Apple's $848M, 25-year solar agreement is the largest of its kind, will provide 130MW of clean energ

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

     

     

    The point is that Cook said that they are buying enough power to supply 60,000 homes. A megawatt to a house is a megawatt to a business. It doesn't matter that Apple isn't trying to power houses.

     

    Nah, it's probably closer to $90 in 2015. I just picked $75 as a low-ball.

     

    Here's one source that says $88: http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/

     

    Note that California ranks 48th in residential electricity consumption.




    Yes, because California's energy costs are double.  So a bill that would be $75 elsewhere is $150 in CA.  Most people in CA spend a lot of money on power.

  • Reply 22 of 98
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,530member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BeltsBear View Post

     

    Yes, because California's energy costs are double.  So a bill that would be $75 elsewhere is $150 in CA.  Most people in CA spend a lot of money on power.




    This is not correct according to the page I referred to.

     

    "The average residential electricity rate of 15.34¢/kWh in CA is 29.12% greater than the national average residential rate of 11.88¢/kWh."

     

    That means a $75 average bill in the U.S. would be $97 in California. As mentioned before, California ranks 48th in residential electricity consumption; it ranks 42nd in the electricity bill amount due to higher electricity prices, but it's certainly not double.

     

    Source: http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/

  • Reply 23 of 98
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BeltsBear View Post

     



    Yes, because California's energy costs are double.  So a bill that would be $75 elsewhere is $150 in CA.  Most people in CA spend a lot of money on power.




    Here's a table that shows some of that, though less dramatically than compared to other cities..:

    http://whitefenceindex.com/service/Electricity

  • Reply 24 of 98
    smalmsmalm Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by torsteino View Post





    The output (effect) is measured in (mega)watts, and if you multiply that by time, you get energy. So if you have 280 MW for one hour, that equals 280 megawatthours. So the plant should output 280MW every moment for however long it lasts. Every year, that should be ... 2459240 MWh (365*24*280MWh)



    The sun is shining 24*365 in California?

     

    BTW in a 25 years long period you should calculate the year with 365.25 days :D 

  • Reply 25 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

     



    This is not correct according to the page I referred to.

     

    "The average residential electricity rate of 15.34¢/kWh in CA is 29.12% greater than the national average residential rate of 11.88¢/kWh."

     

    That means a $75 average bill in the U.S. would be $97 in California. As mentioned before, California ranks 48th in residential electricity consumption; it ranks 42nd in the electricity bill amount due to higher electricity prices, but it's certainly not double.

     

    Source: http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/




    You may be technically correct when the statistics are skewed with some tricks, but most residents in CA pay north of 20 cents when all fees are put in.  They must be including rural areas and industrial users who import energy into the area from outside of CA.

  • Reply 26 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BeltsBear View Post

     



    Yes, because California's energy costs are double.  So a bill that would be $75 elsewhere is $150 in CA.  Most people in CA spend a lot of money on power. everything.


    FTFY. ;)

  • Reply 27 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BeltsBear View Post

     



    You may be technically correct when the statistics are skewed with some tricks, but most residents in CA pay north of 20 cents when all fees are put in.  They must be including rural areas and industrial users who import energy into the area from outside of CA.




    Most of LA's power comes from Arizona, specifically the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant. We threatened to cut them off when they raised a stink about SB1070 in 2010.

  • Reply 28 of 98

    Average US home use of electricity is 903 kWh/month, so 60,000 homes would be 541,800,000 kWh/moth or 74 MW for 60,000 houses, or 1.24 kW on average per house. Average monthly bill $107.28  (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/table5_a.pdf)

     

    Apple is spending $848 million over 25 years for 130 MW of power. So $2.83 mil per month. 130 MW is of course the average for many more than 60,000 houses for the US so that does not seem correct. Based on average US house 130 MW would cover 105,000 homes. So $26 per house per month, seems like a pretty good deal, especially 25 years from now if there are no price escalation costs in the contract, and assuming that a 250 MW solar plant can really delivery 130 MW continuous power, which seems impossible. So it might just be Apple will take 130 MW during the time the plant can produce that much power and not averaged over a day.

  • Reply 29 of 98
    I'd like to know just how "green" is PV in California, taking into account whole life costs and manufacturing impact. In the UK, it's now considered not a very green deal to have PV panels installed and Gov subsidies is the only way it breaks a profit.
    It looks good and it makes great PR for Apple, but is PV really green compared to other technologies?
  • Reply 30 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by woodbine View Post



    I'd like to know just how "green" is PV in California, taking into account whole life costs and manufacturing impact. In the UK, it's now considered not a very green deal to have PV panels installed and Gov subsidies is the only way it breaks a profit.

    It looks good and it makes great PR for Apple, but is PV really green compared to other technologies?



    Not particularly, it makes people get warm fuzzies though. The battery technology just isn't there yet and the panels and batteries are an environmental disaster. Like hybrids, just a warm fuzzy idea.

  • Reply 31 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by woodbine View Post



    I'd like to know just how "green" is PV in California, taking into account whole life costs and manufacturing impact. In the UK, it's now considered not a very green deal to have PV panels installed and Gov subsidies is the only way it breaks a profit.

    It looks good and it makes great PR for Apple, but is PV really green compared to other technologies?



    Doesn't nuclear still deliver more "bang for the buck" (pardon the expression)?

  • Reply 32 of 98
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

    Doesn't nuclear still deliver more "bang for the buck" (pardon the expression)?

     

    Yep.

     

  • Reply 33 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PScooter63 View Post



    So how do we know this isn't just another GTAT?

    I am assuming there's a power purchase agreement with PG&E, and that PG&E, in turn, has a renewable energy mandate from the State of CA. (Otherwise neither Apple nor FirstSolar will do something like this).

     

    PG&E is no GTAT.

  • Reply 34 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PScooter63 View Post



    So how do we know this isn't just another GTAT?




    Good question. image

    Actually, it's a somewhat stupid question.

  • Reply 35 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Yep.

     




    Yep, that's about what I remembered. Thanks for finding those charts. I'd much rather more money were being poured by Apple into pebble bed reactor startups (Bill Gates is a big investor in one company) instead, but on paper I imagine Tim's done the math and made a deal that works for now.

  • Reply 36 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Yep.

     




    Yep, that's about what I remembered. Thanks for finding those charts. I'd much rather more money were being poured by Apple into pebble bed reactor startups (Bill Gates is a big investor in one company) instead, but on paper I imagine Tim's done the math and made a deal that works for now.


    Source? Time (i.e., year of publication)?

     

    (I am quite pro-nuclear, but this does seem a bit low....)

  • Reply 37 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Source? Time (i.e., year of publication)?

     

    (I am quite pro-nuclear, but this does seem a bit low....)




    The second chart attributes the US Dept. of Energy, 2009.

  • Reply 38 of 98
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

    Source? Time (i.e., year of publication)?

     

    (I am quite pro-nuclear, but this does seem a bit low....)




    Aught nine for the second one… I’m pretty sure the first is costs in aught eight, though it might be newer.

     

    Sorry they’re not the same units, too; I couldn’t find one with all of the energy sources that worked in kWh.

  • Reply 39 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     



    Aught nine for the second one… I’m pretty sure the first is costs in aught eight, though it might be newer.

     

    Sorry they’re not the same units, too; I couldn’t find one with all of the energy sources that worked in kWh.




    Here's a newer source with 2012 data for estimated 2019 costs, plus numerous other sources.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

  • Reply 40 of 98
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

    Here's a newer source with 2012 data for estimated 2019 costs, plus numerous other sources.

     

    Forgive me, that’s before subsidy, right? It wouldn’t be possible to have a single chart and incorporate the different subsidies for all nations.

Sign In or Register to comment.