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 3

post #81 of 141
If Apple can innovate in the area of alternative energy, today's iOS-based revenues will pale in comparison, as we find ourselves past peak oil and near depletion. Hey, they already have a great company name. Apple. It's good for you, it's biodegradable and it grows on trees. The product that is. And the customer base is 7 billion people. Talk about a growing economy.

(Mid-2012) 15.4" MacBook Pro w/ IPS Retina Display | Quad Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz / 3.6GHz Max. Turbo | 16GB DDR3-1600MHz RAM | 256GB Samsung 830 SSD-based NAND Flash ETA 9/5

Reply

(Mid-2012) 15.4" MacBook Pro w/ IPS Retina Display | Quad Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz / 3.6GHz Max. Turbo | 16GB DDR3-1600MHz RAM | 256GB Samsung 830 SSD-based NAND Flash ETA 9/5

Reply
post #82 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Based on your 30 kW psf estimates, Apple's data center would average 15 GW of power. A typical data center uses about 200W per square foot.

Sorry, missed the units. The figures I have say that for LARGE data centers 50 W per square foot is average and I made the assumption that Apple is going to be more willing to invest in energy reducing technologies and that theirs is newer, so I guessed 30 W.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

And what an incredible economic opportunity that will be, considering each one will cost $5B - $10B to build.

Think of all the upstream and downstream business opportunities! Everything from Caterpillar tractors, to computers and control systems, to engineers,........ One could go on.

Here's a similar size (20 MW) unit being built. The consultant said the cost would be around $70 M - about two orders of magnitude less than your estimate.
http://articles.herald-mail.com/2012...lc-first-solar
That is in line with typical numbers used for the southern U.S. of $3-5,000 per kW.

Funny how you manage to simply make up numbers that are 100 times off from reality.


I should add that another source came pretty close to my numbers. I guesstimated that the data center could provide around 40% of the total power needed by the facility. Several sources (including The Register and Huffington) say it's 30-40% - far different from the Greenpeace estimate of 9.8%.

A discussion of Apple's 'green' efforts:
http://www.apple.com/environment/rep...eport_2012.pdf
"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 #83 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

After initial purchase cost, maintenance on solar is near zero. Maintenance on a biogas generator is quite small. These things will reduce Apple's costs over the long term rather than increase it.

In my mind, this is a FAR better use of their cash than a dividend because the savings for the solar system will increase year over year. Most solar systems have a life of around 25 years. Want to guess what Apple's fuel or electricity costs would be in 25 years?

Solar involves a very high initial purchase cost and then near-zero operating costs. For a company which is cash-rich and doesn't have greater needs for the cash, it's a fantastic solution - even aside from the PR benefit.

I only wish that they had put the panels on the roof rather than clearing another 100 acres of

I don't think you can compare this to a dividend. I've been watching people make remarks about how Apple should spend their cash, and some of what is being said is worthy of a good head scratching.

So I read people saying that Apple should build a couple of server farms each year. Well, that would take a good $2 billion off the table.

The idea behind a dividend is more than just taking some money away. It changes the investment climate as well, which building a few things for a few billion won't do. Apple will be making far in cash flow each year than they could ever possibly spend on appropriate installations. So if some people want Apple to build things they have no use for, just to get rid of the money, that's a waste.

On the other hand, whether or not they are doing this because they really believe its important to do so from a green philosophy, or because it's good marketing, is something I don't know. I imagine the same thing is operating for Google.

But being an environmentalist myself, I certainly have nothing against it, even if it brings Apple's cost up a bit each year. It's not as though a few tens of millions in extra cost is going to affect their financial status one way or the other. And, if it convinces some people to buy their product because of it, it might be paid for that way.
post #84 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sorry, missed the units. ......

That is in line with typical numbers used for the southern U.S. of $3-5,000 per kW.....

Funny how you manage to simply make up numbers that are 100 times off from reality......

Huh!? Did you read what I wrote, or did you simply miss the units again? And surely, you understand the difference between kW and kWh?

I was talking about the price per kWh of grid-delivered electricity foregone that would make 500kW - 1MW capacity PV solar installation a break even proposition (it also depends on the capacity factor, i.e., the location, of course). I was asking you for what the equivalent units for a 20MW installation would be.

If you don't understand something, it is generally a good idea to seek clarification.

The fact that keep needing to appeal to external news sources to validate your claims makes it sound suspiciously unlikely you have a client for whom you're doing this. It seems more like you pulled out "10 - 20 year payback" and "5% - 10% return" out of your hat, and are scrambling for an ex-post validation.
post #85 of 141
I think you may want to think of this in a completely different way:

Maybe this is one large scale laboratory that will be used to practically develope alternative power.

If apple uses its resources including funding and ability to manufacture and produce a more efficient and affordable alternative power system available for everyone, the would have not only made an important contribution to Mankind but also has the potential of freeing the world on its dependence on petroleum. In turn it will be the most powerful entity on the planet
post #86 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But being an environmentalist myself, I certainly have nothing against it, even if it brings Apple's cost up a bit each year. It's not as though a few tens of millions in extra cost is going to affect their financial status one way or the other. And, if it convinces some people to buy their product because of it, it might be paid for that way.

Well put. I think that the economic justification for this is not on a standalone basis. It is, as you say, from other aspects of the business, such as convincing a few more people to buy the product because of initiatives like this.
post #87 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

Solar PV requires little to no maintenance. Most of the maintenance requires spraying the panels down with a hose every summer.
I can't believe people still consider nuclear as a viable economical, alternative.
post #88 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You're kidding, right!? This is the kind of embarrassing cr4p that is getting the good (science) thrown out with the bad.

It's a travesty.

See http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...a-death-study/

PS: As an FYI, the Scientific American is not some right-wing rag.

My source is a peer reviewed scientific journal. Yours is by a dude with a blog.
post #89 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Huh!? Did you read what I wrote, or did you simply miss the units again? And surely, you understand the difference between kW and kWh?

I was talking about the price per kWh of grid-delivered electricity foregone that would make 500kW - 1MW capacity PV solar installation a break even proposition (it also depends on the capacity factor, i.e., the location, of course). I was asking you for what the equivalent units for a 20MW installation would be.

If you don't understand something, it is generally a good idea to seek clarification.

The fact that keep needing to appeal to external news sources to validate your claims makes it sound suspiciously unlikely you have a client for whom you're doing this. It seems more like you pulled out "10 - 20 year payback" and "5% - 10% return" out of your hat, and are scrambling for an ex-post validation.

You said that Apple would have to spend $5-10 B for their project. I showed you a roughly equivalent project for $70 M. Clearly, you're pulling numbers out of your rear.

I'm not the one confused about kW or kWH. As I said, my company does this quite a bit. I've provided you with plenty of links to back up my claim while you've provided.....nothing but your own wild guesses.

BTW, there are two ways to size the system. You can talk about kW/MW/etc which is peak output or you can talk about kWh/MWh/etc which is the annual output. To get from the first to the second, you have to know the capacity factor. Apple uses both figures, but the easiest way to compare capital costs is to use peak output - since that will determine how many panels are needed. A 20 MW system in Maine is not significantly different from a 20 MW system in Arizona. OTOH, a 20 MHh system in Maine is very different from a 20 MWh system in Arizona because the capacity factors are so different.

As for data, I'm not giving out my customer's confidential information. Sorry you don't understand that concept. But considering that I've provided plenty of data and you've provided nothing, that's not a big issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't think you can compare this to a dividend. I've been watching people make remarks about how Apple should spend their cash, and some of what is being said is worthy of a good head scratching.

So I read people saying that Apple should build a couple of server farms each year. Well, that would take a good $2 billion off the table.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The idea behind a dividend is more than just taking some money away. It changes the investment climate as well, which building a few things for a few billion won't do. Apple will be making far in cash flow each year than they could ever possibly spend on appropriate installations. So if some people want Apple to build things they have no use for, just to get rid of the money, that's a waste.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

On the other hand, whether or not they are doing this because they really believe its important to do so from a green philosophy, or because it's good marketing, is something I don't know. I imagine the same thing is operating for Google.

But being an environmentalist myself, I certainly have nothing against it, even if it brings Apple's cost up a bit each year. It's not as though a few tens of millions in extra cost is going to affect their financial status one way or the other. And, if it convinces some people to buy their product because of it, it might be paid for that way.

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.
"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 #90 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickmont View Post

I think you may want to think of this in a completely different way:

Maybe this is one large scale laboratory that will be used to practically develope alternative power.

If apple uses its resources including funding and ability to manufacture and produce a more efficient and affordable alternative power system available for everyone, the would have not only made an important contribution to Mankind but also has the potential of freeing the world on its dependence on petroleum. In turn it will be the most powerful entity on the planet

Don't count on it. As large as this project is, it's an insignificant proportion of global solar capacity and is not sufficient to drive the market.
"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 #91 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

My source is a peer reviewed scientific journal. Yours is by a dude with a blog.

It's obvious you didn't read what the 'dude' (who is their technology editor) wrote.

Or if you did, it's not clear that you understood the merits of his argument.

'nuff said.
post #92 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

For reference, most existing plants were licensed for 30-40 years. As a plant nears the end of its design life...... 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

And what an incredible economic opportunity that will be, considering each one will cost $5B - $10B to build.

Think of all the upstream and downstream business opportunities! Everything from Caterpillar tractors, to computers and control systems, to engineers,........ One could go on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You said that Apple would have to spend $5-10 B for their project.

See above: Clearly, you've had some difficulty following the thread of discussion. I talked about nuclear; you responded to my post about nuclear; I responded to your response about nuclear (actually agreeing with you); then you post saying I am talking about Apple...

Sigh.

Maybe you're on too many threads talking to too many people about too many things, and are having trouble keeping it straight.

I'll ignore the rest of your post, which is essentially a non-sequitur.
post #93 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

It's obvious you didn't read what the 'dude' (who is their technology editor) wrote.

Or if you did, it's not clear that you understood the merits of his argument.

'nuff said.

Yes I did read it and admit my rebuttal was a bit histrionic. My main thesis is that a nuclear power fallout can have devastating consequences across the globe. Even oil and coal plants are much more contained than that. There is also a finite amount of uranium supply, so it is not the solution to long term energy use, and storing all of those spent rods takes thousands of years- quite a burden on your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's great great grandchildren.
post #94 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

Yes I did read it and admit my rebuttal was a bit histrionic. My main thesis is that a nuclear power fallout can have devastating consequences across the globe. Even oil and coal plants are much more contained than that. There is also a finite amount of uranium supply, so it is not the solution to long term energy use, and storing all of those spent rods takes thousands of years- quite a burden on your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's great great grandchildren.

Nuclear's been around for a century, and considering that almost all of what's around is very old stuff, i.e., Gen 1, it is pretty impressive that there have been only three major incidents: Chernobyl (really scary), Three Mile Island (ridiculous hyperventilation), and Fukushima (scary). All these were instances of human failures more than they were technological.

You should really find out a bit more about the safety of Gen 3. It's remarkably safe. You can't base public policy on vague statements such as "...can have devastating consequences...." Lots of things that we spend money on as societies -- wars, chemical plants, automobiles, air travel, space exploration, dead zones from agriculture, waste/emissions/pollution we produce fro our production and consumption -- have devastating consequences.

Yes, I would be somewhat worried about nuclear in its current installed form in countries like the US -- almost entirely first generation -- where it's a matter of time. In another decade or so, we'll start to see some real issues. We really should be thinking about how to leapfrog to Gen 3 and 4 (esp. Gen 4) reactors. Given the lead times involved to set up a plant, which is a decade or so, we should be starting now.

In any event, many countries, such as India, China, and Brazil are plowing ahead: there are nearly 60 being built today around the world (none in the US, perhaps one or two in Europe). I can assure you that countries such as India and China would not be going nuclear it if it was more expensive than wind and solar (which, btw, are prone to intermittency issues, have poorly developed storage technologies as backup, can take up huge tracts of land, use up massive amounts of water in the case of solar CSP, prone to breakdown and noise and visual pollution in the case of wind, and whose core components are very dirty to produce).

Two other points. One, you claim that "oil and coal are more contained than nuclear." Seriously?! Leaving aside issues such as emissions, toxic pollutants, and particulates, coal alone has probably directly killed over 100,000 people (mostly miners) in just the US alone this past century! You can look it up. We all know how many lives have been lost over oil.....

As to uranium being finite, know that less than 1% of the energy is used in Gen 1 - 3 nuclear reactors. 99% of the energy is currently wasted. Gen 4 will used reprocessed stuff, and people expect that it can last for decades, if not hundreds of years. (See, e.g., a company such as Terra Power: http://www.terrapower.com/home.aspx). Scientists and technologists (e.g., in India) are also experimenting with thorium reactors, of which there's abundant supply (see, e.g., http://www.forbes.com/sites/williamp...fire-possibly/).
post #95 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

My source is a peer reviewed scientific journal. Yours is by a dude with a blog.

It is an example of really bad science. It could be that the journal was the only journal that would publish that paper. Not all peer reviewed journals are equal.

If you read the paper, it make a basic assumption that any change in death rates is attributed to a single impact. It makes no attempt to look at historical data and variances. Even its sad attempt at correlation to Chernobyl has drastically different time cause/effect differences.
post #96 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Nuclear's been around for a century, and considering that almost all of what's around is very old stuff, i.e., Gen 1, it is pretty impressive that there have been only three major incidents: Chernobyl (really scary), Three Mile Island (ridiculous hyperventilation), and Fukushima (scary). All these were instances of human failures more than they were technological.

You should really find out a bit more about the safety of Gen 3. It's remarkably safe. You can't base public policy on vague statements such as "...can have devastating consequences...." Lots of things that we spend money on as societies -- wars, chemical plants, automobiles, air travel, space exploration, dead zones from agriculture, waste/emissions/pollution we produce fro our production and consumption -- have devastating consequences.

Yes, I would be somewhat worried about nuclear in its current installed form in countries like the US -- almost entirely first generation -- where it's a matter of time. In another decade or so, we'll start to see some real issues. We really should be thinking about how to leapfrog to Gen 3 and 4 (esp. Gen 4) reactors. Given the lead times involved to set up a plant, which is a decade or so, we should be starting now.

In any event, many countries, such as India, China, and Brazil are plowing ahead: there are nearly 60 being built today around the world (none in the US, perhaps one or two in Europe). I can assure you that countries such as India and China would not be going nuclear it if it was more expensive than wind and solar (which, btw, are prone to intermittency issues, have poorly developed storage technologies as backup, can take up huge tracts of land, use up massive amounts of water in the case of solar CSP, prone to breakdown and noise and visual pollution in the case of wind, and whose core components are very dirty to produce).

Two other points. One, you claim that "oil and coal are more contained than nuclear." Seriously?! Leaving aside issues such as emissions, toxic pollutants, and particulates, coal alone has probably directly killed over 100,000 people (mostly miners) in just the US alone this past century! You can look it up. We all know how many lives have been lost over oil.....

As to uranium being finite, know that less than 1% of the energy is used in Gen 1 - 3 nuclear reactors. 99% of the energy is currently wasted. Gen 4 will used reprocessed stuff, and people expect that it can last for decades, if not hundreds of years. (See, e.g., a company such as Terra Power: http://www.terrapower.com/home.aspx). Scientists and technologists (e.g., in India) are also experimenting with thorium reactors, of which there's abundant supply (see, e.g., http://www.forbes.com/sites/williamp...fire-possibly/).


Where is the nuclear waste stored? And for how long?
post #97 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Opened in early 2011, Apple server facility supports its iTunes and iCloud services and is the nerve center of the iPhone 4S' Siri virtual assistant.

Source? I've never seen Apple admit to anything in that level of specificity.
post #98 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

I assume by "largest privately owned in the US" the author actually means non-utility owned.

Those fuel cells are pretty new and pricy - it could be the largest install of them - even among utility companies.
post #99 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

along with the purchase of a few Chevy Volts

People need to seriously lay off the Chevy Volt. With all the half-assed and half-baked "green" shit out there, the Volt is EXACTLY what a hybrid car should be. 100% electric drivetrain, with a gas generator to give you range and is optimized to run at a single speed for peak efficiency when recharging the batteries.

How Toyota with their fucking "synergy" drive ever managed to get mindshare boggles my mind.

And the "volt fire" crap is just that - pure crap. The damn things caught on fire DAYS after the crash test and after the NTSA ignored GM post crash procedures to secure the batteries.

Do you think they would leave a traditional car sitting there leaking gas all over the damn floor for several days? It's the direct equivalent of what they did with the Volt. Talk about a complete cock up.

And then what does the average asshole in the US do? Support one of the last manufacturers still producing a product in the US? Hell no - you get a bunch of ignorant and flat out stupid piling on about an issue that is complete bullshit.

Wanna know why there are no manufacturing jobs in the US? We don't really want 'em. It's more fun to make a parody video on the Internet and yuk it up with the talk show hosts that pretend to be news outlets than hold an intelligent thought
post #100 of 141
I'm sure this is just a publicity stunt to get those hippies off of Apple's back for using coal powered energy plants to power their server farms.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #101 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

Where is the nuclear waste stored?

Would have been safely in the desert if a bunch of people who freak out about invisible shit they don't understand hadn't interfered.

Quote:
And for how long?

If it's re-burned like they do in France not only is the amount greatly reduced but it's a few thousand years instead of the <Carl Sagan>billions and billions</Carl Sagan> the anti-nuke nuts would have you believe.

I'm always amused at the number of anit-nuke people that can turn around and disparage religious people for being unscientific or emotional based....
post #102 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_inVantage View Post

And considering how the electricity is made in the US, it maybe very well come from a dirty electricity power plant.

I always assumed they picked the Carolina's for the same reason the DOD picked the location they did for Oak Ridge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

Cheap hydro power. Why Google put their data center in Oregon - to leverage the Columbia River Basin dams. The dams that won us World War II powering the aluminum factories of Alcoa and the airplane plants of Boeing - and also why Boeing is in Seattle - but I digress...

Edit - apparently it's not close enough to TVA - from the Wired article:

Quote:
But Apple finds itself in this situation because it’s trying to reduce its reliance on the environmentally unfriendly energy sources — primarily coal and nuclear — that power the Duke Energy grid that Apple uses, says Greenpeace’s Cook. “They’re trying to do what they can onsite to reduce their emissions footprint,” he says. “It’s a very dirty energy grid — North Carolina is 60 percent coal, and this is one way to try to reduce that load.”

Then again I just got suckered into quoting the whole 60% coal thing which was sourced from Greenpeace. Yup - there's an unbiased source :P
post #103 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

Yes I did read it and admit my rebuttal was a bit histrionic. My main thesis is that a nuclear power fallout can have devastating consequences across the globe.

Congress gets more background radiation from the natural granite in the capital than from a chest X-ray. And a chest X-ray is shorter duration vs. continuous exposure. Hmm, perhaps that's why most of them are hardly in the capital...

Quote:
Even oil and coal plants are much more contained than that.

Who's? Ours? That's nice. Too bad we get shit in the atmosphere from China all the time.

Most smart people aren't skeptical about man made global warming because they are anti-science. They are skeptical about the vision of man made global warming that is being proffered because the "solutions" being proffered happen to directly financially benefit the pushers of those solutions.

Fascinating. Imagine that. There's a crises and some well connected people stand to benefit from the proposed solutions.

But pay no attention to the above - I'm just Anti-Science and hey! Isn't that a 1%'er over there? Get 'em!

Sigh....

Quote:
There is also a finite amount of uranium supply

Far more energy is available from nuclear than from fossil fuels. And it's far cleaner.

Quote:
so it is not the solution to long term energy use

Nice try, but your wrong. Fusion - the ultimate solution to our energy problems is 100% nuclear. Make up your mind - are fossil fuels bad and we need to get off of them or not? Because wind, solar and hydro are a pipe dream. Actually it could be fun watching one faction of enviro-nuts take on another faction of enviro-nuts on dams vs. fish/river ecosystem. I'll get my popcorn.

I'm surprised that more people from the audibon society aren't up in arms about bird kills with wind...

Quote:
and storing all of those spent rods takes thousands of years

You can re-burn the fuel - which yields more energy and greatly reduces the quantity and "badness" as well as the length of storing really bad stuff vs. stuff that can be stored safely in passive containment systems quite well. The only reasons we don't now are more politics and brain-dead policy. They aren't science or technical problems...

Quote:
quite a burden on your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's great great grandchildren.



Godwins law for nuclear power threads. Congratulations.
post #104 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

I'm sure this is just a publicity stunt to get those hippies off of Apple's back

Er, Apple is run by hippies.

Rich hippies, but none the less it's there at the core. Not that I'm saying it's a bad thing, mind you...
post #105 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

Where is the nuclear waste stored? And for how long?

Do a search, and find out for yourself.
post #106 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Er, Apple is run by hippies.

Rich hippies, but none the less it's there at the core. Not that I'm saying it's a bad thing, mind you...

Uuh maybe 100 billion dollars ago, do some of you really believe that Apple is this good hearted entity. Did you know that Apple is the worst charitable company in the industry. I mean I personaly don't care, they can do what they want with their money but don't think for a second that they are anything but a company seeking world domination like the rest of them.

They just happen to make good products that we like, that's it.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #107 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Do a search, and find out for yourself.

I think this person was just making a conversation. You don't have to be so abtuse. Most of it is buried. I know here in Switzerland even though over 60% percent of electricity comes from hydro we still import some of our electricity from France which uses Nuclear. To cut down on our bill with them we agreed to bury a certain amount of their waste in underground caverns in mountains lined with lead, concrete and then natural marble.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #108 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Uuh maybe 100 billion dollars ago, do some of you really believe that Apple is this good hearted entity. Did you know that Apple is the worst charitable company in the industry. I mean I personaly don't care, they can do what they want with their money but don't think for a second that they are anything but a company seeking world domination like the rest of them.

They just happen to make good products that we like, that's it.

So what's your point? Others are different?

No one is naive enough to believe that a company -- any company -- is a "good-hearted entity." You're simply creating a strawman.

Incidentally, if you "personally don't care" it's odd that you bring up the fact that Apple is the "worst charitable company in the industry."
post #109 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

I think this person was just making a conversation. You don't have to be so abtuse. Most of it is buried. I know here in Switzerland even though over 60% percent of electricity comes from hydro we still import some of our electricity from France which uses Nuclear. To cut down on our bill with them we agreed to bury a certain amount of their waste in underground caverns in mountains lined with lead, concrete and then natural marble.

I've replied in enough detail to him. When someone posts a question the answer to which is a click away, that's lazy.

If it's your wont to indulge something like that, go right ahead. Don't presume to give me advice or call me 'abtuse' [sic]. (I think you may mean 'obtuse' or 'abstruse', depending on what you intended to say).
post #110 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

So what's your point? Others are different?

No one is naive enough to believe that a company -- any company -- is a "good-hearted entity." You're simply creating a strawman.

Incidentally, if you "personally don't care" it's odd that you brip the fact that Apple is the "worst charitable company in the industry."

8,000 plus posts since 2006, wasn't that the year that Apple attacked Appleinsider for leaking and got lawyers envolved. I don't know what the outcome was but I'm really starting to think that Apple has a presence here.

I'm not saying your a plant just thinking out loud. I was just replying to someone who thinks Apple is a bunch of lefty hippies when that is the farthest from the truth. They are a greedy manufacturer like the rest of them. Like the rest of them, I said that in my previous post. No I don't think others are different that's why I said like the rest of them. See get it, sorry but I think I have to keep repeating myself sometimes to get my point across as you thought I was just singling Apple out.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #111 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

8,000 plus posts since 2006, wasn't that the year that Apple attacked Appleinsider for leaking and got lawyers envolved. I don't know what the outcome was but I'm really starting to think that Apple has a presence here.

You know, that's an interesting idea, but to what end? What would it serve? Under your assumed conditions, there would be no point in an Apple plant here unless their purpose was to gain enough trust to become a moderator. Then they could efficiently find leaks due to the enhanced features.

No, I'm not an Apple plant. "Cops can't say that, right?"

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #112 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

8,000 plus posts since 2006, wasn't that the year that Apple attacked Appleinsider for leaking and got lawyers envolved. I don't know what the outcome was but I'm really starting to think that Apple has a presence here.

I'm not saying your a plant just thinking out loud. I was just replying to someone who thinks Apple is a bunch of lefty hippies when that is the farthest from the truth. They are a greedy manufacturer like the rest of them. Like the rest of them, I said that in my previous post. No I don't think others are different that's why I said like the rest of them. See get it, sorry but I think I have to keep repeating myself sometimes to get my point across as you thought I was just singling Apple out.

You're rambling, and making even less sense than usual.

Must be pretty late there in Switzerland, so perhaps it's time to call it a day.
post #113 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, I'm not an Apple plant. "Cops can't say that, right?"

Actually, being called an 'Apple plant' is the nicest thing anyone's said to me in public in this Forum!
post #114 of 141
Those data centers are energy hogs. Kudos to Apple for taking the initiative and not just plugging in to the grid. Sounds like they might be taking a public relations hit with the anti solar crowd but I'm sure that will blow over.
post #115 of 141
Unless the US moves to 4th Generation Nuclear [Ironically, it was 1st generation and banned as the first act of the newly christened Atomic Energy Commission; and invented by Ernesto Fermi--the father of Thermodynamics] being Pebble Bed and using a substitute to Uranium the only changes in US Nuclear deployment will be the decomissioning of these relics and developing more advanced technologies to work with nuclear waste management.

China shortly after Japan's disaster announced a sole focus on 4th generation Pebble Bed for it's Nuclear future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor]

China 210 MWe pebble bed reactor starts construction April, 2011

Then again from ASME's Legislation push in the US Congress [http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articl...e-legislation]

I find these requirements as a Mechanical Engineering unappealing:

Quote:
Section 207 of the bill, ASME Nuclear Certification Credit, would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 relating to business-related credits to:
  1. In General- For purposes of section 38, the ASME nuclear certification credit determined under this section for any taxable year is an amount equal to 15 percent of the qualified nuclear expenditures paid or incurred by the taxpayer.
  2. Qualified Nuclear Expenditures- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified nuclear expenditures' means any expenditure related to-
    1. obtaining a new certification under the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Nuclear Component Certification program;
    2. recertifying, changing, or otherwise upgrading an existing certification under the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Nuclear Component Certification program; or,
    3. increasing the taxpayer's capacity to construct, fabricate, assemble, or install components
      1. for any facility which uses nuclear energy to produce electricity, and
      2. with respect to the construction, fabrication, assembly, or installation of which the taxpayer is certified under such program.


If the bill is approved, the ASME Nuclear Certification Credit would be available to qualified taxpayers for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010 through taxable years ending December 31, 2025.

S. 3618 contains other provisions vital to further enabling the nuclear renaissance in the United States, while also improving energy security and reducing future pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by:
  • Accelerating the development of small modular reactors by directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop a 50 percent cost-sharing plan with industry at $100 million per year for 10 years;
  • Establishing a National Nuclear Energy Council under DOE to provide an independent forum through which to address national strategy and significant issues facing the nuclear industry; and,
  • Financing new nuclear power plants through $54 billion in DOE loan guarantees.

I'd rather see $54 Billion in funding split by half going for 4th Generation [including clean up of plants it replaces] and half going for Solar/Wind/BioFuel R&D to consumer use.

In short, $27.5 Billion for 4G Pebble Bed and $27.5 Billion for Green Tech that has no hazardess waste future.

As the Materials Science advances making Coal more rapidly obsolete it'll be clear that new types of compact Solar Collector designs connected to power conversion for later distribution will need to be ready to meet the future needs. Same goes for Wind and Biofuels created fro Biomass conversion.
post #116 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Uuh maybe 100 billion dollars ago, do some of you really believe that Apple is this good hearted entity. Did you know that Apple is the worst charitable company in the industry. I mean I personaly don't care, they can do what they want with their money but don't think for a second that they are anything but a company seeking world domination like the rest of them.

They just happen to make good products that we like, that's it.

That's ridiculous.

First, Apple is not supposed to be a charitable organization. It's not their job.

Second, you don't have any idea how much Apple (or Steve Jobs/Tim Cook personally) spend on charity.

Third, when you look at their efforts, Apple is miles ahead of any of their competitors in recyclability of their products and green manufacturing practices.

Fourth, if you consider the purpose of a charity is to 'spread happiness', Apple does that quite well.
"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 #117 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow415 View Post

FYI: The claim that the renewables "will provide 9.8 percent of the energy" comes from Greenpeace and is highly suspect. Their calculations assume that every device in the data center will be running at 100% its rated utilization for 100% of the time and there is zero overhead for redundancy.

It's sort of like calculating the annual power usage for your 1.1kW (1100W) toaster like this:

1.1kW * 24h * 365d = 9636 kWh per year

Which ignores the fact that even if you did you your toaster 24h a day, the element is not on that whole time. Thus, actual power consumed is much less.

Having been involved in the design and construction of large data centers, actual usage is nowhere near the maximum design rating of 200W psf.

Agreed, rehashing talking points from people who are in the pockets of big oil simply makes you look gullible. I don't agree that alternative energy is always the best choice but sometimes it is.

The government needs to stop subsidizing alternative energy & instead reward the consumers who invest in alternative energy that works. Stop trying to penalize people for using too much energy or favoring sources through penalties & fees. How about instead we reward people through vouchers or tax write offs for investing in alternative energy that actually works. Let the market pick solutions that work instead of pouring money into solutions that don't.

And for crying out loud, start building some nuclear power plants, we've come a long way with nuclear technology since the days of 3 mile island. Heck we even have submarines powered by it now, not to mention ~80% of the president's beloved France.
post #118 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

The government needs to stop subsidizing alternative energy & instead reward the consumers who invest in alternative energy that works.

I'd be OK with that - as long as they stop subsidizing fossil fuel and nuclear energy, as well.
"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 #119 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickmont View Post

I think you may want to think of this in a completely different way:

Maybe this is one large scale laboratory that will be used to practically develope alternative power.

If apple uses its resources including funding and ability to manufacture and produce a more efficient and affordable alternative power system available for everyone, the would have not only made an important contribution to Mankind but also has the potential of freeing the world on its dependence on petroleum. In turn it will be the most powerful entity on the planet

I agree, although I don't see Apple getting into the energy business. If Apple did make a major leap in the development of practical renewal power, that would do more to "change the world" than any computer they ever made. If Apple was successful at this, can you imagine if everyone who attempts to copy Apple today, attempted to copy them at this - where it would become "unhip" or "politically incorrect" to build or operate a factory that didn't use renewable power?

Having said that, I do have some of the concerns, as expressed by others, about clear-cutting the land to obtain the goal. I would have felt a lot better if this was an abandoned factory or shopping center. And I am hoping that the solar farm and "gas factory" does produce far more than 10% of the necessary power. I also question, as others have, why a great number of solar panels couldn't be placed on top of these facilities, rather than on new land, but obviously, we don't know the full plan as yet.

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 or eventually Iran (if Israel doesn't bomb it first) - places where the people have no say whatsoever. I don't even think you'll see new reactors built in China. What you are going to see is tons of reactors decommissioned in coming years, especially in Europe, even if that does have an overall negative impact on the environment as countries return to coal and other dirtier sources of fuel.
post #120 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Fourth, if you consider the purpose of a charity is to 'spread happiness', Apple does that quite well.


Now THAT is some clear thinking! To expand on it:

Some charities want to bring good things to life. So GE is the world's bestest charity!

And Coke too! A Coke and a Smile! Charities like to make people smile! Coca-Cola: A wonderful Charity!

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
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