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

124678

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 143
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


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



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



    You're ignoring the fact that Apple is an unusual company in an unusual situation. They have essentially unlimited resources within the context of what it costs. As I said - in most cases, you'd compare what else the company could do with the money.



    But in Apple's case, they already have the resources to do anything they wish, so your definition isn't meaningful.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


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



    I'm in that business. It most certainly is possible to define a typical figure considering that we already know the location and the size and the type.
  • Reply 62 of 143
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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



    It is not my definition.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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



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



    Add: You can PM me if you do wish to share the data publicly.
  • Reply 63 of 143
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Apple is doomed.?



    I just think a company should watch their costs, that's all.
  • Reply 64 of 143
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,226member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tcasey View Post


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



    Tell the people of the Gulf states how clean off shore drilling can be. Or bats and birds how safe wind is.
  • Reply 65 of 143
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    It is not my definition.







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



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



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



    One example:

    http://money.msn.com/business-news/a...05&ID=14855366

    "Most systems have a payback period of 10-15 years. Using Solar3D cells, the payback period can be reduced to 6-9 years"



    My used of 10-20 years is therefore pretty conservative. If the payback is 10-20 years, that's a 5-10% annual return. The return, of course, becomes shorter if energy prices increase and becomes longer if energy prices drop. The former is more likely.
  • Reply 66 of 143
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


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



    And Apple is doing so. They are very cash-rich right now and have more money than they know what to do with. Investing some of that cash to provide (essentially) free energy in the future is a pretty wise investment.



    However, if you're not happy with the way Apple invest their money, just don't buy their stock. Problem solved.
  • Reply 67 of 143
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,305member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post




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



    Ugh. Of course I meant "...if you do not wish to...."



    Hopefully that was obvious.
  • Reply 68 of 143
    tyler82tyler82 Posts: 987member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


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



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



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



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



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



    And how is storing nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years Even being considered as a sane solution? Oh yeah, I know, its recyclable, bla bla bla, meanwhile, California kelp is now contaminated with radioactivity frm the Fukishima disaster a year ago.
  • Reply 69 of 143
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,305member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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



    One example:

    http://money.msn.com/business-news/a...05&ID=14855366

    "Most systems have a payback period of 10-15 years. Using Solar3D cells, the payback period can be reduced to 6-9 years"



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



    I've seen detailed, current numbers for installations in the 500 - 1000kW capacity range, and the delivered price of electricity needs to be about 18 - 20 cents per kWh -- with subsidies (which are in danger of disappearing) -- for it to break even. I assume it's (obviously) lower for 20MW, but still much above current average for grid-delivered electricity (about 11 cents/kWh).



    The 5% - 10% therefore seems high.



    Yes, panel prices have been plummeting, but it's only about 40% of costs. Installation and inverter costs have stayed the same or risen.
  • Reply 70 of 143
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,305member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post


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



    Did anyone die?
  • Reply 71 of 143
    tyler82tyler82 Posts: 987member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Did anyone die?



    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...135859288.html
  • Reply 72 of 143
    tyler82tyler82 Posts: 987member
    What is the average lifespan for a nuclear plant? Meanwhile, solar PV installed on US space stations and satellites are still operating since the 1950s.
  • Reply 73 of 143
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,305member


    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.
  • Reply 74 of 143
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,305member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post


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



    The US has about 110 nuclear power plants (the largest number of any country in the word), average age 30+ years.
  • Reply 75 of 143


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



    Are the conclusions widely accepted or are they controversial?
  • Reply 76 of 143
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,305member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


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



    Far from it. See above.
  • Reply 77 of 143
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    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.



    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.
  • Reply 78 of 143
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,305member
    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.



    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.
  • Reply 79 of 143
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,226member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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



    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.
  • Reply 80 of 143
    crunchcrunch Posts: 180member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.