Apple to buy $850M worth of energy from solar farm in Monterey County, Calif. in 'ambitious' deal [u

1246713

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 256
    I am in favor of this but have some concerns/questions.

    It appears that Apple has made a way to make this financially attractive -- that is good, and as an AAPL shareholder, I welcome it.

    I don't want to get into the whole [I] global warming, settled science, green is good [/I] discussion -- those subjects are too pregnant with opportunity for personal, political and financial exploitation.

    I have, both, used solar power to advantage (heating a large swimming pool) -- and to disadvantage (heating water for a small home) ... so, I am willing to consider solar on a case-by-case basis.

    Some concerns:

    [LIST=1]
    [*] the total costs, including the cost of land, the preparation of the land, the loss of this land for other uses, manufacturing and maintenance costs
    [*] the jobs benefit appears to be a temporary one -- so I don't believe it it should directly offset costs
    [*] the long-term costs of defacing otherwise pristine land
    [*] the effect of altering the environment
    [*]
    [/LIST]

    Numbers 3 and 4 are the great unknowns -- and my biggest concerns.

    Some people decry the damage of strip mining lush mountain tops, yet are unconcerned with cutting down forests or turning farm fields and desert areas into solar farms ...

    Lush mountain tops and forests can recover, naturally over a life time (faster with some help) -- to a lesser extent farm fields. However, thedesert landscape is among the most fragile (and inter-dependent) on earth.

    You may ask: So what:

    Here's what: every 3-7 years if the winter rains come at the right time and in the right amount -- the following spring they trigger an explosion of bloom in the desert .... literally beautiful landscape as far as the eye can see:


    [IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/55259/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]


    Surf for desert bloom to see more images.

    It is as breathtaking as anything I've seen. It only lasts for a week or so, but during that time the desert flora and fauna go through a complete life cycle in preparation for the next time the conditions are right.

    A desert landscape filled with solar panels will lose this chance at renewal ... at what cost?


    Another concern, can most easily be detected in urban desert areas such as Phoenix -- Heat Islands.

    Heat islands occur when the hot sun is absorbed by roads, parking lots, rooftops and other man-made structures (solar panels/farms) during the day. The same hot sun shines on the surrounding suburban and desert areas. However these natrually absorb less heat and cool faster than the urban concentration of heat-absorbing man-made materials. The result is that the urban center can reach and maintain temperatures (day and night) that are several degrees higher than the more pristine surrounding areas.

    Some might even claim that heat islands contribute to Phoenician Warming ...

    An earlier poster linked to a site that proposed solar roadways, parking lots, driveways ... Solar every where! The site even suggested that, in cold climates, the roadways, parking lots, etc. -- could be kept heated to just above freezing to avoid being covered by snow or ice. I have to wonder what effect that heat absorbing material would have on the normal winter cycle -- might we have heat islands in the winter in Boston, Green Bay ...


    There once was a time, not too long ago, where much of the unpopulated areas of California would bloom every spring with golden poppies:

    [IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/55262/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]


    Today, for whatever reasons, you see a sight like this infrequently ... the California Golden Poppy has become a protected species.


    My point in all this, is: Do the benefits of Solar Farms outweigh the long-term costs of defacing otherwise pristine land -- and the effect of altering the environment?
  • Reply 62 of 256
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,465member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacTac View Post

     

    Stanford University calculated the amount of energy used to create every solar panel ever made and the amount of energy produced by all of those solar panels. We might reach the break even point by 2018.

     

    More importantly, California is in a drought. Studies have shown that California has had drought of up to 240 years long in the past. Where is all the water going to come from to keep all these solar panels clean so that they produce electricity?


     

    http://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/2010-california-water-use.html

     

    Of all water use, agriculture is 74%, and you are concerned about the water needed to clean solar panels? You need a sense of proportionality.

     

    I would be concerned if the lifespan of solar panels was a few years, but I suspect that it will be decades, and if you study the issue, the majority of panels in use today would be a few years old at most, so payback seems pretty reasonable.

  • Reply 63 of 256

    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

     

    Here's a good article for "the science is settled" types.

     

    I agree with Tim on most things, but he's wrong on global warming.

  • Reply 64 of 256

    In looking at the Apple Campus that is under construction (http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/19/video-shows-high-quality-3d-render-of-apples-spaceship-campus-2), solar panels are planned to cover the roof & all remote parking garages. However, green space is the theme, consisting of trees, shrubs, grasses, flowers etc., is what the employees, & perhaps neighbors, will see. I don't know if its 1300 acres of trees, but for the most part, solar panels will be out-of-sight. Whether an eyesore, heat, birds or other considerations, decisions were made not to put the solar farm on campus. It appears that at least one side of the NC solar farm has a berm which maintains a green space, reducing visibility of the mechanical infrastructure & panels.(http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/14/aerial_photos_show_apples_massive_nc_solar_farm_near_completion).

  • Reply 65 of 256
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,465member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post



    I am in favor of this but have some concerns/questions.



    It appears that Apple has made a way to make this financially attractive -- that is good, and as an AAPL shareholder, I welcome it.



    I don't want to get into the whole global warming, settled science, green is good discussion -- those subjects are too pregnant with opportunity for personal, political and financial exploitation.



    I have, both, used solar power to advantage (heating a large swimming pool) -- and to disadvantage (heating water for a small home) ... so, I am willing to consider solar on a case-by-case basis.



    Some concerns:

    1. the total costs, including the cost of land, the preparation of the land, the loss of this land for other uses, manufacturing and maintenance costs

    2. the jobs benefit appears to be a temporary one -- so I don't believe it it should directly offset costs

    3. the long-term costs of defacing otherwise pristine land

    4. the effect of altering the environment

    5.  


    Numbers 3 and 4 are the great unknowns -- and my biggest concerns.



    Some people decry the damage of strip mining lush mountain tops, yet are unconcerned with cutting down forests or turning farm fields and desert areas into solar farms ...



    Lush mountain tops and forests can recover, naturally over a life time (faster with some help) -- to a lesser extent farm fields. However, thedesert landscape is among the most fragile (and inter-dependent) on earth.



    You may ask: So what:



    Here's what: every 3-7 years if the winter rains come at the right time and in the right amount -- the following spring they trigger an explosion of bloom in the desert .... literally beautiful landscape as far as the eye can see:











    Surf for desert bloom to see more images.



    It is as breathtaking as anything I've seen. It only lasts for a week or so, but during that time the desert flora and fauna go through a complete life cycle in preparation for the next time the conditions are right.



    A desert landscape filled with solar panels will lose this chance at renewal ... at what cost?





    Another concern, can most easily be detected in urban desert areas such as Phoenix -- Heat Islands.



    Heat islands occur when the hot sun is absorbed by roads, parking lots, rooftops and other man-made structures (solar panels/farms) during the day. The same hot sun shines on the surrounding suburban and desert areas. However these natrually absorb less heat and cool faster than the urban concentration of heat-absorbing man-made materials. The result is that the urban center can reach and maintain temperatures (day and night) that are several degrees higher than the more pristine surrounding areas.



    Some might even claim that heat islands contribute to Phoenician Warming ...



    An earlier poster linked to a site that proposed solar roadways, parking lots, driveways ... Solar every where! The site even suggested that, in cold climates, the roadways, parking lots, etc. -- could be kept heated to just above freezing to avoid being covered by snow or ice. I have to wonder what effect that heat absorbing material would have on the normal winter cycle -- might we have heat islands in the winter in Boston, Green Bay ...





    There once was a time, not too long ago, where much of the unpopulated areas of California would bloom every spring with golden poppies:









    Today, for whatever reasons, you see a sight like this infrequently ... the California Golden Poppy has become a protected species.





    My point in all this, is: Do the benefits of Solar Farms outweigh the long-term costs of defacing otherwise pristine land -- and the effect of altering the environment?

     

    "My point in all this, is: Do the benefits of Solar Farms outweigh the long-term costs of defacing otherwise pristine land -- and the effect of altering the environment?"

     

    When I was in college, I worked summers fighting wildfire in the West and later in Alaska. It would be accurate for me to tell you that the fire season in the West is months longer than the late 70's and 80's when I was involved; arguably, this is climate change in action.

     

    Having been downwind of the Rim Fire in Yosemite for nearly a month, I can tell you that burning 400 square miles of forest and watershed is incredibly destructive. The next year, I was able to see the head of the King Fire (156 square miles) from Reno when it was making a run of some 10 miles northeast and nearly into the Lake Tahoe Basin management area. I give you these examples so that you have an idea of proportionality. Apple is building a solar farm within 2 square miles of what would appear to be reclaimed land from extraction industry, and act which would serve to mitigate some of the greenhouse gas production that might directly be effecting Western lands.

     

    You are making your case based on photos of beautiful lands lush with flowers, but my case is on much of the land in the West where "best use" might include solar farms, certainly on much of it which wouldn't meet the term "scenic".

  • Reply 66 of 256
    A friend once explained to me that the cosmos is an entropy -- anything [B][I] we [/I][/B] do to change it, [for the better] makes it worse ...
  • Reply 67 of 256
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Has there been major improvements in how effectively solar energy is harvested?
    Technology continues to march forward, what actually get implemented at this farm is another question.
    What about costs of materials?
    Most of this stuff is now produced in China. If Tim really wanted to impress he would demand as much American made materials as possible.
    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.

    You don't need all of that non sense to question the validity of human caused global warming. You do realize that all 114 models used to support claims of global warming FAILED to predict the rather cool climate for the entire decade that just passed. The scientist claiming global warming don't even deny this but still stand by their models. The latest boondogle is looking for all of the "missing" heat.

    The biggest problem with these solar farms is the dramatic waste of land. The claim here is 1300 acres which would have been two family farms where I grew up. The displacement of wildlife is also troubling. Look at it this way, one can strip mine 1300 acres for what ever and fifteen years later you will have a young forest growing in hat location. A plant like this wastes that land forever.
  • Reply 68 of 256
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,397member
    A friend once explained to me that the cosmos is an entropy -- anything we do to change it, [for the better] makes it worse ...

    That's the problem in a nut shell. There are simply too many of these pesky human critters for the balance of nature.
  • Reply 69 of 256
    tmay wrote: »

    "My point in all this, is: Do the benefits of Solar Farms outweigh the long-term costs of defacing otherwise pristine land -- and the effect of altering the environment?"

    When I was in college, I worked summers fighting wildfire in the West and later in Alaska. It would be accurate for me to tell you that the fire season in the West is months longer than the late 70's and 80's when I was involved; arguably, this is climate change in action.

    Having been downwind of the Rim Fire in Yosemite for nearly a month, I can tell you that burning 400 square miles of forest and watershed is incredibly destructive. The next year, I was able to see the head of the King Fire (156 square miles) from Reno when it was making a run of some 10 miles northeast and nearly into the Lake Tahoe Basin management area. I give you these examples so that you have an idea of proportionality. Apple is building a solar farm within 2 square miles of what would appear to be reclaimed land from extraction industry, and act which would serve to mitigate some of the greenhouse gas production that might directly be effecting Western lands.

    You are making your case based on photos of beautiful lands lush with flowers, but my case is on much of the land in the West where "best use" might include solar farms, certainly on much of it which wouldn't meet the term "scenic".

    Your case for the specific use of land for this Apple solar farm may be valid. But, multiply that by a thousand, or hundreds of thousands who might follow in Apple's steps ...

    Also, many (if not most) forest fires are a natural occurrence -- caused by lightening ...

    Temporary scorching of the land is part of the renewal process for some trees ...
  • Reply 70 of 256
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,397member
    wizard69 wrote: »

    partial quote

    The biggest problem with these solar farms is the dramatic waste of land. The claim here is 1300 acres which would have been two family farms where I grew up. The displacement of wildlife is also troubling. Look at it this way, one can strip mine 1300 acres for what ever and fifteen years later you will have a young forest growing in hat location. A plant like this wastes that land forever.

    I must say, given electricity can be easily 'moved' from the point of origin, it occurs to me that using desert areas for solar arrays would seem to be the most sensible way forward. Meanwhile the Brits are exploring some interesting use of tidal flows and sea currents. Wasting good land does not make sense to me.
  • Reply 71 of 256
    wizard69 wrote: »

    partial quote

    The biggest problem with these solar farms is the dramatic waste of land. The claim here is 1300 acres which would have been two family farms where I grew up. The displacement of wildlife is also troubling. Look at it this way, one can strip mine 1300 acres for what ever and fifteen years later you will have a young forest growing in hat location. A plant like this wastes that land forever.

    I must say, given electricity can be easily 'moved' from the point of origin, it occurs to me that using desert areas for solar arrays would seem to be the most sensible way forward.

    How about marshes, tidal areas and swamp lands?

    Edit: and Detroit and the South side of Chicago ...
     
  • Reply 72 of 256
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    sflocal wrote: »
    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.
    The waste is pretty pathetic. People don't often understand just what 1300 acres is, a farm of that size could feed thousands every year.
    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.
    I agree 100%. In fact I'd vote for any person running for president that would put a stop to this land waste.
    Solar farms wastes land, Windmills kills thousands of birds a year, solar collectors fry birds in mid-air... there is a cost.
    The number of birds killed by windmills isn't even worth discussion, cats kill more birds in an hour than windmills do in a year. In fact I'm not even sure how dead birds became a subject of concern, I think it is just a few nut cases looking for something to protest.

    The interesting thing about windmills is their ability to fit into industrial locations with a minimal of impact. One guy near by runs his plastics plant on Windmills, cogeneration and other green measures. They are a great solution for businesses.
    Me no like this.

    I have mixed feelings. For one I really doubt it is as cost efficient as Tim claims. I've done the numbers for my home a number of times and it has never looked good. That may be due to cheap hydro power. In any event I'm really disgusted by the waste of land.
  • Reply 73 of 256
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    slurpy wrote: »
    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?
    All of those would be better than sitting a solar plant on all of that land. Another possibility is simply to keep it all wild.
    It just seems like a more efficient, beneficial, and cleaner use of land than almost everything else one can think of building. 
    Think harder! Almost any other use would leave a considerable amount of that land accessible for natural growth. By design a solar farm blanks out all of the land involved.

    Also whatever vegetation that may have existed there can not be allowed to grow. That has a significant imoact on local temperatures, CO2 digestion and the other benefits of "forests".
    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. 

    Windmills are far more cost effective.
  • Reply 74 of 256
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,465member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post





    Your case for the specific use of land for this Apple solar farm may be valid. But, multiply that by a thousand, or hundreds of thousands who might follow in Apple's steps ...



    Also, many (if not most) forest fires are a natural occurrence -- caused by lightening ...



    Temporary scorching of the land is part of the renewal process for some trees ...

    Those two were man caused, as are most of the largest in California history, but otherwise, most are lighting related, and yes some trees require fire to germinate, such as the Sequoia, but those would be low intensity fires. 

     

    As I stated in an earlier post, and at least on Federally managed lands, there are extensive processes in place to minimize environmental impact and improper siting. I would guess that this is true for California State managed lands and private lands.

     

    My point being that Climate Change has been having adverse effects that far outweigh your concerns, and I wonder if this is in fact a case of NIMBY on your part?

  • Reply 75 of 256
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post



    Has there been major improvements in how effectively solar energy is harvested? What about costs of materials?

    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.

     

    That's a bit condescending, don't you think? I'm glad that Tim Cook is doing this (1. It's his decision to make; 2. clean energy is a good thing if you can afford it; 3. if it makes any sort of financial sense, all the more reason). The only thing I don't like is that it is feeding into the global warming hysteria, which I see a net negative for the environment (FWIW, I feel the environment should be a top priority, and I donate to Conservation International monthly):

     

    The hysteria around global warming is a complete joke. It's basically almost-daily predictions of doom and gloom, which are conveyed with 100% conviction (not scientific), and which ignore the fact that these models have historically been way off the mark, hence going from "global warming," (when warming was predicted), to "climate change" (when cooling was predicted), to 'global wierding' where any adverse weather event is attributed to global warming (when it looked like the temp was not moving), and now back to "global warming" (since the latest models are again suggesting a warming period). Even assuming these predictions are accurate, there is no evidence of a reasonable way to improve the situation. Even if there was a way (sequestration? what a joke), reducing carbon emissions is not going to be effective if only developed nations do it (anyone who thinks China, or India, is serious about cutting emissions is kidding themselves). Meanwhile, there's a summit about every two months where the leaders of the world expend and enormous amount of resources (i.e. energy, i.e. CO2) to try to convince people that there is a problem and they're doing something about it, while at the same time making political overtures. If that wasn't enough evidence that this movement is bs, the one thing that would best improve the climate issues they're predicting, which is preservation of habitat (forests, wetlands, oceans, etc.), is the last thing that is ever discussed; and it is also something that you cannot get carbon credits for. I don't think it is a coincidence that you cannot get carbon credits for preserving habitat, nor do I see it as a coincidence that the powers that be (goldman sachs, energy companies..) and those that are heavily invested in renewable energy (al gore) are the ones investing in carbon credit exchanges. There's no conspiracy needed; these things are facts. Also, the carbon exchanges are known to have issues with fraud .

     

    Probably the thing that irks me the most about the climate hysteria (other than the condescending, myopic views of its proponents), is that it is a distraction from environmental issues that 1) Are important NOW, and 2) We can concretely and effectively DO SOMETHING about: these issues include but are not limited to: habitat destruction, pollution (CO2 is plant food, not pollution), sustainability, fishery preservation, invasive species, species preservation, etc.

     

    I welcome any responses, pro or con, to my post; I'd appreciate different viewpoints. Please keep in mind that I'm not saying humans have no impact on the climate, just pointing out that there's reason to be skeptical about the scope of it, and that the movement in general is full of inconsistencies and distractions.

     

    In case I haven't been indulgent enough, here's my zany solution for solving the issue of CO2 emissions (assuming it's an actual problem), which I haven't heard before, and which seems to me the only reasonable way of even approximating the influence on CO2 that is needed to affect any change (BTW, for those that don't know, CO2 takes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere, at most): pipe human waste to ocean areas where downwelling occurs (e.g. subtropical gyres). Human waste is full of the nitrogen and phosphates that cause oceanic microorganisms to flourish (often resulting in toxic red tides when concentrated near the coast). If this microorganism hyper-growth takes place at a downwelling gyre, these organisms (e.g. diatoms, algae, etc.) will sink to the bottom (that's how the cliffs of Dover were formed), thus effectively "sequestering" the carbon that they're made up of. I'll take my Nobel prize now, thanks.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    God wants us to use petroleum. That's why He created dinosaurs 6000 years ago, so we could have crude oil.

     

    I think you (and Solipsism) will find this entertaining :)

     

    http://www.gomerblog.com/2014/07/god-cancer/

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Inkling View Post



    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. 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?



    Everything about this post is absurd.

  • Reply 76 of 256
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,397member
    That's a bit condescending, don't you think? I'm glad that Tim Cook is doing this (1. It's his decision to make; 2. clean energy is a good thing if you can afford it; 3. if it makes any sort of financial sense, all the more reason). The only thing I don't like is that it is feeding into the global warming hysteria, which I see a net negative for the environment (FWIW, I feel the environment should be a top priority, and I donate to Conservation International monthly):

    The hysteria around global warming is a complete joke. It's basically almost-daily predictions of doom and gloom, which are conveyed with 100% conviction (not scientific), and which ignore the fact that these models have historically been way off the mark, hence going from "global warming," (when warming was predicted), to "climate change" (when cooling was predicted), to 'global wierding' where any adverse weather event is attributed to global warming (when it looked like the temp was not moving), and now back to "global warming" (since the latest models are again suggesting a warming period). Even assuming these predictions are accurate, there is no evidence of a reasonable way to improve the situation. Even if there was a way (sequestration? what a joke), reducing carbon emissions is not going to be effective if only developed nations do it (anyone who thinks China, or India, is serious about cutting emissions is kidding themselves). Meanwhile, there's a summit about every two months where the leaders of the world expend and enormous amount of resources (i.e. energy, i.e. CO2) to try to convince people that there is a problem and they're doing something about it, while at the same time making political overtures. If that wasn't enough evidence that this movement is bs, the one thing that would best improve the climate issues they're predicting, which is preservation of habitat (forrests, wetlands, oceans, etc.), is the last thing that is ever discussed; and it is also something that you cannot get carbon credits for. I don't think it is a coincidence that you cannot get carbon credits for preserving habitat, nor do I see it as a coincidence that the powers that be (goldman sachs, energy companies..) and those that are heavily invested in renewable energy (al gore) are the ones investing in carbon credit exchanges. There's no conspiracy needed; these things are facts.  Also, the carbon exchanges are known to have issues with fraud .

    Probably the thing that irks me the most about the climate hysteria (other than the condescending, myopic views of its proponents), is that it is a distraction from environmental issues that 1) Are important NOW, and 2) We can concretely and effectively DO SOMETHING about: these issues include but are not limited to: habitat destruction, pollution (CO2 is plant food, not pollution), sustainability, fishery preservation, invasive species, species preservation, etc.

    I welcome any responses, pro or con, to my post; I'd appreciate different viewpoints. Please keep in mind that I'm not saying humans have no impact on the climate, just pointing out that there's reason to be skeptical about the scope of it, and that the movement in general is full of inconsistencies and distractions.

    In case I haven't been indulgent enough, here's my zany solution for solving the issue of CO2 emissions (assuming it's an actual problem), which I haven't heard before, and which seems to me the only reasonable way of even approximating the influence on CO2 that is needed to affect any change (BTW, for those that don't know, CO2 takes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere, at most): pipe human waste to ocean areas where downwelling occurs (e.g. subtropical gyres). Human waste is full of the nitrogen and phosphates that cause oceanic microorganisms to flourish (often resulting in toxic red tides when concentrated near the coast). If this microorganism hyper-growth takes place at a downwelling gyre, these organisms (e.g. diatoms, algae, etc.) will sink to the bottom (that's how the cliffs of Dover were formed), thus effectively "sequestering" the carbon that they're made up of. I'll take my Nobel prize now, thanks.


    I think you'll find this very entertaining :)

    http://www.gomerblog.com/2014/07/god-cancer/


    Everything about this post is absurd.

    Your understanding of science is interesting to say the least.
  • Reply 77 of 256
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    You are all over the map here.
    inkling wrote: »
    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.
    I'm thinking 20 for it to really be outmoded. Mainly because I'm expecting clean fusion energy in that time frame.
    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.
    Diversification is always good when it comes to energy, especially with the volatility in costs.
    * 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.
    This bothers me more than anything.
    * 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.
    Actually if the globe is actually warming then windmills make even more sense as they would Harvest that extra energy.
    Do you really think all that meddling with nature isn't going to disrupt our environment in unhealthy ways?

    The nature of life, human life that is, is to meddle. We really have no choice as the population is growing way to fast. One of the advantages of a World War 3, is that a wide spread nuclear war would check that problem of population growth. That would be a heavy handed way to address the population issue but there are few examples of other successful approaches.

    Of course WW3 would be a disruption in a most unhealthy way. On the other hand it is hard to believe that humanity in its current state can exist without a significant impact on the environment. The goal should be to select those soultions that minimize our impact on the environment. In this regard I really believe these massive solar farms are just plain stupid.
  • Reply 78 of 256
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    Your understanding of science is interesting to say the least.



    Please elaborate.

  • Reply 79 of 256
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member

    There's actually some theories that the earth just naturally produces petroleum.

    Even people deep into the technology of Oil aren't certian what actually produces it. Personally I never bought into the idea that dead dinosaurs are responsible. It is interesting that oil fields have been known to recover from being pumped out.
  • Reply 80 of 256
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,397member
    How about marshes, tidal areas and swamp lands?

    Edit: and Detroit and the South side of Chicago ...
     

    Ouch. I'll keep out of selecting urban areas, i assume that is American cultural humor which as an ex Brit I'm not qualified to comment on.

    Tidal areas are too important to mess with in most cases. I am not sure what the definition of swamp lands is but basically the less life there and the more sun the better. I still feel land is important wherever it is but solar arrays can be removed as technology advances. It seems pretty predictable that in a few years we will get exponentially more energy from less hardware, We just have to be careful we didn't annihilate several species in the process. I really suspect the energy in oceanic currents has massive potential (pun not intended lol).
Sign In or Register to comment.