30 years. But the tech is improving at a pace so rapid it would be like having a Yugo when a Honda is 1/10 the price in about 5 years.

Musk just went public on a company that installs solar panels on residential and commercial roofs. That is not the most labor or resource or cost efficient thing ever and the break even is 10-20 years per install, but at least it is a voluntary and granular effort funded and done entirely by private parties.

I have higher hopes for thin film solar. We need better storage like flywheels and capacitors.

Rocketman
 
Last edited:
Pakaku said:
They should build a solar farm in an arid, life-less desert :)
Click to expand...

Don't worry, someone would still find a way to complain about it even if they did. There is some form of life pretty much everywhere, even in a lifeless appearing desert.
 
gigabytex said:
Apple bulldozed a 100 acre forest to install solar panels, and Greenpeace is happy about this? Ironically the so-called "green" energy sources are literally destroying our environment while a "dirty" natural gas plant would in reality be essentially harmless. That's our politically correct times for you.
Click to expand...

Greenpeace: cutting down trees to save a forest.
 
Based on the aerial photo it looks like it was installed here:

solarfarm.png


So, about half the land was clear, half trees.
 
So that's where the money is going from the ridiculously priced Lightning to 30-pin adapters.:p
 
Rocketman said:
It may be green after it is installed and running but the manufacturing of the panels is far from green, their disposal at EOL is far from green and the impact on the land while unclear is at least not green.

I am curious if the more expert here know what is used to keep the panels from getting dirty from rain? I am guessing one of those films that make water sheen off. Probably a form of silicone.

Again not green.

I feel a centralized natural gas plant is a viable option to be "somewhat green". It's a greenhouse gas worth disposing of on its own merit. Every well and refinery already burns it off into the atmosphere to convert methane to CO2, a 40x less powerful greenhouse gas. Totally wasted energy on a huge scale.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

When people use the word green, they're talking about the energy produced, not the equipment. Some anti-renewable guys hedge their arguments by saying, welllllll you had to manufacture a solar panel which has toxins and what not, so can't reallllly be called green per sayyyy. If you use that logic, nothing can ever be called green.

And a natural gas plant is used by a utility for baseload generation or as a peaker to cover a city. It's not used by a corporation to cover the tiny load of a building. Apple's not gonna build a nuke plant or a natural gas plant or a coal plant. It's not a utility or a corporation that sells electricity to utilities. It's a consumer electronics corporation that's trying to make use of the land they own to offset as much of its load as possible by using renewable energy.

gigabytex said:
Apple bulldozed a 100 acre forest to install solar panels, and Greenpeace is happy about this? Ironically the so-called "green" energy sources are literally destroying our environment while a "dirty" natural gas plant would in reality be essentially harmless. That's our politically correct times for you.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the alternative is? It's destroy 100 acres somewhere else to extract fossil fuels. Then in X years after that area is depleted, pick another 100 acres somewhere else to destroy. Repeat every X years. So destroy one area vs destroy multiple areas. And you're advocating destroying multiple areas.
 
Wow.

What. a. waste. of. space.

I'm all for any method to help with energy needs but these pictures show a unique perspective on how silly it looks eating up that much space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back