Apple is America's top corporate user of solar energy

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    slurpy said:
    ElCapitan said:
    ElCapitan said:
    eumaeus said:
    Ah, Apple-haters...

    It has noting at all to do with Apple hating, but the false virtue signaling they also are on to in the area of "clean" energy.

    The UK, with a population comparable to CA, have made serious calculations of the effect on global climate if they replaced ALL (that is their entire) energy production by solar and wind. The effort, which would cost trillions of dollars, would have an effect of 0.01 deg C per century. In other words ZERO effect whatsoever. That offset the significant negative environmental impact on land use, noise pollution, access roads, visual degradation of the landscape, insects, birds and other wildlife.
    As a matter of fact, the production of batteries for undertaking such an enterprise would have multiple times the emission of CO2 compared to going on as they currently do, in addition to very significant environmental damage for strip mining rare earth metals needed for the batteries.

    So, yes, it is completely virtue signaling! 
    Can you link us to the study that drew those conclusions? 

    Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not virtue signaling. Despite it not eliminating dirtier sources, it remains a reduction and shows there are alternatives to burning ancient dead dinosaurs. This will absolutely be required at some point if society is to continue to thrive so to say the effort is a charade is hopelessly naive. 


    CO2 is not a greenhouse gas at all. It has a maximum effect on climate of 0.2 deg C and that effect was already exhausted in the 1920s. 

    CO2 currently accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere, and the only effect it has - which is positive, is greening of the planet and higher agricultural production which have been crucial to fighting starvation. 

    If you want to learn something on the issue, check out a few of Steve Goddard's videos (known as Tony Heller on Youtube). This one is a good starting point:
    You're absolutely hilarious. And sad.
    Ummm?  What is hilarious and sad about facts and data?  Just because you disapprove of the source in no way discredits the data.
    edited July 2019
  • Reply 22 of 34
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    gatorguy said:
    JWSC said:
    "Top companies are increasingly investing in clean, reliable solar energy because it makes economic sense," said SEIA president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper in a statement.  “Corporate solar investments will become even more significant as businesses use solar to fight climate change, create jobs and boost local economies."

    This is a political statement.  The studies that claim solar is less costly than coal don’t take into account that traditional forms of energy production still have to be present during nighttime.  The oft repeated narrative that you can replace coal and gas fired plants with solar is a fiction.  And it will remain that way until new and giant batteries can be developed.

    Don’t get me wrong.  I have PV solar panels on my house and it saves me money.  I love it!  No doubt Apple saves money on its energy consumption.  But from an energy sector perspective the data doesn’t yet paint such a rosy picture.

    I looked into solar panels when I had my roof redone about two years ago. For me it did not make economic sense. It would have taken over 18 years to recoup the investment over the local power company based on projections. 

    EDIT: Just did another cost/benefits comparison...

    And it still makes no economic sense for me, even here in sunny Florida. Perhaps if I didn't have a canopy of trees and a multi-story home and thus a smaller roof surface, and didn't already have smart thermostats (multiple), propane, tankless water heaters, LED lighting and other energy savers. In fact I would still be $1000 out-of-pocket even after 20 years. 

    Before investing in a system yourself you'd be wise to check the situation for your specific home and don't just trust average figures from some salesman. This is a link to one of the best resources to help with making a smart choice. Some folks will see significant savings and others will not.
    https://www.google.com/get/sunroof

    We did the cost/benefit calculations beforehand.  It helped that we had a good decade of actual electrical usage to guide us.

    The interwebs says that Tucson AZ (my home city) gets 85% sunshine a year. Key West gets 76%.  So you could extrapolate the efficiencies and ROI from there.

    It just blows my mind that Germany decided to take a leading role in PV installations.  Berlin gets a whopping 19% sunshine annually.  I thought the Germans were smart.  But what do I know.

  • Reply 23 of 34
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,805unconfirmed, member
    I love what Lisa is doing at Apple and her segments always blow me away.

    I think Apple has the best interests of humanity in mind and have no idea how this is "virtue signaling" since Apple doesn't advertise any of this.

    An no, keynote speeches are not ads.
    montrosemacstht
  • Reply 24 of 34
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,490member
    gatorguy said:
    JWSC said:
    "Top companies are increasingly investing in clean, reliable solar energy because it makes economic sense," said SEIA president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper in a statement.  “Corporate solar investments will become even more significant as businesses use solar to fight climate change, create jobs and boost local economies."

    This is a political statement.  The studies that claim solar is less costly than coal don’t take into account that traditional forms of energy production still have to be present during nighttime.  The oft repeated narrative that you can replace coal and gas fired plants with solar is a fiction.  And it will remain that way until new and giant batteries can be developed.

    Don’t get me wrong.  I have PV solar panels on my house and it saves me money.  I love it!  No doubt Apple saves money on its energy consumption.  But from an energy sector perspective the data doesn’t yet paint such a rosy picture.

    I looked into solar panels when I had my roof redone about two years ago. For me it did not make economic sense. It would have taken over 18 years to recoup the investment over the local power company based on projections. 

    EDIT: Just did another cost/benefits comparison...

    And it still makes no economic sense for me, even here in sunny Florida. Perhaps if I didn't have a canopy of trees and a multi-story home and thus a smaller roof surface, and didn't already have smart thermostats (multiple), propane, tankless water heaters, LED lighting and other energy savers. In fact I would still be $1000 out-of-pocket even after 20 years. 

    Before investing in a system yourself you'd be wise to check the situation for your specific home and don't just trust average figures from some salesman. This is a link to one of the best resources to help with making a smart choice. Some folks will see significant savings and others will not.
    https://www.google.com/get/sunroof
    Back in 2014 there was a lot of talk about how magnesium was going to transform the solar power industry and bring prices down to make solar panel installations.cheaper and contain less toxic.materials.

    I don't know how things stand today but back then they were guessing at a ten year period to bring it to market.

    My parents took advantage of some kind of government promotion to get panels installed on the roof (for free I believe). Supposedly the only maintenance they have to perform is clearing the snow off them.in winter. Something that probably won't happen very often now that climate change is setting into the UK.

    I, like you, live in sun kissed Mediterranean Spain and get around 322 days of sun a year. Ironically, the previous government slapped a tax on domestic solar installations (which I think the new government has lifted) which became known as the sun tax. Crazy.
  • Reply 25 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    JWSC said:
    "Top companies are increasingly investing in clean, reliable solar energy because it makes economic sense," said SEIA president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper in a statement.  “Corporate solar investments will become even more significant as businesses use solar to fight climate change, create jobs and boost local economies."

    This is a political statement.  The studies that claim solar is less costly than coal don’t take into account that traditional forms of energy production still have to be present during nighttime.  The oft repeated narrative that you can replace coal and gas fired plants with solar is a fiction.  And it will remain that way until new and giant batteries can be developed.

    Don’t get me wrong.  I have PV solar panels on my house and it saves me money.  I love it!  No doubt Apple saves money on its energy consumption.  But from an energy sector perspective the data doesn’t yet paint such a rosy picture.

    I looked into solar panels when I had my roof redone about two years ago. For me it did not make economic sense. It would have taken over 18 years to recoup the investment over the local power company based on projections. 

    EDIT: Just did another cost/benefits comparison...

    And it still makes no economic sense for me, even here in sunny Florida. Perhaps if I didn't have a canopy of trees and a multi-story home and thus a smaller roof surface, and didn't already have smart thermostats (multiple), propane, tankless water heaters, LED lighting and other energy savers. In fact I would still be $1000 out-of-pocket even after 20 years. 

    Before investing in a system yourself you'd be wise to check the situation for your specific home and don't just trust average figures from some salesman. This is a link to one of the best resources to help with making a smart choice. Some folks will see significant savings and others will not.
    https://www.google.com/get/sunroof
    Back in 2014 there was a lot of talk about how magnesium was going to transform the solar power industry and bring prices down to make solar panel installations.cheaper and contain less toxic.materials.

    I don't know how things stand today but back then they were guessing at a ten year period to bring it to market.

    My parents took advantage of some kind of government promotion to get panels installed on the roof (for free I believe). Supposedly the only maintenance they have to perform is clearing the snow off them.in winter. Something that probably won't happen very often now that climate change is setting into the UK.

    I, like you, live in sun kissed Mediterranean Spain and get around 322 days of sun a year. Ironically, the previous government slapped a tax on domestic solar installations (which I think the new government has lifted) which became known as the sun tax. Crazy.
    In my case it's not the lack of sun shine in the state, it's the amount of sun that falls on my roof combined with the number of panels I'd need to adequately supply the homes needs. I'd need $25K worth but save just $100/mo give or take. 

    The central part of Florida isn't lacking for sunshine. My home is. My neighbor on the other hand is nearly treeless and would get a faster return on an investment in solar. That's why the resource link I posted is so valuable as it takes into account the size and pitch of your roof and the amount of daily shade (if any) from the tree canopy etc. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 26 of 34
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    JWSC said:
    "Top companies are increasingly investing in clean, reliable solar energy because it makes economic sense," said SEIA president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper in a statement.  “Corporate solar investments will become even more significant as businesses use solar to fight climate change, create jobs and boost local economies."

    This is a political statement.  The studies that claim solar is less costly than coal don’t take into account that traditional forms of energy production still have to be present during nighttime.  The oft repeated narrative that you can replace coal and gas fired plants with solar is a fiction.  And it will remain that way until new and giant batteries can be developed.

    Don’t get me wrong.  I have PV solar panels on my house and it saves me money.  I love it!  No doubt Apple saves money on its energy consumption.  But from an energy sector perspective the data doesn’t yet paint such a rosy picture.

    I looked into solar panels when I had my roof redone about two years ago. For me it did not make economic sense. It would have taken over 18 years to recoup the investment over the local power company based on projections. 

    EDIT: Just did another cost/benefits comparison...

    And it still makes no economic sense for me, even here in sunny Florida. Perhaps if I didn't have a canopy of trees and a multi-story home and thus a smaller roof surface, and didn't already have smart thermostats (multiple), propane, tankless water heaters, LED lighting and other energy savers. In fact I would still be $1000 out-of-pocket even after 20 years. 

    Before investing in a system yourself you'd be wise to check the situation for your specific home and don't just trust average figures from some salesman. This is a link to one of the best resources to help with making a smart choice. Some folks will see significant savings and others will not.
    https://www.google.com/get/sunroof
    Back in 2014 there was a lot of talk about how magnesium was going to transform the solar power industry and bring prices down to make solar panel installations.cheaper and contain less toxic.materials.

    I don't know how things stand today but back then they were guessing at a ten year period to bring it to market.

    My parents took advantage of some kind of government promotion to get panels installed on the roof (for free I believe). Supposedly the only maintenance they have to perform is clearing the snow off them.in winter. Something that probably won't happen very often now that climate change is setting into the UK.

    I, like you, live in sun kissed Mediterranean Spain and get around 322 days of sun a year. Ironically, the previous government slapped a tax on domestic solar installations (which I think the new government has lifted) which became known as the sun tax. Crazy.

    The sun tax was a poorly implemented over reaction to earlier legislation designed to promote green energy, which itself was poorly thought out and implemented.  While it’s good to hear that the tax was repealed, Spain only gets around 15% of its energy from renewables, of which PV solar would only make up a fraction thereof.

    So the high energy bills for most of the population will continue until the Spanish government, and the EU in general, pulls its head out of its collective arse and gets real on energy policy.  The ‘12 years left and we’re all gonna die’ jingoism serves no one and only distracts from our collective ability to make the rational decisions.

  • Reply 27 of 34
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,490member
    JWSC said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    JWSC said:
    "Top companies are increasingly investing in clean, reliable solar energy because it makes economic sense," said SEIA president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper in a statement.  “Corporate solar investments will become even more significant as businesses use solar to fight climate change, create jobs and boost local economies."

    This is a political statement.  The studies that claim solar is less costly than coal don’t take into account that traditional forms of energy production still have to be present during nighttime.  The oft repeated narrative that you can replace coal and gas fired plants with solar is a fiction.  And it will remain that way until new and giant batteries can be developed.

    Don’t get me wrong.  I have PV solar panels on my house and it saves me money.  I love it!  No doubt Apple saves money on its energy consumption.  But from an energy sector perspective the data doesn’t yet paint such a rosy picture.

    I looked into solar panels when I had my roof redone about two years ago. For me it did not make economic sense. It would have taken over 18 years to recoup the investment over the local power company based on projections. 

    EDIT: Just did another cost/benefits comparison...

    And it still makes no economic sense for me, even here in sunny Florida. Perhaps if I didn't have a canopy of trees and a multi-story home and thus a smaller roof surface, and didn't already have smart thermostats (multiple), propane, tankless water heaters, LED lighting and other energy savers. In fact I would still be $1000 out-of-pocket even after 20 years. 

    Before investing in a system yourself you'd be wise to check the situation for your specific home and don't just trust average figures from some salesman. This is a link to one of the best resources to help with making a smart choice. Some folks will see significant savings and others will not.
    https://www.google.com/get/sunroof
    Back in 2014 there was a lot of talk about how magnesium was going to transform the solar power industry and bring prices down to make solar panel installations.cheaper and contain less toxic.materials.

    I don't know how things stand today but back then they were guessing at a ten year period to bring it to market.

    My parents took advantage of some kind of government promotion to get panels installed on the roof (for free I believe). Supposedly the only maintenance they have to perform is clearing the snow off them.in winter. Something that probably won't happen very often now that climate change is setting into the UK.

    I, like you, live in sun kissed Mediterranean Spain and get around 322 days of sun a year. Ironically, the previous government slapped a tax on domestic solar installations (which I think the new government has lifted) which became known as the sun tax. Crazy.

    The sun tax was a poorly implemented over reaction to earlier legislation designed to promote green energy, which itself was poorly thought out and implemented.  While it’s good to hear that the tax was repealed, Spain only gets around 15% of its energy from renewables, of which PV solar would only make up a fraction thereof.

    So the high energy bills for most of the population will continue until the Spanish government, and the EU in general, pulls its head out of its collective arse and gets real on energy policy.  The ‘12 years left and we’re all gonna die’ jingoism serves no one and only distracts from our collective ability to make the rational decisions.

    Yes, the energy sector in Spain is an utter shambles, virtually impossible to get your head around, and prone to wacky developments. The usual corruption is everpresent and the consumer is constantly taken to the cleaners. 
  • Reply 28 of 34
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,693member
    gatorguy said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    JWSC said:
    "Top companies are increasingly investing in clean, reliable solar energy because it makes economic sense," said SEIA president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper in a statement.  “Corporate solar investments will become even more significant as businesses use solar to fight climate change, create jobs and boost local economies."

    This is a political statement.  The studies that claim solar is less costly than coal don’t take into account that traditional forms of energy production still have to be present during nighttime.  The oft repeated narrative that you can replace coal and gas fired plants with solar is a fiction.  And it will remain that way until new and giant batteries can be developed.

    Don’t get me wrong.  I have PV solar panels on my house and it saves me money.  I love it!  No doubt Apple saves money on its energy consumption.  But from an energy sector perspective the data doesn’t yet paint such a rosy picture.

    I looked into solar panels when I had my roof redone about two years ago. For me it did not make economic sense. It would have taken over 18 years to recoup the investment over the local power company based on projections. 

    EDIT: Just did another cost/benefits comparison...

    And it still makes no economic sense for me, even here in sunny Florida. Perhaps if I didn't have a canopy of trees and a multi-story home and thus a smaller roof surface, and didn't already have smart thermostats (multiple), propane, tankless water heaters, LED lighting and other energy savers. In fact I would still be $1000 out-of-pocket even after 20 years. 

    Before investing in a system yourself you'd be wise to check the situation for your specific home and don't just trust average figures from some salesman. This is a link to one of the best resources to help with making a smart choice. Some folks will see significant savings and others will not.
    https://www.google.com/get/sunroof
    Back in 2014 there was a lot of talk about how magnesium was going to transform the solar power industry and bring prices down to make solar panel installations.cheaper and contain less toxic.materials.

    I don't know how things stand today but back then they were guessing at a ten year period to bring it to market.

    My parents took advantage of some kind of government promotion to get panels installed on the roof (for free I believe). Supposedly the only maintenance they have to perform is clearing the snow off them.in winter. Something that probably won't happen very often now that climate change is setting into the UK.

    I, like you, live in sun kissed Mediterranean Spain and get around 322 days of sun a year. Ironically, the previous government slapped a tax on domestic solar installations (which I think the new government has lifted) which became known as the sun tax. Crazy.
    In my case it's not the lack of sun shine in the state, it's the amount of sun that falls on my roof combined with the number of panels I'd need to adequately supply the homes needs. I'd need $25K worth but save just $100/mo give or take. 

    The central part of Florida isn't lacking for sunshine. My home is. My neighbor on the other hand is nearly treeless and would get a faster return on an investment in solar. That's why the resource link I posted is so valuable as it takes into account the size and pitch of your roof and the amount of daily shade (if any) from the tree canopy etc. 
    Having recently got quotes for a propane-powered all home generator that would kick in after a power loss due to a hurricane and found to my horror it to be $25K+ .  So it occurred to me that the sun is usually out a day after a hurricane passes close by (I've been in Florida for 30 years and had a few close calls).  I'd like to know how many panels and what cost would be needed to just power the AC (even to 80°F would suffice), a fridge and a few lights with a few Tesla wall storage batteries (which could be initially charged from the mains prior to any power cut of course) for the night just until power was restored.  What spurred this line of thought was our AC dying last summer.   It was replaced by noon the next day thank heavens.  What was scary was the internal temperature of the house was in the high 90's by noon and freezers full of food would only last a day or two.  Of course, workmen were going in and out so it would probably have taken longer otherwise to rise that high in the house but Florida without any cooling is not fun very quickly I discovered, not fun at all.
    edited July 2019
  • Reply 29 of 34
    buckkalubuckkalu Posts: 29member
    A little late to the party but anyway.

    1. Solar and wind turbines are a scam.

    solar panels require rare earth metals and minerals.  Due to mining restrictions in North America, most come from China where there is an immense toll both socially and to the environment. There is child labour, slave wages, no safety requirements, no environmental requirements, waste is busted dumped around the areas where the mining takes place, villages are destroyed, half the mining is controlled by gangs.

    As for wind turbines, well the amount of material required to build the blades, all using fossil fuels(how ironic), each turbine requires 700 tones of concrete for its base (again the irony of all that fossil fuel used).  Then the hundreds of miles of wire.  Each year in the US it’s estimated that wind turbines kill 1.5 million birds and bats plus other insects.  Many of the birds are protected and endangered species.

    did I forget to mention you still need fossil fuel back up.

    2.  CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!
    it’s the gas of life.  All life on earth would cease without it.  I am exhaling it now as I type this very long post.  My room is not getting any hotter.  In fact it’s helping green the planet.  For the majority of earths existence the CO2 levels have been higher.  No problem has arisen.  Currently CO2 is at 400ppm.  Nuclear submarines when under water have levels at or exceeding 5000ppm and somehow the submarines are fine as are the soldiers.
    CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere and fossil fuel burning accounts for 3% of that!!!!!  So the 97% of CO2 that is naturally occurring is sitting on the beach but the 3% from fossil fuels is causing chaos.  REALLY!!!!

    Renewables are a scam.  The earths temperature has been flat, statistically speaking, for the last 25 years.  It’s global cooling we should be worried about.

    When you plug in your Tesla, where do you think the electricity comes from??? It’s not growing on trees.

    pathetic.
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 30 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member
    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    JWSC said:
    "Top companies are increasingly investing in clean, reliable solar energy because it makes economic sense," said SEIA president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper in a statement.  “Corporate solar investments will become even more significant as businesses use solar to fight climate change, create jobs and boost local economies."

    This is a political statement.  The studies that claim solar is less costly than coal don’t take into account that traditional forms of energy production still have to be present during nighttime.  The oft repeated narrative that you can replace coal and gas fired plants with solar is a fiction.  And it will remain that way until new and giant batteries can be developed.

    Don’t get me wrong.  I have PV solar panels on my house and it saves me money.  I love it!  No doubt Apple saves money on its energy consumption.  But from an energy sector perspective the data doesn’t yet paint such a rosy picture.

    I looked into solar panels when I had my roof redone about two years ago. For me it did not make economic sense. It would have taken over 18 years to recoup the investment over the local power company based on projections. 

    EDIT: Just did another cost/benefits comparison...

    And it still makes no economic sense for me, even here in sunny Florida. Perhaps if I didn't have a canopy of trees and a multi-story home and thus a smaller roof surface, and didn't already have smart thermostats (multiple), propane, tankless water heaters, LED lighting and other energy savers. In fact I would still be $1000 out-of-pocket even after 20 years. 

    Before investing in a system yourself you'd be wise to check the situation for your specific home and don't just trust average figures from some salesman. This is a link to one of the best resources to help with making a smart choice. Some folks will see significant savings and others will not.
    https://www.google.com/get/sunroof
    Back in 2014 there was a lot of talk about how magnesium was going to transform the solar power industry and bring prices down to make solar panel installations.cheaper and contain less toxic.materials.

    I don't know how things stand today but back then they were guessing at a ten year period to bring it to market.

    My parents took advantage of some kind of government promotion to get panels installed on the roof (for free I believe). Supposedly the only maintenance they have to perform is clearing the snow off them.in winter. Something that probably won't happen very often now that climate change is setting into the UK.

    I, like you, live in sun kissed Mediterranean Spain and get around 322 days of sun a year. Ironically, the previous government slapped a tax on domestic solar installations (which I think the new government has lifted) which became known as the sun tax. Crazy.
    In my case it's not the lack of sun shine in the state, it's the amount of sun that falls on my roof combined with the number of panels I'd need to adequately supply the homes needs. I'd need $25K worth but save just $100/mo give or take. 

    The central part of Florida isn't lacking for sunshine. My home is. My neighbor on the other hand is nearly treeless and would get a faster return on an investment in solar. That's why the resource link I posted is so valuable as it takes into account the size and pitch of your roof and the amount of daily shade (if any) from the tree canopy etc. 
    Having recently got quotes for a propane-powered all home generator that would kick in after a power loss due to a hurricane and found to my horror it to be $25K+ .  So it occurred to me that the sun is usually out a day after a hurricane passes close by (I've been in Florida for 30 years and had a few close calls).  I'd like to know how many panels and what cost would be needed to just power the AC (even to 80°F would suffice), a fridge and a few lights with a few Tesla wall storage batteries (which could be initially charged from the mains prior to any power cut of course) for the night just until power was restored.  What spurred this line of thought was our AC dying last summer.   It was replaced by noon the next day thank heavens.  What was scary was the internal temperature of the house was in the high 90's by noon and freezers full of food would only last a day or two.  Of course, workmen were going in and out so it would probably have taken longer otherwise to rise that high in the house but Florida without any cooling is not fun very quickly I discovered, not fun at all.
    I have a whole house propane generator now that's served me well thru a couple of hurricanes and a few shorter power failures. My 11K powers the main AC, dryer, hot water starter (tankless propane), all lights, kitchen appliances (fridge/toaster/oven/dishwasher), a couple of TV's. Not enough to run the second story AC too but no biggie because it is enough for a small window unit for a bedroom just in case. We keep one around for that reason. 

    Outside of the propane tank itself, suggest 200gal (which I already had) you should be able to get a Generac installed including the transfer panel for far under 25K. Even with the tank if you don't have it I can't imagine it being quite as expensive as you were quoted and still be cool and comfortable, hot water and cooking meals. Check around. 
    edited July 2019
  • Reply 31 of 34
    propodpropod Posts: 67member
    Soli said:
    MacPro said:
    I wonder if Apple has any interest in going beyond supplying its own needs and becoming a power provider?
    1) They already do. They can't use all the power they create so their initial to get to 100% renewable energy is energy-based debits and credits from various locations around the world.


    2) If you mean become a US-based provider for solar panels like Tesla or directly selling power like SolarCity, I hope for the former since I think mass-produced solar shingles/tiles would benefit from Apple's production experience.
    I believe in IKEA when it comes to mass produce solar panels and make them affordable. 
  • Reply 32 of 34
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,693member
    gatorguy said:
    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    JWSC said:
    "Top companies are increasingly investing in clean, reliable solar energy because it makes economic sense," said SEIA president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper in a statement.  “Corporate solar investments will become even more significant as businesses use solar to fight climate change, create jobs and boost local economies."

    This is a political statement.  The studies that claim solar is less costly than coal don’t take into account that traditional forms of energy production still have to be present during nighttime.  The oft repeated narrative that you can replace coal and gas fired plants with solar is a fiction.  And it will remain that way until new and giant batteries can be developed.

    Don’t get me wrong.  I have PV solar panels on my house and it saves me money.  I love it!  No doubt Apple saves money on its energy consumption.  But from an energy sector perspective the data doesn’t yet paint such a rosy picture.

    I looked into solar panels when I had my roof redone about two years ago. For me it did not make economic sense. It would have taken over 18 years to recoup the investment over the local power company based on projections. 

    EDIT: Just did another cost/benefits comparison...

    And it still makes no economic sense for me, even here in sunny Florida. Perhaps if I didn't have a canopy of trees and a multi-story home and thus a smaller roof surface, and didn't already have smart thermostats (multiple), propane, tankless water heaters, LED lighting and other energy savers. In fact I would still be $1000 out-of-pocket even after 20 years. 

    Before investing in a system yourself you'd be wise to check the situation for your specific home and don't just trust average figures from some salesman. This is a link to one of the best resources to help with making a smart choice. Some folks will see significant savings and others will not.
    https://www.google.com/get/sunroof
    Back in 2014 there was a lot of talk about how magnesium was going to transform the solar power industry and bring prices down to make solar panel installations.cheaper and contain less toxic.materials.

    I don't know how things stand today but back then they were guessing at a ten year period to bring it to market.

    My parents took advantage of some kind of government promotion to get panels installed on the roof (for free I believe). Supposedly the only maintenance they have to perform is clearing the snow off them.in winter. Something that probably won't happen very often now that climate change is setting into the UK.

    I, like you, live in sun kissed Mediterranean Spain and get around 322 days of sun a year. Ironically, the previous government slapped a tax on domestic solar installations (which I think the new government has lifted) which became known as the sun tax. Crazy.
    In my case it's not the lack of sun shine in the state, it's the amount of sun that falls on my roof combined with the number of panels I'd need to adequately supply the homes needs. I'd need $25K worth but save just $100/mo give or take. 

    The central part of Florida isn't lacking for sunshine. My home is. My neighbor on the other hand is nearly treeless and would get a faster return on an investment in solar. That's why the resource link I posted is so valuable as it takes into account the size and pitch of your roof and the amount of daily shade (if any) from the tree canopy etc. 
    Having recently got quotes for a propane-powered all home generator that would kick in after a power loss due to a hurricane and found to my horror it to be $25K+ .  So it occurred to me that the sun is usually out a day after a hurricane passes close by (I've been in Florida for 30 years and had a few close calls).  I'd like to know how many panels and what cost would be needed to just power the AC (even to 80°F would suffice), a fridge and a few lights with a few Tesla wall storage batteries (which could be initially charged from the mains prior to any power cut of course) for the night just until power was restored.  What spurred this line of thought was our AC dying last summer.   It was replaced by noon the next day thank heavens.  What was scary was the internal temperature of the house was in the high 90's by noon and freezers full of food would only last a day or two.  Of course, workmen were going in and out so it would probably have taken longer otherwise to rise that high in the house but Florida without any cooling is not fun very quickly I discovered, not fun at all.
    I have a whole house propane generator now that's served me well thru a couple of hurricanes and a few shorter power failures. My 11K powers the main AC, dryer, hot water starter (tankless propane), all lights, kitchen appliances (fridge/toaster/oven/dishwasher), a couple of TV's. Not enough to run the second story AC too but no biggie because it is enough for a small window unit for a bedroom just in case. We keep one around for that reason. 

    Outside of the propane tank itself, suggest 200gal (which I already had) you should be able to get a Generac installed including the transfer panel for far under 25K. Even with the tank if you don't have it I can't imagine it being quite as expensive as you were quoted and still be cool and comfortable, hot water and cooking meals. Check around. 
    That was a quote from Lowes and over 12K was just the 'installation'. I will keep looking thanks.  That said, I still wonder how long a couple of Tesla wall units would last with a few solar panels and what that cost would be in comparison.  The Generac is only used in an emergency, the solar approach would be helping costs year-round.
    edited July 2019
  • Reply 33 of 34
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,217member
    blastdoor said:
    ElCapitan said:
    The question is how many coal fired plants are on hot standby in or outside state to even make this virtue signaling competition possible? 
    Coal is dead. The actual alternative is natural gas. 
    This forum alone generates enough to power the whole AI empire! :D
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 34 of 34
    buckkalu said:
    <snip>
    Nuclear submarines when under water have levels at or exceeding 5000ppm and somehow the submarines are fine as are the soldiers.
    <snip>
    Minor quibble: a submarine is a small enclosed system without its own weather and while I don't have direct knowledge I'm pretty sure nobody is trying to grow crops onboard. The concentration of CO2 is less relevant than the amount of oxygen available.

    Also, since it is a ship, the crew are sailors and not soldiers. There are health issues related to submarine service, which is why there are now strict limits about active ship duty time in a given year, but it's not directly attributable to CO2 concentration as far as I'm aware.
Sign In or Register to comment.