I think you are wrong about what it takes to be a green building. A green building doesn't need to be self sufficient with energy. It just has to use energy efficiently. There is a certification process for Green Buildings. The community college in my area just built a green building that was certified to the highest marks by LEED (the certifying agency). There is no solar or wind farms. However, the building uses a lot of natural light, is designed to keep heating and cooling costs down, the asphalt in the parking lot is permutable (to allow water to go through), and the fixtures are all energy efficient. Further, how many companies do you know that quadruples the landscaped area thereby increasing the amount of trees that purify air?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Yes, I don't think Apple should have carte blanche to do what they want just because it's already so stunning... Maybe the real questions the city council as well as the state should be asking is what about solar? There are many new office buildings around the world being built that are already "greener" than this. Yes, architect students will come to see it but it's not really an epitome of a green building.
He certainly still gives a kick-ass keynote speech. It does seem likely he's going to be increasingly taking a back seat though, if only to give investors confidence that Apple isn't a one-man operation. I personally think that Apple will continue to outperform even with Jobs taking a rest. He has over the last decade or so driven the idea of qualty and attention design deep into the firm.
The moment for me that defined it was when the guy demonstrated that the camera could now be operated using the volume button and the audience erupted in cheers. Apple is the kind of firm that thinks about something so picayune as shutter buttons - because Apple knows it makes a huge difference to user experience, and Apple users actually appreciate it and are as ecstatic about minute interface polishes as they are about new API libraries and shiny new features.
So long as Apple engineers keep obsessing about that kind of thing Apple will stay special and Jobsian.
I think that's pretty dangerous, to use government power to take property, purely to benefit a single corporation.
If the panels are facing _up_, how is that going to reflect down to the trees? Or if they're motorized to be sun-pointing, the light vector is pointed back at the sun again. Assuming the panels are on the roof, I'm not seeing where it hurts the trees here.
Have you seen the arrays they have in the deserts in America? They don't point straight up they are on an angle. Having them lie flat makes them even more inefficient.
Uh, you really don't understand how solar works at all, do you?
Trees catching on fire? Really? Go work out the geometry and learn that even if they were 100% perfect mirrors that the reflected light doesn't go anywhere near the ground. (And solar panels are designed to be the opposite of mirrors - their entire purpose is to collect as much sun light as possible, not reflect it back.)
Explain the glare coming off of those arrays then?
Solar panels are inefficient and don't even absorb most of the light at all. You'd be surprised at how very little light they absorb per surface area. That's why there is no huge move to make everything solar powered. The cost per benefit of solar is not close to being viable whereas gas is cheap and best of all clean and doesn't take very much to produce at all.
Solar technology is getting better and better but it is still far from perfect.
The risk is very much there whether you choose to accept it or not.
As has been frequently mentioned, the Pixar building was designed to allow people to easily interact with each other. This will be similar. In fact, I think it's very reasonable to believe that this building will be the architectural embodiment of the Apple philosophy! And if that doesn't make sense to you, I'm not even sure why you read this site! lol
An interesting feature of the pentagon is that you can get to any other part in around 10 mins. As a ring vs a spread out campus you pretty much get that same effect in the proposed structure.
He certainly still gives a kick-ass keynote speech. It does seem likely he's going to be increasingly taking a back seat though, if only to give investors confidence that Apple isn't a one-man operation. I personally think that Apple will continue to outperform even with Jobs taking a rest. He has over the last decade or so driven the idea of qualty and attention design deep into the firm.
The moment for me that defined it was when the guy demonstrated that the camera could now be operated using the volume button and the audience erupted in cheers. Apple is the kind of firm that thinks about something so picayune as shutter buttons - because Apple knows it makes a huge difference to user experience, and Apple users actually appreciate it and are as ecstatic about minute interface polishes as they are about new API libraries and shiny new features.
So long as Apple engineers keep obsessing about that kind of thing Apple will stay special and Jobsian.
Jobsian -- I like the sound of that very much. And yes, deep into the design infrastructure of the firm, by picking people and making a culture around them, for them.
There's really nothing to be worried about with Apple. They have invented a completely new kind of company, and it is on the ascendency for a long run. Thus this building. Truly amazing the more I look at it and think about it. Big news.
An interesting feature of the pentagon is that you can get to any other part in around 10 mins. As a ring vs a spread out campus you pretty much get that same effect in the proposed structure.
Very interesting. Like spokes in a wheel, they'll meet in the center. Or maybe with rings intersecting, like a web. Indra's Net comes to mind.
Fine. If you can advocate a more economical renewable on-site generating source I'm all ears. In the meantime let's stick to what's been proven to work.
First "prove" that PV is economical without subsidy...I'm all for solar but it's not a panacea.
Have you seen the arrays they have in the deserts in America? They don't point straight up they are on an angle. Having them lie flat makes them even more inefficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowededwookie
Explain the glare coming off of those arrays then?
Solar panels are inefficient and don't even absorb most of the light at all. You'd be surprised at how very little light they absorb per surface area. That's why there is no huge move to make everything solar powered. The cost per benefit of solar is not close to being viable whereas gas is cheap and best of all clean and doesn't take very much to produce at all.
Solar technology is getting better and better but it is still far from perfect.
The risk is very much there whether you choose to accept it or not.
I don't believe there is such a risk in your supposed scenario, this is basic vector math. PV panels that are on a motorized mount face the sun for most efficiency. In that case, the light not absorbed is reflected in the opposite direction - back toward the sun. In the case of upward facing panels, light not absorbed would back up to some other part of the sky, reflected across the surface normal, not refract them down to the ground. Remember, we were talking about panels on the top of a 4th story building.
Explain the glare coming off of those arrays then?
In this part of California (Bay Area) the optimal fixed angle is around 20 degrees elevation. (This is due to the Time-Of-Use tariff that maximizes production during the summer months.) There is no way that the light is getting reflected anywhere but back into the sky. And as has been pointed out earlier, mechanical trackers aim the panels right back into the sun.
But I'm curious - are there any reports of PV panels setting trees on fire? The only case that I could conceivably imagine is where someone intentionally aligns them into a parabola with a tree at the focus.
Yeah, not a great choice of words there. Weeds get pulled out and burned, or at least made into dandelion soup.
Um, you guys must be young or something. It is a common phrase that means growing rapidly. Frequently used to refer to fast growing children, but maybe Steve sees the company as one of his own.
Did this remind anyone else of the building at the end of the Fountainhead?... Anyone? lol
If you think Jobs is a Libertarian, Rand fan think again. The man can't stand both. Hint: He's not a Republican or a Christian. His trip to India when he was 21 set his life course. The man is very Gaia conscious.
Art is universal. When something is really beautiful it's really beautiful. You can have your own opinion all you want but it's just that: opinion. But what you're really wrong is.. if anything, the importance of architect is somewhat underrated.
PS: and if you think brick is ugly, two words: Mario Botta.
"Art" doesn't always have anything to do with beauty at all, and the perception of "beauty" is actually subjective.
Only to those that don't know what's going on. At a fundamental level, it is using energy to move energy. In short, the opposite of irony, because when presented that way, you expect that to happen. In fact, probably every means of refrigeration requires the production heat somewhere, what's different in those cases is the apparent proximity, or the lack of it.
People who aren't Mechanical Engineers, Physicists or who actually haven't taken a Thermodynamics/Heat Transfer series of courses need to grasp the notion that Heat doesn't mean Hot or above Zero. It covers the spectrum from Absolute Zero to Infinity. Heat is just one variable in the overall Energy transformation equation and whether that energy enters or leaves the system we talk in terms of Heat in [absorption] or Heat out [loss].
Eventually the free wifi for Cupertino will take care of itself when Apple expands it's ringed mothership to swallow the entire city of Cupertino. Since everyone will live and work witHin the borders of Apple, the wifi will be complementary.
Yes yes i thought as much
CUPERINOO will become a giant green data farm . Free Wifi at no charge .
The entire building is one huge symbolic gesture!!
Think about it; a corporate headquarter really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy building with windows and a parking lot. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree.
Apple has chosen to spend their well-earned money on an expensive, stylistic edifice for the sake of telling the world that they are successful. I have no problem with that. They may also attract more talent as a result (although at this point I suspect people would still line up to work at Apple even if it was located in an underground bunker). But they are also making a permanent statement to the world (and the Cupertino government) that they value certain details over others, including the replanting of trees that they have no legal obligation to do and to include certain 'green' architecture elements (Jobs even said it explicitly).
My only complaint here is they didn't include (or at least mention) some element of solar electrical generation*. Not necessarily because it would make a huge impact on their operating costs, but because it would tell other would-be Apples that it's an appropriate thing to do. I might be wrong - maybe there are panels located elsewhere on campus and Jobs didn't bring it up. (And then your argument will be invalidated here.) In any case, any new construction that goes up in this day and age that doesn't attempt to capture the free energy raining down on the roof is, in my opinion, a huge lost opportunity that borders on the criminal. I fly over new housing developments that are only a year old that could be generating megawatts of electricity that instead sap the electric grid, add to our overall pollution, and enrich companies that have far less social conscience than Apple or any other tech company that people look up to.
Google, meanwhile, is offsetting 30% of their electricity use at the 'Plex.
Edit: *And the solar panels do not have to be on the Big Donut - they could be elsewhere on the campus, such as along the perimeter or the support buildings. And maybe that is indeed in the works, but this presentation didn't mention it.
dude its all solar panels
its a mothership thats off the grid 100 percentile
Comments
Likely because he doesn't.
Exactly, and in many ways he's looking good.
Yes, I don't think Apple should have carte blanche to do what they want just because it's already so stunning... Maybe the real questions the city council as well as the state should be asking is what about solar? There are many new office buildings around the world being built that are already "greener" than this. Yes, architect students will come to see it but it's not really an epitome of a green building.
Exactly, and in many ways he's looking good.
He certainly still gives a kick-ass keynote speech. It does seem likely he's going to be increasingly taking a back seat though, if only to give investors confidence that Apple isn't a one-man operation. I personally think that Apple will continue to outperform even with Jobs taking a rest. He has over the last decade or so driven the idea of qualty and attention design deep into the firm.
The moment for me that defined it was when the guy demonstrated that the camera could now be operated using the volume button and the audience erupted in cheers. Apple is the kind of firm that thinks about something so picayune as shutter buttons - because Apple knows it makes a huge difference to user experience, and Apple users actually appreciate it and are as ecstatic about minute interface polishes as they are about new API libraries and shiny new features.
So long as Apple engineers keep obsessing about that kind of thing Apple will stay special and Jobsian.
I think that's pretty dangerous, to use government power to take property, purely to benefit a single corporation.
If the panels are facing _up_, how is that going to reflect down to the trees? Or if they're motorized to be sun-pointing, the light vector is pointed back at the sun again. Assuming the panels are on the roof, I'm not seeing where it hurts the trees here.
Have you seen the arrays they have in the deserts in America? They don't point straight up they are on an angle. Having them lie flat makes them even more inefficient.
Uh, you really don't understand how solar works at all, do you?
Trees catching on fire? Really? Go work out the geometry and learn that even if they were 100% perfect mirrors that the reflected light doesn't go anywhere near the ground. (And solar panels are designed to be the opposite of mirrors - their entire purpose is to collect as much sun light as possible, not reflect it back.)
Explain the glare coming off of those arrays then?
Solar panels are inefficient and don't even absorb most of the light at all. You'd be surprised at how very little light they absorb per surface area. That's why there is no huge move to make everything solar powered. The cost per benefit of solar is not close to being viable whereas gas is cheap and best of all clean and doesn't take very much to produce at all.
Solar technology is getting better and better but it is still far from perfect.
The risk is very much there whether you choose to accept it or not.
As has been frequently mentioned, the Pixar building was designed to allow people to easily interact with each other. This will be similar. In fact, I think it's very reasonable to believe that this building will be the architectural embodiment of the Apple philosophy! And if that doesn't make sense to you, I'm not even sure why you read this site! lol
An interesting feature of the pentagon is that you can get to any other part in around 10 mins. As a ring vs a spread out campus you pretty much get that same effect in the proposed structure.
He certainly still gives a kick-ass keynote speech. It does seem likely he's going to be increasingly taking a back seat though, if only to give investors confidence that Apple isn't a one-man operation. I personally think that Apple will continue to outperform even with Jobs taking a rest. He has over the last decade or so driven the idea of qualty and attention design deep into the firm.
The moment for me that defined it was when the guy demonstrated that the camera could now be operated using the volume button and the audience erupted in cheers. Apple is the kind of firm that thinks about something so picayune as shutter buttons - because Apple knows it makes a huge difference to user experience, and Apple users actually appreciate it and are as ecstatic about minute interface polishes as they are about new API libraries and shiny new features.
So long as Apple engineers keep obsessing about that kind of thing Apple will stay special and Jobsian.
Jobsian -- I like the sound of that very much. And yes, deep into the design infrastructure of the firm, by picking people and making a culture around them, for them.
There's really nothing to be worried about with Apple. They have invented a completely new kind of company, and it is on the ascendency for a long run. Thus this building. Truly amazing the more I look at it and think about it. Big news.
An interesting feature of the pentagon is that you can get to any other part in around 10 mins. As a ring vs a spread out campus you pretty much get that same effect in the proposed structure.
Very interesting. Like spokes in a wheel, they'll meet in the center. Or maybe with rings intersecting, like a web. Indra's Net comes to mind.
Like a weed?
Yeah, not a great choice of words there. Weeds get pulled out and burned, or at least made into dandelion soup.
Fine. If you can advocate a more economical renewable on-site generating source I'm all ears. In the meantime let's stick to what's been proven to work.
First "prove" that PV is economical without subsidy...I'm all for solar but it's not a panacea.
Have you seen the arrays they have in the deserts in America? They don't point straight up they are on an angle. Having them lie flat makes them even more inefficient.
Explain the glare coming off of those arrays then?
Solar panels are inefficient and don't even absorb most of the light at all. You'd be surprised at how very little light they absorb per surface area. That's why there is no huge move to make everything solar powered. The cost per benefit of solar is not close to being viable whereas gas is cheap and best of all clean and doesn't take very much to produce at all.
Solar technology is getting better and better but it is still far from perfect.
The risk is very much there whether you choose to accept it or not.
I don't believe there is such a risk in your supposed scenario, this is basic vector math. PV panels that are on a motorized mount face the sun for most efficiency. In that case, the light not absorbed is reflected in the opposite direction - back toward the sun. In the case of upward facing panels, light not absorbed would back up to some other part of the sky, reflected across the surface normal, not refract them down to the ground. Remember, we were talking about panels on the top of a 4th story building.
Explain the glare coming off of those arrays then?
In this part of California (Bay Area) the optimal fixed angle is around 20 degrees elevation. (This is due to the Time-Of-Use tariff that maximizes production during the summer months.) There is no way that the light is getting reflected anywhere but back into the sky. And as has been pointed out earlier, mechanical trackers aim the panels right back into the sun.
But I'm curious - are there any reports of PV panels setting trees on fire? The only case that I could conceivably imagine is where someone intentionally aligns them into a parabola with a tree at the focus.
Like a weed?
Yeah, not a great choice of words there. Weeds get pulled out and burned, or at least made into dandelion soup.
Um, you guys must be young or something. It is a common phrase that means growing rapidly. Frequently used to refer to fast growing children, but maybe Steve sees the company as one of his own.
Did this remind anyone else of the building at the end of the Fountainhead?... Anyone? lol
If you think Jobs is a Libertarian, Rand fan think again. The man can't stand both. Hint: He's not a Republican or a Christian. His trip to India when he was 21 set his life course. The man is very Gaia conscious.
Art is universal. When something is really beautiful it's really beautiful. You can have your own opinion all you want but it's just that: opinion. But what you're really wrong is.. if anything, the importance of architect is somewhat underrated.
PS: and if you think brick is ugly, two words: Mario Botta.
"Art" doesn't always have anything to do with beauty at all, and the perception of "beauty" is actually subjective.
First "prove" that PV is economical without subsidy...I'm all for solar but it's not a panacea.
Wake me up when Corn, Wheat, Barley, Oil, Coal and the rest are economical without subsidies.
Only to those that don't know what's going on. At a fundamental level, it is using energy to move energy. In short, the opposite of irony, because when presented that way, you expect that to happen. In fact, probably every means of refrigeration requires the production heat somewhere, what's different in those cases is the apparent proximity, or the lack of it.
People who aren't Mechanical Engineers, Physicists or who actually haven't taken a Thermodynamics/Heat Transfer series of courses need to grasp the notion that Heat doesn't mean Hot or above Zero. It covers the spectrum from Absolute Zero to Infinity. Heat is just one variable in the overall Energy transformation equation and whether that energy enters or leaves the system we talk in terms of Heat in [absorption] or Heat out [loss].
Eventually the free wifi for Cupertino will take care of itself when Apple expands it's ringed mothership to swallow the entire city of Cupertino. Since everyone will live and work witHin the borders of Apple, the wifi will be complementary.
Yes yes i thought as much
CUPERINOO will become a giant green data farm . Free Wifi at no charge .
9
The entire building is one huge symbolic gesture!!
Think about it; a corporate headquarter really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy building with windows and a parking lot. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree.
Apple has chosen to spend their well-earned money on an expensive, stylistic edifice for the sake of telling the world that they are successful. I have no problem with that. They may also attract more talent as a result (although at this point I suspect people would still line up to work at Apple even if it was located in an underground bunker). But they are also making a permanent statement to the world (and the Cupertino government) that they value certain details over others, including the replanting of trees that they have no legal obligation to do and to include certain 'green' architecture elements (Jobs even said it explicitly).
My only complaint here is they didn't include (or at least mention) some element of solar electrical generation*. Not necessarily because it would make a huge impact on their operating costs, but because it would tell other would-be Apples that it's an appropriate thing to do. I might be wrong - maybe there are panels located elsewhere on campus and Jobs didn't bring it up. (And then your argument will be invalidated here.) In any case, any new construction that goes up in this day and age that doesn't attempt to capture the free energy raining down on the roof is, in my opinion, a huge lost opportunity that borders on the criminal. I fly over new housing developments that are only a year old that could be generating megawatts of electricity that instead sap the electric grid, add to our overall pollution, and enrich companies that have far less social conscience than Apple or any other tech company that people look up to.
Google, meanwhile, is offsetting 30% of their electricity use at the 'Plex.
Edit: *And the solar panels do not have to be on the Big Donut - they could be elsewhere on the campus, such as along the perimeter or the support buildings. And maybe that is indeed in the works, but this presentation didn't mention it.
dude its all solar panels
its a mothership thats off the grid 100 percentile
so re-read the article
walk outside
turn left at the small rare bottles store
9
Actually, that still one of the concerns. While it's not the worst problem for birds, anything that makes the situation worse needs to be looked into.
i the extras carbon we spew kills more birds than a few wind blades that turnout a 7.5 mile an hour rate .
9