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

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 98
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    FWIW This CRS report has the relevant comparisons for various fuel types, it's just too bad it's from 2008... 



    Power Plants: Characteristics and Costs 

     

     



    http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34746.pdf

     


    • ArtDent> So a little airborne distribution of a couple tons of plutonium would just give the old gene pool a vigorous swirl....

  • Reply 62 of 98
    smalmsmalm Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

     

    Anyone living in a home and/or using electric heat or range would have a much higher bill.   I know people spending several hundred $ per month on electricity.  




    That's okay, everyone who uses electricity for heating has to be punished :devil:

  • Reply 63 of 98
    smalm wrote: »

    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  
    There is also a lot of other factors to consider if you want to go into details, but the guy I answered didnt know how effect and watthours relates, and thats what I explained.
  • Reply 64 of 98
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Source? Time (i.e., year of publication)?</span>


    (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.

    Actually, I am more interested in the source for the levelized cost.
  • Reply 65 of 98
    pscooter63 wrote: »
     
    Actually, it's a somewhat stupid question.

    Gee, a little harsh, there... didn't GTAT trumpet solar tech among its core competencies?

    If they did, they should have stuck to it. Solar PV is a very mature technology now.
  • Reply 66 of 98
    simtub wrote: »
    Let's just hope First Solar can deliver on their promise and have the solar farm up and running and not run away with all the money like GT Advanced did.

    First Solar is a superbly well-established company. And solar PV is quite a mature technology by now.

    You may actually want to search for some credible info. You might learn something.
  • Reply 67 of 98
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Unfortunately, those costs do not include the disposal of nuclear waste. </span>
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">It is very hard to devise a secure, reliable, permanent storage to wait the hundreds of thousands of years for the waste to decay.</span>

    Okay, it’s really pretty simple.

    SHOOT IT INTO THE SUN.

    Don’t bury it, don’t encase it, don’t reclaim it, don’t try to store it at all.

    Put it on top of a rocket and SHOOT IT INTO THE SUN. Or into interstellar space, whichever is cheaper for a given payload at a given time.

    Problem solved. Permanently. There’s no debate, no discussion.

    Except that rockets do explode once in a while. Do you really want that?

    The better solution is 4th gen, which reprocesses the spent rods -- believe it or not, 99.7% of the energy is still left when it is sent off as nuclear 'waste'! The trouble is, 4th gen is still a few years away from economic operation, though.

    Thorium would be a brilliant solution.
  • Reply 68 of 98
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    Except that rockets do explode once in a while. Do you really want that?



    The better solution is 4th gen, which reprocesses the spent rods -- believe it or not, 99.7% of the energy is still left when it is sent off as nuclear 'waste'! The trouble is, 4th gen is still a few years away from economic operation, though.



    Thorium would be a brilliant solution.



    And with reprocessed fuel comes the "weapons grade" boogeyman.... a more political barrier for the past few decades than technical...

  • Reply 69 of 98
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

    Except that rockets do explode once in a while. Do you really want that?



    Yep, given that the risk thereof is meaningless compared to, what, soiling the environment with radioactivity for however long. Use an SSTO if you’re so worried, then.

     

    …believe it or not, 99.7% of the energy is still left when it is sent off as nuclear ‘ aste'! The trouble is, 4th gen is still a few years away from economic operation, though.


     

    Oh, I believe it. Hopefully this can be implemented in the near future. Maybe we can dig up the old crap and put it back to use, too.

  • Reply 70 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    ‘Course we could.

     

    What’s the total weight? Price per kg is plummeting right now. Just put it on top of a Falcon and recover the rocket every time.

     

    Yeah, but we WANT the Moon, see. We’re going to be drawing lines and claiming land up there in the very near future; why would we want to alienate (womp womp) potential future land? Throw it somewhere it can never come in conflict with human interest.




    It would take 1000 falcon launches a year to deal with the current stuff unprocessed, and that would be in non recoverable mode for the Falcon.  Recoverable mode would be even more launches.  It would be far cheaper to reprocess it first and get it down to 10-20 launches per year.  It would be one of the most expensive things mankind has done even if costs come down.  It's not happening. 

  • Reply 71 of 98
    zoetmb wrote: »
    Incredibly high or incredibly low?  I live in NYC in a 2-bedroom apartment and my electricity bill averaged $74.93 per month in 2014.   Anyone living in a home and/or using electric heat or range would have a much higher bill.   I know people spending several hundred $ per month on electricity.  

    The highest bill this Winter in Spokane with Forced-Gas and then Electric Range/Appliances was one month total around $109 for around a 2400 sq ft, 3 bedroom, 1 office home.

    In the summer is plummets to around $45.

    And when I actually properly bring the house up to 2006 code with R60 in the Roof, R40 on the exterior walls I'll see it plummet more.

    The 95% efficiency variable stage furnace is excellent. It'll be even better when I include the attached garage with insulation and stop being a cooling spot that saps heat into it.
  • Reply 72 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    Except that rockets do explode once in a while. Do you really want that?



    The better solution is 4th gen, which reprocesses the spent rods -- believe it or not, 99.7% of the energy is still left when it is sent off as nuclear 'waste'! The trouble is, 4th gen is still a few years away from economic operation, though.



    Thorium would be a brilliant solution.



    There's also the problem in that the sun is pretty much the hardest place you can send anything to in the solar system. We just don't have the technology for it 

     

    http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/shooting_for_the_sun/

  • Reply 73 of 98
    Originally Posted by BeltsBear View Post

    It would be far cheaper to reprocess it first and get it down to 10-20 launches per year.  It would be one of the most expensive things mankind has done even if costs come down.

     

    What’s the weight? That sounds wrong. Either that or we go through radioactive material faster than a fat guy at an all you can eat lobster bar.

  • Reply 74 of 98
    This is about 24-cents per kWh for electricity, compared to about 1/2 to 1/3 that price being paid for electricity around the USA today. However, it appears that Apple will be locking in this price over the full 25-year period, so it is protected against inflation and various unforeseen regulation costs in the future.
  • Reply 75 of 98
    Given the shape and design of Apple's new headquarters, Apple needs to power their new corporate headquarters with this

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/what-is-the-theoryconcept_b_3456241.html
  • Reply 76 of 98
    xixoxixo Posts: 430member
    jfc1138 wrote: »

    Once plant retirement and decontamination costs and storage of spent fuel and contaminated parts are all added in?

    I tend to doubt it.

    Facts matter though perhaps not on this thread.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/barclays-downgrades-utilities-on-solar-threat-2014-5

    Decentralized power generation and storage threatens the status quo.

    http://theweek.com/speedreads/451299/germany-gets-50-percent-electricity-from-solar-first-time

    Germany, a cloudy, rainy country in "old Europe", perhaps the most modern industrialized society on the continent, generates 50% of its power from solar.

    http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-health-policy-institute/responses/costs-and-consequences-of-fukushima.html

    "The tragedy at the Fukushima nuclear plant will cost 11.08 trillion yen ($105 billion), twice as much as Japanese authorities predicted at the end of 2011, says the study. The expenses include radiation clean-up and compensation to residents."

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

    "Three Mile Island: In 1979 at Three Mile Island in USA a cooling malfunction caused part of the (TMI 2) core to melt. ... The cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactor system at TMI-2 took nearly 12 years and cost approximately US$973 million."

    http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/Decommissioning-of-San-Onofre-nuclear-power-plant-to-cost-estimated-44-billion-276836361.html

    "Decommissioning of the idled San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in northern San Diego County will cost an estimated $4.4 billion, according to a plan submitted Tuesday by majority owner Southern California Edison. "

    http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201306220069

    "Lesson for Japan: Decommissioning Chernobyl may take '100 years'"
  • Reply 77 of 98
    v900v900 Posts: 101member
    Germany generates over fifty percent electricity from solar panels? Nonsense...

    The biggest source of electricity in Germany is still fossil fuels and nuclear power. Solar is still under 10% and in reality it's unrealistic to ever use it for substantial electricity production, unless you want to pave over significant parts of the countryside with photovoltaic parking lots.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
  • Reply 78 of 98
    xixoxixo Posts: 430member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by v900 View Post



    Germany generates over fifty percent electricity from solar panels? Nonsense...



    The biggest source of electricity in Germany is still fossil fuels and nuclear power. Solar is still under 10% and in reality it's unrealistic to ever use it for substantial electricity production, unless you want to pave over significant parts of the countryside with photovoltaic parking lots.



    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany

     

    hmm. I can believe you via wikipedia or the link I referenced, which I assume you never even read.

     

    You said "it's unrealistic to ever use it for substantial electricity production, unless you want to pave over significant parts of the countryside with photovoltaic parking lots" 

     

    I suggest you look up - the answer is over your head. Literally. (hint: it's called a rooftop).

     

    In this case, Tim Cook is onto something. Note the bolded text at the end of this post. This evokes the Barclay's study showing that decentralized power is going to kill the 'big science' approach to energy generation and distribution.

     

    My home state, Virginia, is actively discouraging solar rooftop implementation through legislation passed at the behest of Dominion Energy lobbyists.

     

    Dominion wants to run an LPG pipeline through ecologically sensitive areas across the state. Their happy-shiny-people PR says its for future energy demand. It's really for export profiteering.

     

    The guy who hooked up my electric meter, a 20 year power co veteran, said the suits know solar is going to kill their business model but they're fighting tooth and nail.

     

    Anyway, from the article you didn't read:

     

    "Germany isn't as sunny as many parts of the U.S; not even close. But Germany has a goal of producing 35 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100 percent by 2050.

     

    And now for the first time ever, the country has succeeded at generating over 50 percent of its electricity from solar. On Monday June 9, which was a national holiday in Germany, solar power production peaked at 23.1 GW, which equaled 50.6 percent of total electricity demand.

     

    That was less than the 24.24 GW peak hit on Friday, June 6, but it was the first time ever that solar had met 50 percent of German demand.

     

    The week was unusually hot, with highs of 37 degrees Celsius (98.6 degrees Fahrenheit). But Germany's stunning rate of solar installations means they are expected to continue to make new records.

     

    Tobias Rothacher, renewable energies expert at Germany Trade & Invest, told The Local: "I think we could break a new record every two to three months now. We are installing more and more PVs."

     

    Germany has encouraged individuals to install solar panels on rooftops rather than building huge solar farms. Ninety percent of solar panels in Germany are located on individuals' roofs."

     

  • Reply 79 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by semi_guy View Post

    Unfortunately, those costs do not include the disposal of nuclear waste. It is very hard to devise a secure, reliable, permanent storage to wait the hundreds of thousands of years for the waste to decay.

     

    Okay, it’s really pretty simple.

     

    SHOOT IT INTO THE SUN.

     

    Don’t bury it, don’t encase it, don’t reclaim it, don’t try to store it at all.

     

    Put it on top of a rocket and SHOOT IT INTO THE SUN. Or into interstellar space, whichever is cheaper for a given payload at a given time.

     

    Problem solved. Permanently. There’s no debate, no discussion.


     

     

    And when the rocket blows up by accident and falls back to earth, it will release all the nuclear waste in one fell swoop.

     

    Oops.

  • Reply 80 of 98
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,630member
    Let's take responsibility for our actions by attempting to throw our waste into the uncharted void. What could possibly go wrong with this well thought through idea?
Sign In or Register to comment.