New aerial images of Apple's planned NC fuel cell, solar farms emerge - Page 2

Originally Posted by DaveN

I hope the thing is tornado proof.

Originally Posted by CGJ

... I still fully support nuclear energy. ... Japanese government were just stupid to place such a facility in a zone near an earthquake zone. whereas in Britain, the biggest earthquakes we get are 2.7 on the Richter scale.

Originally Posted by tcasey

You should tell the people in japan that nuclear power is the cleanest power around..its strange the govt. has closed down all nuclear power plants and are now looking for new sources of power, that does not require perm destroying japan and wipe out its people.

Originally Posted by Rot'nApple

Well let's hope they got some great deals on those solar panels during the auctioning off of Solyndra, that, along with the purchase of a few Chevy Volts to traverse the complex ought to make it the greenest fuel cell, solar farm in NC... Well, except for all the missing green trees, shrubs, and grass... </facetious>
/
/
/

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

This is just lies and nonsense.

Not only is this not true (the government's reaction), but it implies the existence of a huge problem with nuclear power in Japan that also simply doesn't exist.

Please resume watching FOX.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

The appropriate opportunity cost of capital to benchmark this - or any other - project is not the return on cash.

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe

Do you have even the slightest appreciation of how close Japan came to an unmitigated disaster that would have permanently destroyed not only their country but much, much more, including large swathes of the west coast of the North and South American continents? ....

Originally Posted by wizard69

What the country needs is diversication into alternate sources of nuclear power. The unfortunate reality is that almost every single research dollar for future nuclear systems goes into one system. A system by the way that has seen little success in the last 25 years or so. Instead we need to get the government to fund a diversity of possible paths to new nuclear energy systems.

Originally Posted by MacQuest

It probably will not only be tornado proof, but will be a tornado maker as well!

Originally Posted by LMGS

Nothing above ground is Tornado proof.. But they don't have that many in NC..

Originally Posted by ascii

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.

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

This doesn't make all the Japanese people automatically "stupid" for using nuclear.

Originally Posted by jragosta

While that's normally true of most companies, it's not really the case for Apple. They have mountains of cash sitting around and they are not in a position where they have to choose between alternatives.

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe

Do you have even the slightest appreciation of how close Japan came to an unmitigated disaster that would have permanently destroyed not only their country but much, much more, including large swathes of the west coast of the North and South American continents? There were six China Syndromes that nearly came into being. Six! Why? Because even one of those going China Syndrome would have knocked out the cooling systems for the other five!

And don't pull that "Fox News" crap either. Just because some right wingers have pulled the wool over the eyes on some weak intellects on the left, that doesn't mean we're all susceptible. Nuclear has huge problems. Japan proved that beyond even the shadow of a doubt. And any environmentalist with half a brain knows that.

Originally Posted by LMGS

Wow, more government spending on energy??? Did we learn nothing from Solyndra'??

2.7 Billion down the rat hole, so far...
http://forums.charlotteobserver.com/?q=node/15715

Let the private sector invest in energy that works.. About the only thing the government is good at is throwing $850,000 parties in Vegas...

Originally Posted by wizard69

The problem can be clearly bee seen in the waste of land in these photos. Solar electric has its uses as supplemental power if incorporated into a acolytes structure. Here we see over a hundred acres wasted for a facility that will never cover all of the facilities energy need. That is an incredibly sad sight to see.

In a nut shell the mad rush to solar electric will result in far more environmental damage than any other source of so called green energy. This is the problem amply demonstrated by the arial photos. Frankly it is far more damaging than strip mining as at least the land can be turned back to nature after resources extraction.

I'm all for better sources of energy but covering the planet in solar electric plants is one hedious thought.

Originally Posted by Eideard

Does your pastor assign you to make these sillyass remarks - or the kool aid party?

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

That statement is wrong, with all due respect. While 'cash' is generally worth cash when it's sitting around, the only true measure of the opportunity cost of cash when it used for something -- anything -- is the cost of capital, regardless of the amount that is sitting around. The actual cost of capital of a particular investment will, in turn, depend on the returns you can get on risk-equivalent investments elsewhere.

I didn't write the rules of finance.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Obviously not - you're too busy misunderstanding them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
Opportunity cost: "In decision making, Opportunity Cost is the difference between the net value of the path which was chosen and the net value of the best alternative which was not chosen."

Originally Posted by jragosta

A typical solar installation, the payback period is around 10-20 years, so there's a 5-10% annual return (assuming no energy price increase).

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

See sentence 4: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/site...iew0/chapter2/ from Brealey & Meyers (which, btw, is likely the most widely used finance textbook in the world).

It's a summary from Chapter 2. Not one of the advanced chapters.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Actually, payback and expected return depends on the scale (capacity), location, and whether it's PV or CSP. There is no "typical."

Originally Posted by jragosta

.... so your definition isn't meaningful.

Originally Posted by jragosta

I'm in that business. It most certainly is possible to define a typical figure considering that we already know the location and the size and the type.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Apple is doomed.

Originally Posted by tcasey

You should tell the people in japan that nuclear power is the cleanest power around..its strange the govt. has closed down all nuclear power plants and are now looking for new sources of power, that does not require perm destroying japan and wipe out its people.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

It is not my definition.



If so, can you point me to a decent financial analysis of a 20MW solar PV project? I am curious as to how you arrived at the 5% - 10%. Seriously (i.e., not trying to be snarky or argumentative).

Add: You can PM me if you do wish to share the data publicly.

Originally Posted by ascii

I just think a company should watch their costs, that's all.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram


Add: You can PM me if you do wish to share the data publicly.

Originally Posted by sflocal

I don't care how the tree huggers whine about it. I think the clear-cutting of pristine land that supports ecosystems to install acres of solar arrays that take immense resources and some of the nastiest environmentally-damaging chemicals to manufacture just so some eco-huggers and claim "green" is a bad idea.

I really want to believe in green energy and I hate coal-burners, but the reality is that this is more PR to shut the mouths of eco-whiners than anything else. What we need seriously is more investment in alternative energies, especially nuclear. Someday, I'd love to include fusion but that most likely will not happen in my lifetime.

If we can produce small-scale nuclear reactors that are just big enough to power huge centers like these, using modern technologies and safety protocols, that would just pave the way for more advanced units down the road.

If environmentally-friendly solar panels can be manufactured, and with increased light-energy ratios, sign me up. I'd love to see every rooftop, both personal and commercial fitted with solar panels like these with serious government incentives as well. All those millions of acres of empty rooftops would do much better than razing acres of habitats.

I'll most likely get flamed for this but the world cannot sustain itself with solar and wind. Anyone believing otherwise needs to approach me to purchase that bridge I'm selling for $1.

Originally Posted by jragosta

I'm not going to share any of our customers' information, but it's easy enough to google it. You have to be careful because some people are claiming ridiculous numbers without having any data (as little as 1 year and as much as 200 years). Make sure you trust the source. Also, make sure it is recent because solar costs have been declining at double digit rates.

One example:
http://money.msn.com/business-news/a...05&ID=14855366
"Most systems have a payback period of 10-15 years. Using Solar3D cells, the payback period can be reduced to 6-9 years"

My used of 10-20 years is therefore pretty conservative. If the payback is 10-20 years, that's a 5-10% annual return. The return, of course, becomes shorter if energy prices increase and becomes longer if energy prices drop. The former is more likely.

Originally Posted by tyler82

And how is storing nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years Even being considered as a sane solution? Oh yeah, I know, its recyclable, bla bla bla, meanwhile, California kelp is now contaminated with radioactivity frm the Fukishima disaster a year ago.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Did anyone die?

Originally Posted by tyler82

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...135859288.html

Originally Posted by tyler82

What is the average lifespan for a nuclear plant? Meanwhile, solar PV installed on US space stations and satellites are still operating since the 1950s.

Originally Posted by tyler82

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...135859288.html

Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz

Is that a reliable article? I had not heard of 14,000 deaths in the US due to fukushima.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

The US has about 110 nuclear power plants (the largest number of any country in the word), average age 30+ years.

Originally Posted by jragosta

For reference, most existing plants were licensed for 30-40 years. As a plant nears the end of its design life, it is possible to do a life extension project which involves extensive modifications to get an additional 10 years (it is possible to get multiple extensions for a plant, so there is no absolute maximum life).

However, as the plant gets older, the cost of maintenance increases and the cost of a life extension project eventually becomes uneconomical. One way or another, we need to have a plan to replace the existing nuclear plants, most of which will be taken out of service over the next 20-30 years.

Originally Posted by jragosta

A good facility designed to reduce energy usage will use less than 30 kW per square foot (daily average). That would put the total energy usage at roughly 15 MW for this data center, with the peak usage occurring during daylight hours. Now, the solar system has a peak output of 20 MW, but taking into account nights, cloudy days, etc, they probably average only about 30% of that - or 6 MW. So the solar system can probably provide closer to 40% of the total power usage, not 9.8%. And if Apple is using state of the art methods to reduce energy usage, the power usage could be even lower, so solar might providing even more of the total.