The entire Ag Industry [I come from the PNW and Eastern WA the home of the Palouse] and the pay to not farm half your crops, store them in silos are standard.
Cancel the Corn subsidies and eliminate all High Fructose Corn Syrup from Food Science would suddenly wake up all the whining Conservatives to stop messing with their subsidies.
If the Bio-Algae, Solar, Wind got those subsidies in the form of R&D to produce higher efficiency solutions I think we all would have to shut up and thank the Government for taking the right action.
Instead, we pay Old Industries to get rich. Talk about ass backwards.
The Hydroelectric subsidies currently received would make more sense if those subsidies were designed solely for power distribution expansion. And more importantly, for Power transmission research into better transport material mediums resulting in actual higher savings and thus make those subsidies for R&D only.
Instead, we subsidize old solutions to prop them up. What a waste of finite resources.
Fully agree. Energy efficiency. It all comes down to how much energy is being wasted vs. the resources needed to create new energy and subsidizing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
Go find a soapbox someplace else if you want to rant off topic.
Geez! As you can see I'm normally a fan of your posts... but this time you totally misread and misunderstood mdriftmeyer I think. Considering the meanderings of this thread, I do believe he (she) is 100% on-topic... albeit with a slightly political slant. Although, politics (local) are a topic as well.
So... take a deep breath... and read my sig-line... which you might remember as being your own advice once upon a time.
Apple already gives Cupertino free advertising: "Made in Cupertino." I know they were in good spirits, but do they really need to ask for more free stuff?
Any idea what powers the campus? Arc reactor?
A quantum singularity with the power of the Big Bang will power the Apple campus. There is a small risk of catastrophic inflation, which is where the singularity expands into its own universe, destroying the better part of ours in the process. However, that's the price you pay for clean energy.
This building expresses something quite other than hubris. Skyscrapers and massive rectangles are about overweening pride. This building is clearly about bringing people together in some kind of meditative or enjoyable space.
If that's too sappy for your acerbic self, then you may think of it as a demonstration to the world of how to do a company headquarters in human scale and in accord with nature.
But it really is about the end of prideful corporatism, I think.
So if skyscrapers are a phallic symbol of a hubristic pissing contest .... then Apple's new building looks very much like one of Freud's "feminine symbols"
So if skyscrapers are a phallic symbol of a hubristic pissing contest .... then Apple's new building looks very much like one of Freud's "feminine symbols"
hmm...
Yeah, I didn't think of that but I'd have to go along with it. More fem than masculine, that's for sure. Bring it on, says I.
That reminds me of a theory of the origin of the word "donut." This was published in the journal of Barry Fell's Epigraphic Society many years ago. The patron goddess of the Phoenicians was Tanit, and her symbol incorporated a torso in the shape of a fat circle, along with a delta skirt, upraised arms, and a crescent moon above her head. Or was her head the circle? (Anybody?) Cakes in that torus shape were called "tanits" in ancient times, so went the theory. I'll look it up if anybody's interested.
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.
Where are you coming from? Making a call like this?
Just because solar has not been mentioned (at this early stage) seems to mean for you there won't be solar on this project.
Where are you coming from? Making a call like this?
Just because solar has not been mentioned (at this early stage) seems to mean for you there won't be solar on this project.
I think he's actually coming from tomorrow, the other side of the dateline, so he doesn't get the drift of the discourse ahead of his posting, if that makes sense.
This thread is so long, I can't go back and find his later qualifiers. We all know they're going to try to build the most efficient building possible, having thought about it for awhile.
Steve Jobs is an utter hero. It obviously took a monumental expenditure of precious energy to make that presentation and he's doing it for Apple's future. He was gracious, fiercely intelligent as always, and stuck to his guns and made his points well. The city cannot help but try to pick up freebies but Steve isn't having that, and does it with humor and no-argue force.
Apple is beyond fortunate to have such a founder who is willing to put himself out there on Apple's behalf when any other person at this point would be resting at home. I pray for Steve every day and thank God for every time I have been blessed to see him in action. A rare Titan of a man. His courage and perseverance are outstanding. Witness a legend.
Geez man, gush much?? </kidding> Seriously?it's no mere coincidence that, under Steve's leadership, Apple went from being $1 billion in the red to being at the top of the industry a little over a decade later. Few companies, if any, can boast this kind of turnaround success story.
I've heard and read that Steve is a very difficult person to work with and for because it's basically his way?not even "or the highway"?full-stop. Though I think he's softened a bit in the past few years. Still, Steve's singular vision (plus the executive team, of course) and his overbearing nature result in products that I think every Apple employee is proud to put their name on at the end of the day.
I think for those lucky enough to work at Apple, it will be pretty cool to walk up to Apple's new arc reactor*/donut/spaceship every morning.
* Steve did say they were going to generate their own power!
A few more comments/observations:
1) Apple has their own bus fleet? Awesome! Bus service plus cycling commuters means that Apple won't have to build parking for all 12,000 employees.
2) "People in glass houses (or office buildings) shouldn't throw stones." This new glass torus will give new meaning to that aphorism. Heh.
3) I'll be interested to know what the final cost will be. I'm sure Apple won't pinch pennies in its design or construction phase, so it'll easily run into the hundreds of millions?possibly even $1 billion? Whatever the price, it'll be worth every penny.
4) Earthquake proofing? I'll be interested to know how they will earthquake-proof all that glass. Glass by its nature is not very flexible, and hence, does not respond well to major earthquakes.
5) Whoa! The interior of the space ship is large enough to fit the main buildings of the original campus!
6) It would appear that Apple has been a good corporate citizen and member of the Cupertino community. It's nice to see them banter back and forth in a friendly manner. Not to say that the whole project is guaranteed to go smoothly. There are always hiccups, stresses, debates, disagreements, etc. But if this meeting is any indication, this project is off to a good start.
Where are you coming from? Making a call like this?
Just because solar has not been mentioned (at this early stage) seems to mean for you there won't be solar on this project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
I think he's actually coming from tomorrow, the other side of the dateline, so he doesn't get the drift of the discourse ahead of his posting, if that makes sense.
This thread is so long, I can't go back and find his later qualifiers. We all know they're going to try to build the most efficient building possible, having thought about it for awhile.
Robre, How do you know it *will* have solar? It seems like if it was planned the presentation would likely have included it.
Geez, what I've been saying if you've actually read all my posts is that this whole concept from Steve and Apple is pretty impressive overall.
It's just that at this stage what we know of it does not automatically make it the best green building out there in the world, which some posters agree. Just because it's designed by Apple.
Yes Apple will do the best they can but let's be realistic, it may not be *the very best green building in the world*.
Various posters are thinking about different aspects... Why no mention of solar? Any more details on the gas turbine technology? Some people have raised concerns about the glass, etc.
I was also just mentioning that the city council had some pretty silly questions. They could have asked something like, what about solar energy? You know, being in the commie liberal land of California (sarcasm). That's a legitimate question, and Steve probably would have had a good answer, which unfortunately we never got a chance to hear because they were too busy asking for free WiFi and showing off their iPads.
Of course I understand this was a limited public presentation and a lot more details will be forthcoming over the next several years.
As with some other posters I also raised a question about earthquake-proofing which was something else the city councillors could have asked about, instead of just the guy asking about "so it's going to be safety [sic] right?" or something like that.
Apple already gives Cupertino free advertising: "Made in Cupertino." I know they were in good spirits, but do they really need to ask for more free stuff?
Any idea what powers the campus? Arc reactor?
AFAIK almost all Apple products now state "Designed in California, Assembled in China".
I'll agree with this, as many companies/architects throw the term 'green' around so much it loses meaning. (And even LEED certification can be gamed in ways that undermine the original intent.) Unfortunately solar generation often gets thrown into this game and people don't know whether it's an honest effort or not. That's the point I'm trying to work against.
From an engineering point of view, PV makes infinite sense: convert the sunlight that is hitting your roof for free into electricity, which you need. As part of the bargain, on flat roofs solar panels even shade the surface that you would otherwise pay to insulate and cool internally from the heat transfer. (You would obviously insulate the roof for other reasons, but in the summer the heat load from the sun wouldn't be as great if they're shaded by panels.)
From an economic point of view the answer, as always, is "it depends". If you live in a cloudy climate your solar harvest will obviously be lower (although not zero). If your construction costs are high, such as on the top of a 60-story building, or an unfavorable roof pitch, that's a strike against. If the panels and inverters are too expensive, as they were in the past, your payback period extends out. But in Silicon Valley most of these concerns are no longer significant concerns. There are few places in the US more appropriate for solar installations than the sunny regions of California.
The reason I go on about this is it's one of the few topics I think need to be discussed, and more importantly, taken back from those who try to confuse the issue for who-knows-what agenda. Jimmy Carter had panels installed on the White House, and then Reagan had them removed. They were already bought and installed! This is sound economic policy? If people have hesitations against installing solar panels on new construction (setting aside the more complicated retrofit applications) it's probably because of the perpetuated myth that PV is still uneconomical. Either that, or they simply cannot handle a 15-year investment (and yet many will happily gamble their retirement funds on volatile stock offerings). This perception needs to change.
As I said, I'm in favor of PV, in theory. But each install has to show that it's going to be an advantage over other systems.
In Apple's case, generating their own power locally, using gas, has already cheapened their costs, long term, so that addition of PV may not be economical, and may even raise their costs, long term. The question is what savings will they get by doing what they're planning? PV is only economical when compared to the high rates we pay today. Drop those rates by 20% or so, and PV needs subsidies to compare, as it has throughout its history.
It's difficult to find good information on this as most of it is biased in one way or the other. This is one of the best links I have:
After all, the savings are there, sometimes, when compared to the rates otherwise charged by the power companies. If Apple costs are lower, as they seem to believe they will be, then they've already done what they could to lower them.
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?
That's right. And what's being ignored is that that landscaping brings down the local temperature as well, when compared to the urban construction we see there now. It also helps to absorb pollution, as trees have been shown to do that as well. This is at least as important as the discussion of the energy sources being used.
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.
Well, no, I really can't believe that trees would be set on fire. I'm sure we would have read something about that if it happened. The light being reflected is reflected almost randomly, across a 180 degree field. But that field is pointing in the direction of the surface. It's so diffuse that is not a danger unless something was right in front of it, and even then, it's not likely.
Jobs did NOT say he wanted to hold WWDC at the new campus. He mentioned presentations like when they announce a new iPhone which are normally held at the Performing Arts Center in San Francisco for hundreds of journalists. He only mentioned WWDC as a point of reference since he had just been there.
As for space, there aren't enough hotel rooms in Cupertino Within walking distance to hold thousands of people.
I didn't say that he specifically said that they would hold the WWDC there, just that he did mention the WWDC as an example of a conference, which is what he did. We were speculating as to whether they could, and would do so, which is what we do here. An extrapolation from his mention is perfectly ok to do.
Robre, How do you know it *will* have solar? It seems like if it was planned the presentation would likely have included it.
Geez, what I've been saying if you've actually read all my posts is that this whole concept from Steve and Apple is pretty impressive overall.
It's just that at this stage what we know of it does not automatically make it the best green building out there in the world, which some posters agree. Just because it's designed by Apple.
Yes Apple will do the best they can but let's be realistic, it may not be *the very best green building in the world*.
Various posters are thinking about different aspects... Why no mention of solar? Any more details on the gas turbine technology? Some people have raised concerns about the glass, etc.
I was also just mentioning that the city council had some pretty silly questions. They could have asked something like, what about solar energy? You know, being in the commie liberal land of California (sarcasm). That's a legitimate question, and Steve probably would have had a good answer, which unfortunately we never got a chance to hear because they were too busy asking for free WiFi and showing off their iPads.
Of course I understand this was a limited public presentation and a lot more details will be forthcoming over the next several years.
As with some other posters I also raised a question about earthquake-proofing which was something else the city councillors could have asked about, instead of just the guy asking about "so it's going to be safety [sic] right?" or something like that.
It doesn't have to be the greenest. The larger the building, and the more complex the facilities, the more difficult to maintain. I don't think we can really doubt that Apple will try to make this as green as possible, as that will be cheaper in the long run. But we all know how it is. The last 20% consumes 80% of the cost and effort. It may no pay.
As for earthquake proofing. There are laws and regulations as to that. A lower building will be easier to protect. Glass isn't always a problem.
That's right. And what's being ignored is that that landscaping brings down the local temperature as well, when compared to the urban construction we see there now. It also helps to absorb pollution, as trees have been shown to do that as well. This is at least as important as the discussion of the energy sources being used.
Bull. This is classic sprawl architecture. It uses WAY too much land compared to other styles of building.
Howsabout a smaller footprint and more open space? Howsabout building big, giant skyscrapers (which include office, residential and retail?) next to major transportation hubs? Howsabout trying to eliminate car trips and huge parking lots?
Suburban sprawl is horrible for the environment. And Apple's architects too often aim for a "look at me" style rather than integrating into the built (or natural) environment. The retail stores stick out like sore thumbs, with featureless glass plopped down in neighborhoods of detailed masonry.
I just watched the video. Did not read the entire thread, but here's some comments.
Steve is a MASTER presenter and salesman. He took on the folksy, humble, local boy-done-good persona with that council and worked it. His "aww shucks, I remember working for HP" story was emotion manipulating gold!
The question "what does the city get out of this?" was kind of a good one, but the Wi-Fi and iPads comments were petty and pitiable. Were the councilmen looking for a bribe!? Steve's I'll take my multi-billion dollar corporation and go pay taxes somewhere else answer was masterfully passive-aggressive.
Some questions I have and I think the council should have asked:
Who gets access to all that new green land? Will there be public parks? The Board of Directors' private hunting reserve?
Traffic. Steve dodged this question, but it seems traffic flow in and out of the campus will be a big issue for the city to deal with. I wonder if Apple will have a monorail? Steve mentioned people biking to work. Will the city need/be expected to put in more bike supporting infrastructure?
I think the eminent domain issue with the apartment buildings that wouldn't sell to Apple is a good point. Yes, it is a terrible, dangerous use of government power, but it has been happening across the country - cities condemn land and give it to people who can pay more taxes. A Supreme Court ruling a few years ago made this clearly legal. Apple could apply a little leverage to the council and get them to force the apartments to be sold to Apple with little effort I think.
Power. Geothermal? (Not for generation, but for efficiency.) If they're going to strip the whole property and build up, they can embed long pipes all over the place. See the construction pictures of Disneyworld. You dig down, put in infrastructure, and build the facade on top.
I think fire hazard is a good concern. That part of the world regularly goes up in flames during the summer. Adding open space covered with dried grass is "green" but when someone flicks a cigarette butt onto it and sets the campus on fire, who deals with that? What's Apple's fire suppression plan?
Gah! Those councilmen came off as such dopes compared to Steve. Apple's proposing a who knows how many millions or billion dollar campus and they ask about getting an Apple Store!?
Good luck to Apple. I hope this does turn out to be a Disney-esque construction project. And Steve certainly has access to Disney's imagineer resources.
Traffic. Steve dodged this question, but it seems traffic flow in and out of the campus will be a big issue for the city to deal with. I wonder if Apple will have a monorail? Steve mentioned people biking to work. Will the city need/be expected to put in more bike supporting infrastructure?
The obvious better plan is to build in a smaller footprint near where people already live, or near a major transportation hub. Before the auto companies put the streetcar companies out of business, locations like that used to be called "downtown". People didn't used to have to travel on congested freeways several times a day. They had a much more holistic and integrated life, instead of separating it into "work" and "my life", each of which separated by a long interlude of diesel fumes.
Bull. This is classic sprawl architecture. It uses WAY too much land compared to other styles of building.
Howsabout a smaller footprint and more open space? Howsabout building big, giant skyscrapers (which include office, residential and retail?) next to major transportation hubs? Howsabout trying to eliminate car trips and huge parking lots?
Agreed. US politicians like to whine and whinge about public transportation and high-speed rail. But to do that effectively you need massive concentrations of destinations near the stops. I visited Hong Kong once and was amazed at the HUGE apartment buildings and office buildings. With a population density like that, you can pull off mass transit. The USA's custom of everyone wanting a postage stamp of land to call their own spreads the population too thin for mass transit to work.
Comments
I'm waiting.
The entire Ag Industry [I come from the PNW and Eastern WA the home of the Palouse] and the pay to not farm half your crops, store them in silos are standard.
Cancel the Corn subsidies and eliminate all High Fructose Corn Syrup from Food Science would suddenly wake up all the whining Conservatives to stop messing with their subsidies.
Hell, the Coal industry gets massive subsidies.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...coal_subsidies
How pathetic.
The Oil Industry rapes the public with subsidies.
If the Bio-Algae, Solar, Wind got those subsidies in the form of R&D to produce higher efficiency solutions I think we all would have to shut up and thank the Government for taking the right action.
Instead, we pay Old Industries to get rich. Talk about ass backwards.
The Hydroelectric subsidies currently received would make more sense if those subsidies were designed solely for power distribution expansion. And more importantly, for Power transmission research into better transport material mediums resulting in actual higher savings and thus make those subsidies for R&D only.
Instead, we subsidize old solutions to prop them up. What a waste of finite resources.
Fully agree. Energy efficiency. It all comes down to how much energy is being wasted vs. the resources needed to create new energy and subsidizing it.
Go find a soapbox someplace else if you want to rant off topic.
Geez! As you can see I'm normally a fan of your posts... but this time you totally misread and misunderstood mdriftmeyer I think. Considering the meanderings of this thread, I do believe he (she) is 100% on-topic... albeit with a slightly political slant. Although, politics (local) are a topic as well.
So... take a deep breath... and read my sig-line... which you might remember as being your own advice once upon a time.
Apple already gives Cupertino free advertising: "Made in Cupertino." I know they were in good spirits, but do they really need to ask for more free stuff?
Any idea what powers the campus? Arc reactor?
A quantum singularity with the power of the Big Bang will power the Apple campus. There is a small risk of catastrophic inflation, which is where the singularity expands into its own universe, destroying the better part of ours in the process. However, that's the price you pay for clean energy.
This building expresses something quite other than hubris. Skyscrapers and massive rectangles are about overweening pride. This building is clearly about bringing people together in some kind of meditative or enjoyable space.
If that's too sappy for your acerbic self, then you may think of it as a demonstration to the world of how to do a company headquarters in human scale and in accord with nature.
But it really is about the end of prideful corporatism, I think.
So if skyscrapers are a phallic symbol of a hubristic pissing contest .... then Apple's new building looks very much like one of Freud's "feminine symbols"
hmm...
So if skyscrapers are a phallic symbol of a hubristic pissing contest .... then Apple's new building looks very much like one of Freud's "feminine symbols"
hmm...
Yeah, I didn't think of that but I'd have to go along with it. More fem than masculine, that's for sure. Bring it on, says I.
That reminds me of a theory of the origin of the word "donut." This was published in the journal of Barry Fell's Epigraphic Society many years ago. The patron goddess of the Phoenicians was Tanit, and her symbol incorporated a torso in the shape of a fat circle, along with a delta skirt, upraised arms, and a crescent moon above her head. Or was her head the circle? (Anybody?) Cakes in that torus shape were called "tanits" in ancient times, so went the theory. I'll look it up if anybody's interested.
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.
Where are you coming from? Making a call like this?
Just because solar has not been mentioned (at this early stage) seems to mean for you there won't be solar on this project.
Where are you coming from? Making a call like this?
Just because solar has not been mentioned (at this early stage) seems to mean for you there won't be solar on this project.
I think he's actually coming from tomorrow, the other side of the dateline, so he doesn't get the drift of the discourse ahead of his posting, if that makes sense.
This thread is so long, I can't go back and find his later qualifiers. We all know they're going to try to build the most efficient building possible, having thought about it for awhile.
Steve Jobs is an utter hero. It obviously took a monumental expenditure of precious energy to make that presentation and he's doing it for Apple's future. He was gracious, fiercely intelligent as always, and stuck to his guns and made his points well. The city cannot help but try to pick up freebies but Steve isn't having that, and does it with humor and no-argue force.
Apple is beyond fortunate to have such a founder who is willing to put himself out there on Apple's behalf when any other person at this point would be resting at home. I pray for Steve every day and thank God for every time I have been blessed to see him in action. A rare Titan of a man. His courage and perseverance are outstanding. Witness a legend.
Geez man, gush much?? </kidding> Seriously?it's no mere coincidence that, under Steve's leadership, Apple went from being $1 billion in the red to being at the top of the industry a little over a decade later. Few companies, if any, can boast this kind of turnaround success story.
I've heard and read that Steve is a very difficult person to work with and for because it's basically his way?not even "or the highway"?full-stop. Though I think he's softened a bit in the past few years. Still, Steve's singular vision (plus the executive team, of course) and his overbearing nature result in products that I think every Apple employee is proud to put their name on at the end of the day.
I think for those lucky enough to work at Apple, it will be pretty cool to walk up to Apple's new arc reactor*/donut/spaceship every morning.
* Steve did say they were going to generate their own power!
A few more comments/observations:
1) Apple has their own bus fleet? Awesome! Bus service plus cycling commuters means that Apple won't have to build parking for all 12,000 employees.
2) "People in glass houses (or office buildings) shouldn't throw stones." This new glass torus will give new meaning to that aphorism. Heh.
3) I'll be interested to know what the final cost will be. I'm sure Apple won't pinch pennies in its design or construction phase, so it'll easily run into the hundreds of millions?possibly even $1 billion? Whatever the price, it'll be worth every penny.
4) Earthquake proofing? I'll be interested to know how they will earthquake-proof all that glass. Glass by its nature is not very flexible, and hence, does not respond well to major earthquakes.
5) Whoa! The interior of the space ship is large enough to fit the main buildings of the original campus!
6) It would appear that Apple has been a good corporate citizen and member of the Cupertino community. It's nice to see them banter back and forth in a friendly manner. Not to say that the whole project is guaranteed to go smoothly. There are always hiccups, stresses, debates, disagreements, etc. But if this meeting is any indication, this project is off to a good start.
Where are you coming from? Making a call like this?
Just because solar has not been mentioned (at this early stage) seems to mean for you there won't be solar on this project.
I think he's actually coming from tomorrow, the other side of the dateline, so he doesn't get the drift of the discourse ahead of his posting, if that makes sense.
This thread is so long, I can't go back and find his later qualifiers. We all know they're going to try to build the most efficient building possible, having thought about it for awhile.
Robre, How do you know it *will* have solar? It seems like if it was planned the presentation would likely have included it.
Geez, what I've been saying if you've actually read all my posts is that this whole concept from Steve and Apple is pretty impressive overall.
It's just that at this stage what we know of it does not automatically make it the best green building out there in the world, which some posters agree. Just because it's designed by Apple.
Yes Apple will do the best they can but let's be realistic, it may not be *the very best green building in the world*.
Various posters are thinking about different aspects... Why no mention of solar? Any more details on the gas turbine technology? Some people have raised concerns about the glass, etc.
I was also just mentioning that the city council had some pretty silly questions. They could have asked something like, what about solar energy? You know, being in the commie liberal land of California (sarcasm). That's a legitimate question, and Steve probably would have had a good answer, which unfortunately we never got a chance to hear because they were too busy asking for free WiFi and showing off their iPads.
Of course I understand this was a limited public presentation and a lot more details will be forthcoming over the next several years.
As with some other posters I also raised a question about earthquake-proofing which was something else the city councillors could have asked about, instead of just the guy asking about "so it's going to be safety [sic] right?" or something like that.
Apple already gives Cupertino free advertising: "Made in Cupertino." I know they were in good spirits, but do they really need to ask for more free stuff?
Any idea what powers the campus? Arc reactor?
AFAIK almost all Apple products now state "Designed in California, Assembled in China".
I'll agree with this, as many companies/architects throw the term 'green' around so much it loses meaning. (And even LEED certification can be gamed in ways that undermine the original intent.) Unfortunately solar generation often gets thrown into this game and people don't know whether it's an honest effort or not. That's the point I'm trying to work against.
From an engineering point of view, PV makes infinite sense: convert the sunlight that is hitting your roof for free into electricity, which you need. As part of the bargain, on flat roofs solar panels even shade the surface that you would otherwise pay to insulate and cool internally from the heat transfer. (You would obviously insulate the roof for other reasons, but in the summer the heat load from the sun wouldn't be as great if they're shaded by panels.)
From an economic point of view the answer, as always, is "it depends". If you live in a cloudy climate your solar harvest will obviously be lower (although not zero). If your construction costs are high, such as on the top of a 60-story building, or an unfavorable roof pitch, that's a strike against. If the panels and inverters are too expensive, as they were in the past, your payback period extends out. But in Silicon Valley most of these concerns are no longer significant concerns. There are few places in the US more appropriate for solar installations than the sunny regions of California.
The reason I go on about this is it's one of the few topics I think need to be discussed, and more importantly, taken back from those who try to confuse the issue for who-knows-what agenda. Jimmy Carter had panels installed on the White House, and then Reagan had them removed. They were already bought and installed! This is sound economic policy? If people have hesitations against installing solar panels on new construction (setting aside the more complicated retrofit applications) it's probably because of the perpetuated myth that PV is still uneconomical. Either that, or they simply cannot handle a 15-year investment (and yet many will happily gamble their retirement funds on volatile stock offerings). This perception needs to change.
As I said, I'm in favor of PV, in theory. But each install has to show that it's going to be an advantage over other systems.
In Apple's case, generating their own power locally, using gas, has already cheapened their costs, long term, so that addition of PV may not be economical, and may even raise their costs, long term. The question is what savings will they get by doing what they're planning? PV is only economical when compared to the high rates we pay today. Drop those rates by 20% or so, and PV needs subsidies to compare, as it has throughout its history.
It's difficult to find good information on this as most of it is biased in one way or the other. This is one of the best links I have:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/63019.pdf
After all, the savings are there, sometimes, when compared to the rates otherwise charged by the power companies. If Apple costs are lower, as they seem to believe they will be, then they've already done what they could to lower them.
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?
That's right. And what's being ignored is that that landscaping brings down the local temperature as well, when compared to the urban construction we see there now. It also helps to absorb pollution, as trees have been shown to do that as well. This is at least as important as the discussion of the energy sources being used.
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.
Well, no, I really can't believe that trees would be set on fire. I'm sure we would have read something about that if it happened. The light being reflected is reflected almost randomly, across a 180 degree field. But that field is pointing in the direction of the surface. It's so diffuse that is not a danger unless something was right in front of it, and even then, it's not likely.
Jobs did NOT say he wanted to hold WWDC at the new campus. He mentioned presentations like when they announce a new iPhone which are normally held at the Performing Arts Center in San Francisco for hundreds of journalists. He only mentioned WWDC as a point of reference since he had just been there.
As for space, there aren't enough hotel rooms in Cupertino Within walking distance to hold thousands of people.
I didn't say that he specifically said that they would hold the WWDC there, just that he did mention the WWDC as an example of a conference, which is what he did. We were speculating as to whether they could, and would do so, which is what we do here. An extrapolation from his mention is perfectly ok to do.
Robre, How do you know it *will* have solar? It seems like if it was planned the presentation would likely have included it.
Geez, what I've been saying if you've actually read all my posts is that this whole concept from Steve and Apple is pretty impressive overall.
It's just that at this stage what we know of it does not automatically make it the best green building out there in the world, which some posters agree. Just because it's designed by Apple.
Yes Apple will do the best they can but let's be realistic, it may not be *the very best green building in the world*.
Various posters are thinking about different aspects... Why no mention of solar? Any more details on the gas turbine technology? Some people have raised concerns about the glass, etc.
I was also just mentioning that the city council had some pretty silly questions. They could have asked something like, what about solar energy? You know, being in the commie liberal land of California (sarcasm). That's a legitimate question, and Steve probably would have had a good answer, which unfortunately we never got a chance to hear because they were too busy asking for free WiFi and showing off their iPads.
Of course I understand this was a limited public presentation and a lot more details will be forthcoming over the next several years.
As with some other posters I also raised a question about earthquake-proofing which was something else the city councillors could have asked about, instead of just the guy asking about "so it's going to be safety [sic] right?" or something like that.
It doesn't have to be the greenest. The larger the building, and the more complex the facilities, the more difficult to maintain. I don't think we can really doubt that Apple will try to make this as green as possible, as that will be cheaper in the long run. But we all know how it is. The last 20% consumes 80% of the cost and effort. It may no pay.
As for earthquake proofing. There are laws and regulations as to that. A lower building will be easier to protect. Glass isn't always a problem.
That's right. And what's being ignored is that that landscaping brings down the local temperature as well, when compared to the urban construction we see there now. It also helps to absorb pollution, as trees have been shown to do that as well. This is at least as important as the discussion of the energy sources being used.
Bull. This is classic sprawl architecture. It uses WAY too much land compared to other styles of building.
Howsabout a smaller footprint and more open space? Howsabout building big, giant skyscrapers (which include office, residential and retail?) next to major transportation hubs? Howsabout trying to eliminate car trips and huge parking lots?
Suburban sprawl is horrible for the environment. And Apple's architects too often aim for a "look at me" style rather than integrating into the built (or natural) environment. The retail stores stick out like sore thumbs, with featureless glass plopped down in neighborhoods of detailed masonry.
Sorry, but I think different.
Steve is a MASTER presenter and salesman. He took on the folksy, humble, local boy-done-good persona with that council and worked it. His "aww shucks, I remember working for HP" story was emotion manipulating gold!
The question "what does the city get out of this?" was kind of a good one, but the Wi-Fi and iPads comments were petty and pitiable. Were the councilmen looking for a bribe!? Steve's I'll take my multi-billion dollar corporation and go pay taxes somewhere else answer was masterfully passive-aggressive.
Some questions I have and I think the council should have asked:
Who gets access to all that new green land? Will there be public parks? The Board of Directors' private hunting reserve?
Traffic. Steve dodged this question, but it seems traffic flow in and out of the campus will be a big issue for the city to deal with. I wonder if Apple will have a monorail? Steve mentioned people biking to work. Will the city need/be expected to put in more bike supporting infrastructure?
I think the eminent domain issue with the apartment buildings that wouldn't sell to Apple is a good point. Yes, it is a terrible, dangerous use of government power, but it has been happening across the country - cities condemn land and give it to people who can pay more taxes. A Supreme Court ruling a few years ago made this clearly legal. Apple could apply a little leverage to the council and get them to force the apartments to be sold to Apple with little effort I think.
Power. Geothermal? (Not for generation, but for efficiency.) If they're going to strip the whole property and build up, they can embed long pipes all over the place. See the construction pictures of Disneyworld. You dig down, put in infrastructure, and build the facade on top.
I think fire hazard is a good concern. That part of the world regularly goes up in flames during the summer. Adding open space covered with dried grass is "green" but when someone flicks a cigarette butt onto it and sets the campus on fire, who deals with that? What's Apple's fire suppression plan?
Gah! Those councilmen came off as such dopes compared to Steve. Apple's proposing a who knows how many millions or billion dollar campus and they ask about getting an Apple Store!?
Good luck to Apple. I hope this does turn out to be a Disney-esque construction project. And Steve certainly has access to Disney's imagineer resources.
- Jasen.
5) Whoa! The interior of the space ship is large enough to fit the main buildings of the original campus!
Classic sprawl architecture. Stuff like this kills our planet. It is resource inefficient to the extreme.
...when someone flicks a cigarette butt...
No smoking on Apple's campus.
What's Apple's fire suppression plan?
Thousands of these.
Traffic. Steve dodged this question, but it seems traffic flow in and out of the campus will be a big issue for the city to deal with. I wonder if Apple will have a monorail? Steve mentioned people biking to work. Will the city need/be expected to put in more bike supporting infrastructure?
The obvious better plan is to build in a smaller footprint near where people already live, or near a major transportation hub. Before the auto companies put the streetcar companies out of business, locations like that used to be called "downtown". People didn't used to have to travel on congested freeways several times a day. They had a much more holistic and integrated life, instead of separating it into "work" and "my life", each of which separated by a long interlude of diesel fumes.
Bull. This is classic sprawl architecture. It uses WAY too much land compared to other styles of building.
Howsabout a smaller footprint and more open space? Howsabout building big, giant skyscrapers (which include office, residential and retail?) next to major transportation hubs? Howsabout trying to eliminate car trips and huge parking lots?
Agreed. US politicians like to whine and whinge about public transportation and high-speed rail. But to do that effectively you need massive concentrations of destinations near the stops. I visited Hong Kong once and was amazed at the HUGE apartment buildings and office buildings. With a population density like that, you can pull off mass transit. The USA's custom of everyone wanting a postage stamp of land to call their own spreads the population too thin for mass transit to work.
- Jasen.