or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › New aerial images of Apple's planned NC fuel cell, solar farms emerge
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New aerial images of Apple's planned NC fuel cell, solar farms emerge - Page 4

post #121 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

As for nuclear energy, it doesn't matter what the reality is - nuclear energy is dead. You're not going to see any new reactors anywhere, except perhaps in places like North Korea .....

I guess the 60 reactors being built must be happening on Venus. /s

You should read a bit before you post.

Here, let me help: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...284295880.html
post #122 of 141
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?
post #123 of 141
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?
post #124 of 141
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?
post #125 of 141
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #126 of 141

By "Group" I assume they mean "right-wing climate deniers trying to smear Al Gore"?

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #127 of 141
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.
post #128 of 141
Ah yes, and now, the rest of the story!:

Apples hydrogen power plans fueled by Al Gores 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.
post #129 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

Enough is enough.

That's what I thought when reading your FUD.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #130 of 141
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?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #131 of 141

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.
post #132 of 141
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....
post #133 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

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

Apples hydrogen power plans fueled by Al Gores 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.
post #134 of 141
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.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #135 of 141
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.
post #136 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

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

Apples hydrogen power plans fueled by Al Gores 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.
post #137 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN View Post

I hope the thing is tornado proof.

Shouldn't it be more Hurricane proof? \

Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad (2nd gen), 14G Ram, Two DVD-RW Drives, OS X 10.9
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, ATI X1600, 2GB RAM, OS X 10.7
1TB Time Capsule

Reply

Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad (2nd gen), 14G Ram, Two DVD-RW Drives, OS X 10.9
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, ATI X1600, 2GB RAM, OS X 10.7
1TB Time Capsule

Reply
post #138 of 141
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.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #139 of 141
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.
post #140 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

How much more will it cost to maintain all those solar cells and biogas than just buy some mass produced energy from the local power company? One of these days all these little extra expenses are going to add up and Apple will find themselves unable to compete.

I doubt it. As the price of fossil fuels goes through the roof as their supply dwindles perhaps Apple will find itself in the enviable position of supplying local power companies or alternate grids with any excess it will later generate. Regardless it will be that much closer to not being beholden to some energy conglomerate. It's called thinking ahead, thinking outside the box, saving for a rainy day, or vision.

post #141 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

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

Apples hydrogen power plans fueled by Al Gores 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.

Jesus H., dude, get your duff to the Arctic, stick your finger in the melting permafrost and then ask any Eskimo if his mythology ever mentioned that happening before. The joke is people like you who believe equally outdated fairytales like The Earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, the world began in 4004 BC (around teatime), and Barney the purple dinosaur walks and talks among us. When I read 'opinions' like that I'm less and less convinced that one person one vote is a good idea.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › New aerial images of Apple's planned NC fuel cell, solar farms emerge