Apple to buy $850M worth of energy from solar farm in Monterey County, Calif. in 'ambitious' deal [u
Calling it his company's "biggest, boldest and most ambitious project ever," Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook revealed a massive new $850 million investment in a California solar farm -- one that will generate enough electricity to power virtually all of its operations in the Golden State.
Update: A previous version of this story incorrectly claimed that Apple would be building the farm itself. But as noted by Reuters, the company will instead buy $850 million worth of power from the First Solar plant. The story has been updated to reflect this. (Thanks to reader Jim Neal.)
The details were revealed by Cook on Tuesday during the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference. The CEO took the opportunity to reveal the new solar partnership, in which will buy enough power for nearly 60,000 California homes.
The 1,300-acre project investment is housed in Monterey County, Calif., which is located south of Apple's corporate headquarters in the city of Cupertino.
"We are doing this because it's right to do, but you may also be interested to know that it's good financially to do it," Cook told investors at the conference. "We expect to have a very significant savings, because we have a fixed price for the renewable energy, and there's quite a difference between that price and the price of brown energy."
The project, done in partnership with First Solar, will provide enough renewable energy into the grid to offset electricity used by Apple's new Campus 2 corporate headquarters, as well as all 52 Apple retail stores in California, all of its offices, and its data center in Newark, Calif.
Apple's new solar farm will power virtually all of its California operations, including Campus 2.
Cook stressed on Tuesday that at Apple, global warming is not considered a subject that's up for debate. For him and his company, climate change is real, and Apple will take steps to do the right thing for the environment.
Under the leadership of Cook, Apple has invested heavily in renewable, green energy, most notably to run its data centers that power iCloud, iTunes and other Internet-based services. In particular, Apple's Oregon facilities are powered by a hydroelectric plant and wind energy, its California data center uses wind energy, and its Nevada facility relies on solar and geothermal energy.
Apple is also the owner of the largest private solar facility in the country, which powers its Maiden, N.C., data center. And just last week, Apple announced it will build yet another solar farm in Arizona, where it plans to build a new "global command" data center.
Update: A previous version of this story incorrectly claimed that Apple would be building the farm itself. But as noted by Reuters, the company will instead buy $850 million worth of power from the First Solar plant. The story has been updated to reflect this. (Thanks to reader Jim Neal.)
The details were revealed by Cook on Tuesday during the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference. The CEO took the opportunity to reveal the new solar partnership, in which will buy enough power for nearly 60,000 California homes.
The 1,300-acre project investment is housed in Monterey County, Calif., which is located south of Apple's corporate headquarters in the city of Cupertino.
"We are doing this because it's right to do, but you may also be interested to know that it's good financially to do it," Cook told investors at the conference. "We expect to have a very significant savings, because we have a fixed price for the renewable energy, and there's quite a difference between that price and the price of brown energy."
The project, done in partnership with First Solar, will provide enough renewable energy into the grid to offset electricity used by Apple's new Campus 2 corporate headquarters, as well as all 52 Apple retail stores in California, all of its offices, and its data center in Newark, Calif.
Apple's new solar farm will power virtually all of its California operations, including Campus 2.
Cook stressed on Tuesday that at Apple, global warming is not considered a subject that's up for debate. For him and his company, climate change is real, and Apple will take steps to do the right thing for the environment.
Under the leadership of Cook, Apple has invested heavily in renewable, green energy, most notably to run its data centers that power iCloud, iTunes and other Internet-based services. In particular, Apple's Oregon facilities are powered by a hydroelectric plant and wind energy, its California data center uses wind energy, and its Nevada facility relies on solar and geothermal energy.
Apple is also the owner of the largest private solar facility in the country, which powers its Maiden, N.C., data center. And just last week, Apple announced it will build yet another solar farm in Arizona, where it plans to build a new "global command" data center.
Comments
Uh oh! I fear this thread is about to get trolled into oblivion but the FOX News watching, anti-technology, aluminium foil hat-wearing, conspiracy theorists.
I so hope fusion energy comes into play soon, or some modern-tech nuclear power. I'm gonna get flamed for it, but massive swaths of land for energy is not the way.
Solar farms wastes land, Windmills kills thousands of birds a year, solar collectors fry birds in mid-air... there is a cost.
Me no like this.
That is the way to go. Sell the power to Edison at a remote location on the grid and then buy it back at your locations in the city.
Everything has a cost, so what would you prefer on the production of electricity over solar and wind that has a lower impact on the environment as a whole? Turning people into batteries?
I grew up in Monterey and I'm curious where they would place this site. Maybe around Paso Robles or Hunter Liggett maybe.
I'm all for green, but butchering all that land for solar panels is such a waste, and a shame. I'm in Monterey often and it breaks my heart to see this kind of destruction going on.
I'm not all for "butchering land" but I fail to see what could be a better use of land than a solar farm that is continually generating energy from the sun. Residential? Commercial? Industrial? It just seems like a more efficient, beneficial, and cleaner use of land than almost everything else one can think of building.
Yes, maybe solar does fry a few birds a year. There is nothing in the world that has NO negative consequences, especially when it comes to energy generation. And from what I know, pretty much every other available feasible method has a much higher cost.
The 1,300-acre project will be housed in Monterey County, Calif. ...
Great! Now Apple can run a solar powered electric Grand Prix at Laguna Seca.
I can't wait!
Because you didn't start it first with childish baiting. :rolleyes:
God wants us to use petroleum. That's why He created dinosaurs 6000 years ago, so we could have crude oil.
I don't think solar energy is particularly efficient but the panels las for a very long time. Apple should pour some resources into the panels themselves and come up with solar panels that can cover all roof areas and tarmacced surfaces (replacing tarmac) on their properties.
Uh oh! I fear this thread is about to get trolled into oblivion but the FOX News watching, anti-technology, aluminium foil hat-wearing, conspiracy theorists.
I'll add the missing ingredient to get that one going : 'OBAMA'
With as much solar as they are creating I would think Apple could innovate in that area quite well as a private company with a high need and deep pockets.
I'm all for green, but butchering all that land for solar panels is such a waste, and a shame. I'm in Monterey often and it breaks my heart to see this kind of destruction going on.
I so hope fusion energy comes into play soon, or some modern-tech nuclear power. I'm gonna get flamed for it, but massive swaths of land for energy is not the way.
Solar farms wastes land, Windmills kills thousands of birds a year, solar collectors fry birds in mid-air... there is a cost.
Me no like this.
What about this for an option... http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml ?
I grew up in Monterey and I'm curious where they would place this site. Maybe around Paso Robles or Hunter Liggett maybe.
Greenfield :>}
What about this for an option... http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml ?
I was going to mention that!! I think that could be huge!! Not to mention a definitive boost to the infrastructure part of things.
That's neat, but for solar panels I don't think the technology is even on the cusp of making that a feasible solution for anything outside of private use with little to no traffic.
For example, even with the traffic on a highway those panels are probably getting light a good part of the time, but what would be the average reduction over panels that had no obstructions between it and the sun? Will those panels last long enough before needing to be changed do to road wear? Would they have to be cleaned periodically? What is the cost? Are having so many smaller panels as effective as larger panels or is there a measured loss in efficiency? What about the reflectivity of those panels on drivers?
It seems to me, it's a much less expensive endeavour to buy up cheap land. Even adding long strips of panels next to highways and in the intersection would work, providing the reflections aren't going to affect drivers.
As for the lighted tiles, I don't see that as being even close to common in our lifetime.
PS: What's stopping someone from using rectangle solar panels in their driveway at this point?
With natural gas increasingly abundant and some predicting that oil will drop as low as $20 a barrel, perhaps we should call this Cook's Folly. When it comes to the environment, he seems to lack business sense. Squeezing to get a few pennies more profit out of Chinese suppliers and stealing business away from other Apple product retailers, but blowing huge sums of this bit of nonsense.
* For those who don't know better. Think of a solar facility as a giant parking lot, in this case one covering over two square miles. That's what solar does to an otherwise natural environment. It creates a wasteland beneath. When this scheme is abandoned, the land beneath may take a century to recover.
* Think of those giant windmills as oil derricks or a large refinery, but far higher and more numerous. That's what those windmills do to the natural air flow and migrating birds. They extract gigawatts out of nature, gigawatts that should be left undisturbed.
Do you really think all that meddling with nature isn't going to disrupt our environment in unhealthy ways?
1) We have no evidence there choice had anything to do with something as petty as Musk shit talking.
2) I would like to think Cook would go with whomever offered the best solution at the best price.