Interesting that they went with First Solar instead of Elon Musk's Solar City. I think Elon Musk should be careful about bad mouthing Apple in the future.
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.
The continued relationship with Samsung would back up Sols view.
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.
Well, it's not just Musk "shit talking" last week. It's obvious that there has been some bad blood between them for Musk to even make a comment in the first place. It's more than a "petty" thing. You don't diss the biggest company in the world casually.
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.
Cars kill millions of birds a year. So do cats and buildings (birds hitting windows). The only reason people are freaking out about windmills is that the birds killed all fall to the ground in a small confined area, thereby making it appear far worse than it really is.
Solar wastes land? 1300 acres is not that much. It's half the size of our farm, and as I think of all the land around me a large solar farm would be but a spec on the landscape, only visible (and possible obnoxious) to a small number of people.
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.
It's not on the Monterey Peninsula. I live in Carmel, this is down in South County in the boondocks.
It depends on what is on the land they're using. Cutting down 1300 acres of woodlands or taking over that size farm would have a net negative impact on the environment. Using an old parking lot/abandoned industrial complex, probably a net positive impact.
You don't diss the biggest company in the world casually.
1) Diss might not be the best choice of terms when making your point.
2) What does it matter, as previously noted Apple still works with Samsung.
3) If there was solid evidence Cook passed up a better and cheaper option because he felt "dissed" by Musk I would recommend to everyone to immediately stop holding Apple.
Hey Gov. Jerry "MoonBeam" Brown. How about a tree farm here, or organic tomatoes; a pasture for organic farmed animals, something natural and renewable that adds to the ecosystem and can be shared rather than hoarded and destroyed. And how much pollution was produced in the manufacture of those fancy panels? How much diesel exhaust will be spewed from the bull dozers that destroy this land in the "building" process? No. Underneath the sheen of Gore-land lies the selfish, California feel-good version of plow and pave. As always, nothing to do with Earth and everything to do with money. Tax breaks aplenty here folks. The Lorax. Staring Tim Cook as Aloysius O'Hare...
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.
Or use rooftops for the solar panels, similar to Germany, to at least cut down the area required over open land.
There's actually some theories that the earth just naturally produces petroleum.
:???: Of course it naturally produces petroleum (e.g.: anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms).
It's also creating more petroleum, it's just that it's doing it at a rate so far below our usage that it's, for all intents and purposes, nonrenewable.
Or use rooftops for the solar panels, similar to Germany, to at least cut down the area required over open land.
Seems like a great place. In the US, the solar panels don't fit into the decor very well. Has Germany made them blend into the architecture more naturally?
Perhaps someone should hold a lottery for the date when this almost billion dollar investment is abandoned as a waste of money. My guess is ten years at the outside.
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.
...
Do you really think all that meddling with nature isn't going to disrupt our environment in unhealthy ways?
1) Perhaps you should read up on fossil fuel discovery rates, resources, extraction rates, extraction costs and depletion rates and then think again.
2) I think that you will find that humans putting 400ppm of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere is meddling with nature.
Huh? Of course it naturally produces petroleum (e.g.: anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms).
It's also creating more petroleum, it's just that it's doing it at a rate so far below our usage that it's, for all intents and purposes, nonrenewable.
No, that it just naturally oozes it out, like some kind of waste product.
1300 acres sounds like a lot (and it is - about 2 square miles of solar panels, or thereabouts), but it's worth putting it into the context that 1300 acres is also 0.001 percent of the total land area of Cali. Considering that's more than enough to power the headquarters of the largest company in the world, that's not so bad.
As is noted, research is ongoing. Considering all that science gets wrong (or flat out lies about), healthy skepticism of any scientific theory is essential.
Elon Musk doesn't own or run SolarCity. It's a publicly traded company, and he is on the board of directors. The founders and CEO and CTO are his cousins Lyndon and Peter Rive. I believe Musk contributed to funding SolarCity's startup years ago, and I would assume he's still heavily invested. But I don't think he has anything to do with day to day operations at all. Also, I highly doubt the choice of FirstSolar over SolarCity has anything to do with any beef. I suspect it has to do with the fact that while SolarCity is the biggest thing around in the US as far as solar integrators go, they're primarily doing tons of individual residential stuff and medium commercial (all the solar on Wal-Mart roofs in CA, that's SolarCity), as opposed to large solar farm type stuff, which as projects go, are about a zillion times fewer and farther between than small residential systems, of which hundreds of new systems are installed every single day. SolarCity does some large solar farm type installations too (a recent big one in Hawaii comes to mind), but there are other players in that arena too, and I have to assume FirstSolar simply had the best bid for Apple's required size, and whatever other technical requirements.
Disclaimer: I work in the solar power industry, but I'm a tech person, not in sales or finances.
As is noted, research is ongoing. Considering all that science gets wrong (or flat out lies about), healthy skepticism of any scientific theory is essential.
Science doesn't lie. If a person lies about the results of an experiment they are not being scientific. The same goes for science getting it wrong. Only the interpretation, either accidentally or purposefully, can be wrong, but the data is the data. Now, the data could be wrong, but the data is result of the machines used to test and measure. This is why science is peer reviewed, hypotheses conceived, theories devised, and experiments are repeated. I have seen nothing more pure in this world than science.
These potential installations would have to pass extensive review processes by applicable government agencies for permission to build, and operate solar farms. After all that, I would suspect that there would still be portions of the near 94,000 square miles that the Federal Government manages that would be suitable for solar farms, even excepting Desert Tortoise and other species habitat.
Let's just say a couple of thousand square miles would be suitable and available for solar farms, and would actually be considered "best use".
Comments
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.
Well, it's not just Musk "shit talking" last week. It's obvious that there has been some bad blood between them for Musk to even make a comment in the first place. It's more than a "petty" thing. You don't diss the biggest company in the world casually.
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.
Cars kill millions of birds a year. So do cats and buildings (birds hitting windows). The only reason people are freaking out about windmills is that the birds killed all fall to the ground in a small confined area, thereby making it appear far worse than it really is.
Solar wastes land? 1300 acres is not that much. It's half the size of our farm, and as I think of all the land around me a large solar farm would be but a spec on the landscape, only visible (and possible obnoxious) to a small number of people.
It's not on the Monterey Peninsula. I live in Carmel, this is down in South County in the boondocks.
It depends on what is on the land they're using. Cutting down 1300 acres of woodlands or taking over that size farm would have a net negative impact on the environment. Using an old parking lot/abandoned industrial complex, probably a net positive impact.
1) Diss might not be the best choice of terms when making your point.
2) What does it matter, as previously noted Apple still works with Samsung.
3) If there was solid evidence Cook passed up a better and cheaper option because he felt "dissed" by Musk I would recommend to everyone to immediately stop holding Apple.
God wants us to use petroleum. That's why He created dinosaurs 6000 years ago, so we could have crude oil.
There's actually some theories that the earth just naturally produces petroleum.
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.
Or use rooftops for the solar panels, similar to Germany, to at least cut down the area required over open land.
What about thorium-based reactors or micro nukes?
:???: Of course it naturally produces petroleum (e.g.: anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms).
It's also creating more petroleum, it's just that it's doing it at a rate so far below our usage that it's, for all intents and purposes, nonrenewable.
Seems like a great place. In the US, the solar panels don't fit into the decor very well. Has Germany made them blend into the architecture more naturally?
I'm pro nuclear, but thorium-based reactors are new to me.
1) Perhaps you should read up on fossil fuel discovery rates, resources, extraction rates, extraction costs and depletion rates and then think again.
2) I think that you will find that humans putting 400ppm of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere is meddling with nature.
Greenfield :>}
Nope, not located in or near Greenfield. Looks to be built southwest in Cholame Valley: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27499134/apple-plans-850m-solar-plant-monterey-county-power
Huh? Of course it naturally produces petroleum (e.g.: anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms).
It's also creating more petroleum, it's just that it's doing it at a rate so far below our usage that it's, for all intents and purposes, nonrenewable.
No, that it just naturally oozes it out, like some kind of waste product.
1300 acres sounds like a lot (and it is - about 2 square miles of solar panels, or thereabouts), but it's worth putting it into the context that 1300 acres is also 0.001 percent of the total land area of Cali. Considering that's more than enough to power the headquarters of the largest company in the world, that's not so bad.
No, that it just naturally oozes it out, like some kind of waste product.
Haven't you heard? Scientists have proved it! (...or are "baffled", I don't remember which...)
WorldNetDaily says so!
Haven't you heard? Scientists have proved it! (...or are "baffled", I don't remember which...)
WorldNetDaily says so!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
As is noted, research is ongoing. Considering all that science gets wrong (or flat out lies about), healthy skepticism of any scientific theory is essential.
A few minor things on SolarCity:
Elon Musk doesn't own or run SolarCity. It's a publicly traded company, and he is on the board of directors. The founders and CEO and CTO are his cousins Lyndon and Peter Rive. I believe Musk contributed to funding SolarCity's startup years ago, and I would assume he's still heavily invested. But I don't think he has anything to do with day to day operations at all. Also, I highly doubt the choice of FirstSolar over SolarCity has anything to do with any beef. I suspect it has to do with the fact that while SolarCity is the biggest thing around in the US as far as solar integrators go, they're primarily doing tons of individual residential stuff and medium commercial (all the solar on Wal-Mart roofs in CA, that's SolarCity), as opposed to large solar farm type stuff, which as projects go, are about a zillion times fewer and farther between than small residential systems, of which hundreds of new systems are installed every single day. SolarCity does some large solar farm type installations too (a recent big one in Hawaii comes to mind), but there are other players in that arena too, and I have to assume FirstSolar simply had the best bid for Apple's required size, and whatever other technical requirements.
Disclaimer: I work in the solar power industry, but I'm a tech person, not in sales or finances.
Science doesn't lie. If a person lies about the results of an experiment they are not being scientific. The same goes for science getting it wrong. Only the interpretation, either accidentally or purposefully, can be wrong, but the data is the data. Now, the data could be wrong, but the data is result of the machines used to test and measure. This is why science is peer reviewed, hypotheses conceived, theories devised, and experiments are repeated. I have seen nothing more pure in this world than science.
[VIDEO]
Or use rooftops for the solar panels, similar to Germany, to at least cut down the area required over open land.
What about thorium-based reactors or micro nukes?
I live in Nevada.
These potential installations would have to pass extensive review processes by applicable government agencies for permission to build, and operate solar farms. After all that, I would suspect that there would still be portions of the near 94,000 square miles that the Federal Government manages that would be suitable for solar farms, even excepting Desert Tortoise and other species habitat.
Let's just say a couple of thousand square miles would be suitable and available for solar farms, and would actually be considered "best use".