The point is that Cook said that they are buying enough power to supply 60,000 homes. A megawatt to a house is a megawatt to a business. It doesn't matter that Apple isn't trying to power houses.
Nah, it's probably closer to $90 in 2015. I just picked $75 as a low-ball.
Note that California ranks 48th in residential electricity consumption.
Yes, because California's energy costs are double. So a bill that would be $75 elsewhere is $150 in CA. Most people in CA spend a lot of money on power.
Yes, because California's energy costs are double. So a bill that would be $75 elsewhere is $150 in CA. Most people in CA spend a lot of money on power.
This is not correct according to the page I referred to.
"The average residential electricity rate of 15.34¢/kWh in CA is 29.12% greater than the national average residential rate of 11.88¢/kWh."
That means a $75 average bill in the U.S. would be $97 in California. As mentioned before, California ranks 48th in residential electricity consumption; it ranks 42nd in the electricity bill amount due to higher electricity prices, but it's certainly not double.
Yes, because California's energy costs are double. So a bill that would be $75 elsewhere is $150 in CA. Most people in CA spend a lot of money on power.
Here's a table that shows some of that, though less dramatically than compared to other cities..:
The output (effect) is measured in (mega)watts, and if you multiply that by time, you get energy. So if you have 280 MW for one hour, that equals 280 megawatthours. So the plant should output 280MW every moment for however long it lasts. Every year, that should be ... 2459240 MWh (365*24*280MWh)
The sun is shining 24*365 in California?
BTW in a 25 years long period you should calculate the year with 365.25 days
This is not correct according to the page I referred to.
"The average residential electricity rate of 15.34¢/kWh in CA is 29.12% greater than the national average residential rate of 11.88¢/kWh."
That means a $75 average bill in the U.S. would be $97 in California. As mentioned before, California ranks 48th in residential electricity consumption; it ranks 42nd in the electricity bill amount due to higher electricity prices, but it's certainly not double.
You may be technically correct when the statistics are skewed with some tricks, but most residents in CA pay north of 20 cents when all fees are put in. They must be including rural areas and industrial users who import energy into the area from outside of CA.
Yes, because California's energy costs are double. So a bill that would be $75 elsewhere is $150 in CA. Most people in CA spend a lot of money on power. everything.
You may be technically correct when the statistics are skewed with some tricks, but most residents in CA pay north of 20 cents when all fees are put in. They must be including rural areas and industrial users who import energy into the area from outside of CA.
Most of LA's power comes from Arizona, specifically the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant. We threatened to cut them off when they raised a stink about SB1070 in 2010.
Apple is spending $848 million over 25 years for 130 MW of power. So $2.83 mil per month. 130 MW is of course the average for many more than 60,000 houses for the US so that does not seem correct. Based on average US house 130 MW would cover 105,000 homes. So $26 per house per month, seems like a pretty good deal, especially 25 years from now if there are no price escalation costs in the contract, and assuming that a 250 MW solar plant can really delivery 130 MW continuous power, which seems impossible. So it might just be Apple will take 130 MW during the time the plant can produce that much power and not averaged over a day.
I'd like to know just how "green" is PV in California, taking into account whole life costs and manufacturing impact. In the UK, it's now considered not a very green deal to have PV panels installed and Gov subsidies is the only way it breaks a profit. It looks good and it makes great PR for Apple, but is PV really green compared to other technologies?
I'd like to know just how "green" is PV in California, taking into account whole life costs and manufacturing impact. In the UK, it's now considered not a very green deal to have PV panels installed and Gov subsidies is the only way it breaks a profit.
It looks good and it makes great PR for Apple, but is PV really green compared to other technologies?
Not particularly, it makes people get warm fuzzies though. The battery technology just isn't there yet and the panels and batteries are an environmental disaster. Like hybrids, just a warm fuzzy idea.
I'd like to know just how "green" is PV in California, taking into account whole life costs and manufacturing impact. In the UK, it's now considered not a very green deal to have PV panels installed and Gov subsidies is the only way it breaks a profit.
It looks good and it makes great PR for Apple, but is PV really green compared to other technologies?
Doesn't nuclear still deliver more "bang for the buck" (pardon the expression)?
I am assuming there's a power purchase agreement with PG&E, and that PG&E, in turn, has a renewable energy mandate from the State of CA. (Otherwise neither Apple nor FirstSolar will do something like this).
Yep, that's about what I remembered. Thanks for finding those charts. I'd much rather more money were being poured by Apple into pebble bed reactor startups (Bill Gates is a big investor in one company) instead, but on paper I imagine Tim's done the math and made a deal that works for now.
Yep, that's about what I remembered. Thanks for finding those charts. I'd much rather more money were being poured by Apple into pebble bed reactor startups (Bill Gates is a big investor in one company) instead, but on paper I imagine Tim's done the math and made a deal that works for now.
Source? Time (i.e., year of publication)?
(I am quite pro-nuclear, but this does seem a bit low....)
Comments
The point is that Cook said that they are buying enough power to supply 60,000 homes. A megawatt to a house is a megawatt to a business. It doesn't matter that Apple isn't trying to power houses.
Nah, it's probably closer to $90 in 2015. I just picked $75 as a low-ball.
Here's one source that says $88: http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/
Note that California ranks 48th in residential electricity consumption.
Yes, because California's energy costs are double. So a bill that would be $75 elsewhere is $150 in CA. Most people in CA spend a lot of money on power.
Yes, because California's energy costs are double. So a bill that would be $75 elsewhere is $150 in CA. Most people in CA spend a lot of money on power.
This is not correct according to the page I referred to.
"The average residential electricity rate of 15.34¢/kWh in CA is 29.12% greater than the national average residential rate of 11.88¢/kWh."
That means a $75 average bill in the U.S. would be $97 in California. As mentioned before, California ranks 48th in residential electricity consumption; it ranks 42nd in the electricity bill amount due to higher electricity prices, but it's certainly not double.
Source: http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/
Yes, because California's energy costs are double. So a bill that would be $75 elsewhere is $150 in CA. Most people in CA spend a lot of money on power.
Here's a table that shows some of that, though less dramatically than compared to other cities..:
http://whitefenceindex.com/service/Electricity
The output (effect) is measured in (mega)watts, and if you multiply that by time, you get energy. So if you have 280 MW for one hour, that equals 280 megawatthours. So the plant should output 280MW every moment for however long it lasts. Every year, that should be ... 2459240 MWh (365*24*280MWh)
The sun is shining 24*365 in California?
BTW in a 25 years long period you should calculate the year with 365.25 days
This is not correct according to the page I referred to.
"The average residential electricity rate of 15.34¢/kWh in CA is 29.12% greater than the national average residential rate of 11.88¢/kWh."
That means a $75 average bill in the U.S. would be $97 in California. As mentioned before, California ranks 48th in residential electricity consumption; it ranks 42nd in the electricity bill amount due to higher electricity prices, but it's certainly not double.
Source: http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/
You may be technically correct when the statistics are skewed with some tricks, but most residents in CA pay north of 20 cents when all fees are put in. They must be including rural areas and industrial users who import energy into the area from outside of CA.
Yes, because California's energy costs are double. So a bill that would be $75 elsewhere is $150 in CA. Most people in CA spend a lot of money on power. everything.
FTFY.
You may be technically correct when the statistics are skewed with some tricks, but most residents in CA pay north of 20 cents when all fees are put in. They must be including rural areas and industrial users who import energy into the area from outside of CA.
Most of LA's power comes from Arizona, specifically the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant. We threatened to cut them off when they raised a stink about SB1070 in 2010.
Average US home use of electricity is 903 kWh/month, so 60,000 homes would be 541,800,000 kWh/moth or 74 MW for 60,000 houses, or 1.24 kW on average per house. Average monthly bill $107.28 (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/table5_a.pdf)
Apple is spending $848 million over 25 years for 130 MW of power. So $2.83 mil per month. 130 MW is of course the average for many more than 60,000 houses for the US so that does not seem correct. Based on average US house 130 MW would cover 105,000 homes. So $26 per house per month, seems like a pretty good deal, especially 25 years from now if there are no price escalation costs in the contract, and assuming that a 250 MW solar plant can really delivery 130 MW continuous power, which seems impossible. So it might just be Apple will take 130 MW during the time the plant can produce that much power and not averaged over a day.
It looks good and it makes great PR for Apple, but is PV really green compared to other technologies?
I'd like to know just how "green" is PV in California, taking into account whole life costs and manufacturing impact. In the UK, it's now considered not a very green deal to have PV panels installed and Gov subsidies is the only way it breaks a profit.
It looks good and it makes great PR for Apple, but is PV really green compared to other technologies?
Not particularly, it makes people get warm fuzzies though. The battery technology just isn't there yet and the panels and batteries are an environmental disaster. Like hybrids, just a warm fuzzy idea.
I'd like to know just how "green" is PV in California, taking into account whole life costs and manufacturing impact. In the UK, it's now considered not a very green deal to have PV panels installed and Gov subsidies is the only way it breaks a profit.
It looks good and it makes great PR for Apple, but is PV really green compared to other technologies?
Doesn't nuclear still deliver more "bang for the buck" (pardon the expression)?
Yep.
So how do we know this isn't just another GTAT?
I am assuming there's a power purchase agreement with PG&E, and that PG&E, in turn, has a renewable energy mandate from the State of CA. (Otherwise neither Apple nor FirstSolar will do something like this).
PG&E is no GTAT.
So how do we know this isn't just another GTAT?
Good question.
Actually, it's a somewhat stupid question.
Yep.
Yep, that's about what I remembered. Thanks for finding those charts. I'd much rather more money were being poured by Apple into pebble bed reactor startups (Bill Gates is a big investor in one company) instead, but on paper I imagine Tim's done the math and made a deal that works for now.
Yep.
Yep, that's about what I remembered. Thanks for finding those charts. I'd much rather more money were being poured by Apple into pebble bed reactor startups (Bill Gates is a big investor in one company) instead, but on paper I imagine Tim's done the math and made a deal that works for now.
Source? Time (i.e., year of publication)?
(I am quite pro-nuclear, but this does seem a bit low....)
Source? Time (i.e., year of publication)?
(I am quite pro-nuclear, but this does seem a bit low....)
The second chart attributes the US Dept. of Energy, 2009.
(I am quite pro-nuclear, but this does seem a bit low....)
Aught nine for the second one… I’m pretty sure the first is costs in aught eight, though it might be newer.
Sorry they’re not the same units, too; I couldn’t find one with all of the energy sources that worked in kWh.
Aught nine for the second one… I’m pretty sure the first is costs in aught eight, though it might be newer.
Sorry they’re not the same units, too; I couldn’t find one with all of the energy sources that worked in kWh.
Here's a newer source with 2012 data for estimated 2019 costs, plus numerous other sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Forgive me, that’s before subsidy, right? It wouldn’t be possible to have a single chart and incorporate the different subsidies for all nations.