New aerial images of Apple's planned NC fuel cell, solar farms emerge - Page 3

Originally Posted by Steven N.

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.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

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.

Originally Posted by jragosta

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

Originally Posted by jragosta

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......

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

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 anantksundaram

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.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

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.

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

Originally Posted by Rickmont

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

Originally Posted by tyler82

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

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...... 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 anantksundaram

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.

Originally Posted by jragosta

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

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

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.

Originally Posted by tyler82

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.

Originally Posted by tyler82

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

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

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/).

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

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.

Originally Posted by JONOROM

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

Originally Posted by Rot'nApple

along with the purchase of a few Chevy Volts

Originally Posted by tyler82

Where is the nuclear waste stored?

And for how long?

Originally Posted by j_inVantage

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

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.”

Originally Posted by tyler82

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.

Originally Posted by Relic

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

Originally Posted by tyler82

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

Originally Posted by DocNo42

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...

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Do a search, and find out for yourself.

Originally Posted by Relic

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.

Originally Posted by Relic

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.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

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."

Originally Posted by Relic

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.

Originally Posted by Relic

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.

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

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

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.

Originally Posted by Relic

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.

Originally Posted by shadow415

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.

Originally Posted by hezetation

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

Originally Posted by Rickmont

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

Originally Posted by jragosta

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