New aerial images of Apple's planned NC fuel cell, solar farms emerge

123457

Comments

  • anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 16,919member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    So people can either contribute to the Red Cross or the March of Dimes, or as an alternative, they can simply buy another iPad! Same thing!

    /s



    Where do you think the money for most big charities comes from? From the goods and services they produce and sell?
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Where do you think the money for most big charities comes from? From the goods and services they produce and sell?



    Huh?



    Most big charities get donations from wealthy patrons and other people and entities.



    Why do you ask?
  • anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 16,919member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Huh?



    Most big charities get donations from wealthy patrons and other people and entities.



    Why do you ask?



    Huh?



    From where do, e.g., "wealthy patrons" get their wealth?
  • jonoromjonorom Posts: 293member


    By "Group" I assume they mean "right-wing climate deniers trying to smear Al Gore"?
  • hezetationhezetation Posts: 674member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    I'd be OK with that - as long as they stop subsidizing fossil fuel and nuclear energy, as well.



    Agreed, though definitely would need a plan to ween ourselves off those thing, unfortunately I can't afford to buy a new car overnight.
  • libertyforalllibertyforall Posts: 997member
    Ah yes, and now, the rest of the story!:



    Apple?s hydrogen power plans fueled by Al Gore?s conflict of interest



    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...lict-interest/







    Al Gore, the snake oil salesman. Global warming is a joke, the real science shows otherwise, and carbon credits are just a way to control people and economies. Enough is enough.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    Enough is enough.



    That's what I thought when reading your FUD.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    Al Gore, the snake oil salesman. Global warming is a joke, the real science shows otherwise, and carbon credits are just a way to control people and economies. Enough is enough.



    I love it when the Faux News crowd makes things up.



    For the record, 97% of climate scientists believe that man-made global warming is real - and a threat to the planet. You know, climate scientists - the people who study such things.



    The national academies of science of the US, Japan, UK, Russia, and nearly every other major country agree.



    I have not seen a public report from a single climate scientist refuting this. There is a well-established consensus in the global scientific community on this subject.



    Just a start of educating you on the facts:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-I...te-Change.html



    So what evidence do you have that's convincing enough to establish that all of the world's science associations and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are wrong?



    Oh, and as for Al Gore's investments, unless you can show that he inappropriately influenced Apple's management to buy something from his company, you're just blowing smoke. There's no law about benefiting from your investments even if you are on a board. As long as he made his investments public and did not participate in the decision, he did nothing wrong. So, again, where's the evidence if inappropriate influence?
  • anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 16,919member


    There is absolutely no expectation that a firm can't have relationships with firms where a Board member may be involved. Such related-party transactions happen all the time (e.g., consider SJ's being on Disney's board).



    All that would need to happen, if proper procedures were followed, is that Gore recuse himself from that decision.



    If that was not done (which is probably about as unlikely as the sun rising in the west), there would be a problem. If it was done, and the Board voted for it, there's nothing here. Move along.
  • anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 16,919member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    Al Gore, the snake oil salesman. Global warming is a joke, the real science shows otherwise, and carbon credits are just a way to control people and economies. Enough is enough.



    Groan....
  • doctor daviddoctor david Posts: 819member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    Ah yes, and now, the rest of the story!:



    Apple?s hydrogen power plans fueled by Al Gore?s conflict of interest



    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...lict-interest/







    Al Gore, the snake oil salesman. Global warming is a joke, the real science shows otherwise, and carbon credits are just a way to control people and economies. Enough is enough.



    This comment is truthiness in action.
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,705member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    There is absolutely no expectation that a firm can't have relationships with firms where a Board member may be involved. Such related-party transactions happen all the time (e.g., consider SJ's being on Disney's board).



    All that would need to happen, if proper procedures were followed, is that Gore recuse himself from that decision.



    If that was not done (which is probably about as unlikely as the sun rising in the west), there would be a problem. If it was done, and the Board voted for it, there's nothing here. Move along.



    Hey don't blame the messenger. I just saw the article and posted it. It's more likely the think tank is just checking to see if the recusal was done. If it wasn't, then there's a serious governance issue. I understand Board procedures, and know that board members can have stakes in related companies and I am fine with that.



    Except for Intuit's representation on the Apple Board. He really needs to be thrown overboard for what his company has done on the Mac platform. Seriously.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,666member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post






    Of course you can compare it. A business executive must constantly decide how to spend their money and one of the decisions was clearly to either save $70 M or so or build a solar farm in NC.



    The investment has a relatively low payback period of 5-10% per year (although that number is likely to increase as energy prices go up). However, Apple is in a consumer business where they're targeted by every environmental group around as well as all the Apple haters. So they have to add in the PR value to determine if the investment makes sense. Considering how much Apple puts into renewable energy (see the apple.com link above), they clearly think that the cash return plus the PR value is sufficient to make the investment.







    No one is suggesting that Apple build things that they have no use for. That's a silly straw man argument. Apple obviously felt that they needed it.



    From an economic sense, there's some value, as well. A simple back of the envelope calculation says that Apple will save about $5 M per year - which adds to their net income and therefore benefits the share price - possibly as much as giving it out as a dividend.







    It's not going to bring Apple's cost up a bit. It's an initial investment and provides nearly free energy after paying for the equipment. It will SAVE them about $5 M per year - as well as providing some PR value.





    Well, as I said earlier, I'm all for this. But this is going to be a pretty expensive investment, with small payback annually. There's no guarantee, no matter what you say, that Apple will ever save anything. Green energy production doesn't always result in savings, though that is the hope.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,666member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    Ah yes, and now, the rest of the story!:



    Apple?s hydrogen power plans fueled by Al Gore?s conflict of interest



    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...lict-interest/







    Al Gore, the snake oil salesman. Global warming is a joke, the real science shows otherwise, and carbon credits are just a way to control people and economies. Enough is enough.



    It is enough. Now stop posting.
  • satcomersatcomer Posts: 130member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaveN View Post


    I hope the thing is tornado proof.



    Shouldn't it be more Hurricane proof? \
  • charlesnizcharlesniz Posts: 4member
    Past and modern, has been true. Have a yen for reduce, compared with profit, and pine to exorbitant invoice is. Life story, you should not receive the tide of lust thinking impulse to unrestricted the dam, the only way, in sodality to steer clear of detours, less flow the tears of remorse. Steady, eats a fool out of of mortal, but also beijing massage a elevated degree Xxnghr598gth3559 of happiness
  • charlesnizcharlesniz Posts: 4member
    If life is Xxnghr598gth3559 the sea, the so desires waves. Person, you can not subsist without sigh for, like the scads can not but turbulent tide, which is a law of nature. If the the public did not demand, longing be not interested in anything, will the lack of interest, need of investment, need of dogging, it would be how pale picture of life. The hornet's nest lies in how people bilk hold of their hanker after to beijing escort scale. The high tide also at offensive tide, not the desire flooded, is preferable to move.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Well, as I said earlier, I'm all for this. But this is going to be a pretty expensive investment, with small payback annually. There's no guarantee, no matter what you say, that Apple will ever save anything. Green energy production doesn't always result in savings, though that is the hope.



    There's no guarantee that any investment will result in savings.



    From information I've gathered, the solar farm will cost something like $70 M and will generate around $5 M per year in energy savings. If energy prices go up, the savings will drop (although the opposite is far more likely). That's not a huge return, but is certainly far better than the 1% they're getting on the money sitting in the bank.



    And that doesn't consider the PR benefits.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,666member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    There's no guarantee that any investment will result in savings.



    From information I've gathered, the solar farm will cost something like $70 M and will generate around $5 M per year in energy savings. If energy prices go up, the savings will drop (although the opposite is far more likely). That's not a huge return, but is certainly far better than the 1% they're getting on the money sitting in the bank.



    And that doesn't consider the PR benefits.



    I agree that that's likely, but it's insignificant, as I've been saying. And if unexpected problems crop up, as they often do, expenses will rise.



    I don't care one way or the other, as this isn't going to make one whit's difference to the bottom line. I only care as its a step in the right direction as far as the environment is concerned, even though it's a pretty small step overall.



    I look it as bringing down the costs of manufacture of these devices, as volume will help, and volume is only gained in these big projects in the beginning, while most are still skeptical. If Apple does manage to save money (assuming they break out those costs and savings, which they may not), it might encourage other companies to go this route.
Sign In or Register to comment.