Apple's upcoming Danish data center will help warm area homes
Once complete, Apple's data center in Viborg, Denmark will actually redirect heat to warm homes in the surrounding Jutland region, Apple noted this week.
The center will "capture excess heat from its equipment and conduct it into the local district heating system," Apple explained in its 2017 Environmental Responsibility Report. Apple in turn will receive some power from the landscape -- in a system designed with help from Aarhus University, agricultural waste will be converted into methane used to generate energy, with a fertilizer byproduct going to local farmers.
Apple is promising that like its other data centers, the Viborg complex will rely entirely on renewable energy in most circumstances. As a backup, the facility will draw from the regional power grid instead of diesel generators.
The company didn't say when construction in Viborg might be complete.
Apple is building two data centers in Europe, the other a long-delayed project near Athenry, Ireland. In its environmental report, Apple noted that it has partnered with the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland on "innovative new ways of capturing [coastal] wave energy," and will use some of this electricity to power its buildings.
As with Apple's new Cupertino headquarters, the Irish data center will also rely on natural ventilation instead of artificial air conditioning.
Together the European centers should cost Apple $1.8 billion or more. They may be essential though given Apple's growing reliance on cloud services such as Siri, iMessage, FaceTime, Apple Music, and iCloud Drive.
The center will "capture excess heat from its equipment and conduct it into the local district heating system," Apple explained in its 2017 Environmental Responsibility Report. Apple in turn will receive some power from the landscape -- in a system designed with help from Aarhus University, agricultural waste will be converted into methane used to generate energy, with a fertilizer byproduct going to local farmers.
Apple is promising that like its other data centers, the Viborg complex will rely entirely on renewable energy in most circumstances. As a backup, the facility will draw from the regional power grid instead of diesel generators.
The company didn't say when construction in Viborg might be complete.
Apple is building two data centers in Europe, the other a long-delayed project near Athenry, Ireland. In its environmental report, Apple noted that it has partnered with the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland on "innovative new ways of capturing [coastal] wave energy," and will use some of this electricity to power its buildings.
As with Apple's new Cupertino headquarters, the Irish data center will also rely on natural ventilation instead of artificial air conditioning.
Together the European centers should cost Apple $1.8 billion or more. They may be essential though given Apple's growing reliance on cloud services such as Siri, iMessage, FaceTime, Apple Music, and iCloud Drive.
Comments
a selfless company.
They may have misread the pro market. For all we know, the next Mac Pro will have what you need (replaceable parts). It's about what the customers want, and how to deliver them reliably.
People like me don't upgrade computers. I also don't like third parties touching my machines and replacing parts, especially after all the hardware malware and battery explosion news in recent years. Then again, I know people who like to save money bargain hunting for parts.
I do care about too many products going to landfill, so I typically sell my devices and laptops away in usable conditions. Interesting that Apple wants to recycle their products completely now to tackle this issue, but it's probably many years away.
The car analogy is not so appropriate because they have been lacking privacy and security considerations since the beginning. So they are perceived more like a dumb heater or washing machine. But as car becomes smarter, begin to handle our information, tracking our lives, and hold us ransom, then yes I will consider the most secure car vs a car with all the parts replaceable. Heck, for all we know, cars may become fully rental or service based. So you don't need to own a car anymore.
A computer that is worthless to you may perfectly fine for someone else so they shouldn't be going into the landfill just because it doesn't suit your needs. This is where you as a citizen can make a difference instead of blaming Apple. Any standard config is more than enough for a typical user for next few years. Not everyone needs multiple GB's of RAM, huge hard drives, etc.
The reality is, studied and fact-checked, is that MOST people will NEVER "upgrade" their PC after purchasing it. Never. So it makes zero sense for Apple (or any other manufacturer) to engineer their machines in ways that will rarely never be used. The side-effect is that they are more reliable, efficient, etc.. Apple should not spend so much resources to accommodate the 1% of people that have issue with it.
On the flip side, I have upgraded my 2009 iMac a couple times since purchase. It's certainly possible but most people don't want to deal with that work. I'm happy with the way things are. Computers have become commodities.
It's infuriating that printers, especially, don't last more than a year before they need print heads. The cost of new printheads is the cost of a new printer. But for someone who can get the heads at wholesale maybe they can do something with them.
Home Depot takes batteries and paint and more. There are a lot of ways to recycle stuff.
Nope, if you were starting from scratch to build a global supply chain to supply computers to the masses, you'd build them as sealed appliances made from as much post-consumer recycled resources as possible, and you'd build them to be recyclable after their useful lifespan has expired. Isn't that exactly what Apple is heading toward? Having not had the luxury of starting from scratch, it must evolve away from the beige box era, and it's doing, in my opinion, a fine job at just that. Far better than any other manufacturer I could identify.
The trade-off of 5-10% of computers in the field lasting twice as long, because that's like.y the numbers of consumers who would upgrade the few swappable component to get some extra life out of their computer, at the cost of the above just seems like the wrong trade-off.
Relying on the utility grid for backup power seems like a risky move. What is/will be Apple's primary power source at the Viborg location?