Apple to use 85 Tesla 'Megapack' batteries in California energy project

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 2021
Apple will use an array of Tesla "Megapack" batteries for a grid-scale energy storage project at its solar farm in California, according to a report on Wednesday.

Tesla Megapack


Announced today, Apple's program is designed to store some 240 megawatt-hours of energy -- enough to power more than 7,000 homes for a day -- at the company's 130-megawatt California Flats solar farm. The project is being hailed by the tech giant as one of the largest battery projects in the country.

According to documents filed with the Monterey County Board of Supervisors in 2020, and unearthed by The Verge, Apple plans to use 85 Tesla lithium-ion Megapacks as part of the initiative. Some of the energy stored in the batteries will reportedly be used to power Apple Park in Cupertino.

Unveiled in 2019, the Megapack is designed for installation at emissions-free power plants and acts as an alternative to so-called "peaker plants," or plants that serve as backups for local utility grids. The batteries come fully assembled with up to 3 megawatt-hours (MWhs) of storage and 1.5 MW of inverter capacity, Tesla says.

As noted by The Verge, Apple's 60MW installation is not the biggest Tesla has seen. Megapack setups of about 100MW were previously installed in Australia and Houston, Texas.

Though Apple and Tesla operate in largely different market sectors, the former's ambitions in the electric vehicle industry has caused friction in recent years. Poaching between the two companies accelerated in about 2015, with Tesla CEO Elon Musk infamously calling Apple the "Tesla graveyard." Musk in December said that he reached out to Apple CEO Tim Cook during the "darkest days of the Model 3 program" to discuss a potential buyout but was refused a meeting.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    cg27cg27 Posts: 213member
    Courting, how beautiful.
    baconstangkurai_kagewatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 18
    byronlbyronl Posts: 363member
    as they should
    kurai_kage
  • Reply 3 of 18
    rcfarcfa Posts: 1,124member
    Disgusting greenwashing effort! Environmentally sound and sustainable energy production is more than just measuring CO2 output.

    These batteries are responsible for the destruction of a unique and sensitive ecosystem, destroying the livelihoods of indigenous people, and are hugely resource intensive for the energy they provide.

    Solar panels by themselves have a single digit EROI, by the time batteries and charging/discharging losses are factored in, it looks even worse.

    If Apple weren’t concerned with catering to the brainwashed “woke”, but would run the actual numbers, they would pursue nuclear power like Gates, and listen to people like Shellenberger…

    https://youtu.be/ciStnd9Y2ak
    beowulfschmidtjony0
  • Reply 4 of 18
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    rcfa said:
    Disgusting greenwashing effort! Environmentally sound and sustainable energy production is more than just measuring CO2 output.

    These batteries are responsible for the destruction of a unique and sensitive ecosystem, destroying the livelihoods of indigenous people, and are hugely resource intensive for the energy they provide.

    Solar panels by themselves have a single digit EROI, by the time batteries and charging/discharging losses are factored in, it looks even worse.

    If Apple weren’t concerned with catering to the brainwashed “woke”, but would run the actual numbers, they would pursue nuclear power like Gates, and listen to people like Shellenberger…

    https://youtu.be/ciStnd9Y2ak

    Yes, nuclear makes sense.
    Unfortunately, the technology has been undermined by human stupidity:   The major failures have all been attributed to human error either in design or operation.   For instance: Fukushima not only put its reactor on an ocean known for tsunamis, protected it with an inadequate sea wall, then put its controls in a basement where they could be flooded.

    For nuclear to work we would have end human stupidity.  I don't think that will happen anytime soon.
    kurai_kageStrangeDaysjony0
  • Reply 5 of 18
    WgkruegerWgkrueger Posts: 352member
    GeorgeBMac said:
    rcfa said:
    Disgusting greenwashing effort! Environmentally sound and sustainable energy production is more than just measuring CO2 output.

    These batteries are responsible for the destruction of a unique and sensitive ecosystem, destroying the livelihoods of indigenous people, and are hugely resource intensive for the energy they provide.

    Solar panels by themselves have a single digit EROI, by the time batteries and charging/discharging losses are factored in, it looks even worse.

    If Apple weren’t concerned with catering to the brainwashed “woke”, but would run the actual numbers, they would pursue nuclear power like Gates, and listen to people like Shellenberger…

    https://youtu.be/ciStnd9Y2ak

    Yes, nuclear makes sense.
    Unfortunately, the technology has been undermined by human stupidity:   The major failures have all been attributed to human error either in design or operation.   For instance: Fukushima not only put its reactor on an ocean known for tsunamis, protected it with an inadequate sea wall, then put its controls in a basement where they could be flooded.

    For nuclear to work we would have end human stupidity.  I don't think that will happen anytime soon.
    Human error is inescapable. Nuclear fuel requires precision handling. The two don’t mix. How big of a nuclear accident do you need to change your mind?
    byronlkurai_kageStrangeDaysRayz2016
  • Reply 6 of 18
    Alex_VAlex_V Posts: 217member
    Once more, in short: The problem with nuclear technology is that it uses the most toxic substances known to humans. They remain toxic for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. They are dangerous in use and there is no completely secure way to dispose of spent fuel. The second problem is that the price of electricity from nuclear does not account for disposal of the spent fuel. Nuclear power is “competitive” only if you ignore the cost of disposal of fuel, dismantling the reactors etc at the end of life. How much does it cost to dispose of waste safely? Incalculable, because you have to watch over it forever. Who pays to dispose of waste and dismantle old reactors? Governments do, tax payers do. Who doesn't pay? The companies that run the nuclear power plants, who have no intention of incurring the cost of disposal. Privatise the profits, socialise the costs. The risks associated with nuclear power necessitate a highly militarised and policed society to secure the nuclear industry that is inherently secretive and security-obsessed, for obvious reasons. We citizens cede some of our liberty in order to afford such a dangerous technology in our midst. In contrast: solar and wind power have have no equivalent risks, they can be implemented at small-scale by us citizens in our backyard on roof etc. They are inherently more democratic.
    kurai_kageStrangeDayscolinngmuthuk_vanalingamblurpbleepbloop
  • Reply 7 of 18
    mknelsonmknelson Posts: 1,126member
    rcfa said:
    Disgusting greenwashing effort! Environmentally sound and sustainable energy production is more than just measuring CO2 output.

    These batteries are responsible for the destruction of a unique and sensitive ecosystem, destroying the livelihoods of indigenous people, and are hugely resource intensive for the energy they provide.

    Solar panels by themselves have a single digit EROI, by the time batteries and charging/discharging losses are factored in, it looks even worse.

    If Apple weren’t concerned with catering to the brainwashed “woke”, but would run the actual numbers, they would pursue nuclear power like Gates, and listen to people like Shellenberger…

    https://youtu.be/ciStnd9Y2ak
    You're talking about Lithium or Cobalt? I know I've seen that vague messaging before.

    Lithium and Cobalt mining, like any mining, can be done responsibly and it can be done very badly. Chile has done it very badly with regards to Lithium. The DRC on Cobalt is epically bad.

    There are a variety of battery technologies in the works to reduce reliance on both.

    As or Nuclear - there are some designs that "burn" Plutonium and other waste product from older reactors. The results have much shorter half lives.
    GeorgeBMacjony0
  • Reply 8 of 18
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,881member
    rcfa said:
    Disgusting greenwashing effort! Environmentally sound and sustainable energy production is more than just measuring CO2 output.

    These batteries are responsible for the destruction of a unique and sensitive ecosystem, destroying the livelihoods of indigenous people, and are hugely resource intensive for the energy they provide.

    Solar panels by themselves have a single digit EROI, by the time batteries and charging/discharging losses are factored in, it looks even worse.

    If Apple weren’t concerned with catering to the brainwashed “woke”, but would run the actual numbers, they would pursue nuclear power like Gates, and listen to people like Shellenberger…

    https://youtu.be/ciStnd9Y2ak
    Yeah, Apple isn’t known for running the numbers, lol.... You sound ridiculous in addition to ignorant. 
    edited April 2021 Rayz2016watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 18
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Wgkrueger said:
    GeorgeBMac said:
    rcfa said:
    Disgusting greenwashing effort! Environmentally sound and sustainable energy production is more than just measuring CO2 output.

    These batteries are responsible for the destruction of a unique and sensitive ecosystem, destroying the livelihoods of indigenous people, and are hugely resource intensive for the energy they provide.

    Solar panels by themselves have a single digit EROI, by the time batteries and charging/discharging losses are factored in, it looks even worse.

    If Apple weren’t concerned with catering to the brainwashed “woke”, but would run the actual numbers, they would pursue nuclear power like Gates, and listen to people like Shellenberger…

    https://youtu.be/ciStnd9Y2ak

    Yes, nuclear makes sense.
    Unfortunately, the technology has been undermined by human stupidity:   The major failures have all been attributed to human error either in design or operation.   For instance: Fukushima not only put its reactor on an ocean known for tsunamis, protected it with an inadequate sea wall, then put its controls in a basement where they could be flooded.

    For nuclear to work we would have end human stupidity.  I don't think that will happen anytime soon.
    Human error is inescapable. Nuclear fuel requires precision handling. The two don’t mix. How big of a nuclear accident do you need to change your mind?

    Uhh, did you read what I wrote?   It doesn't sound like it.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 10 of 18
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Alex_V said:
    Once more, in short: The problem with nuclear technology is that it uses the most toxic substances known to humans. They remain toxic for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. They are dangerous in use and there is no completely secure way to dispose of spent fuel. The second problem is that the price of electricity from nuclear does not account for disposal of the spent fuel. Nuclear power is “competitive” only if you ignore the cost of disposal of fuel, dismantling the reactors etc at the end of life. How much does it cost to dispose of waste safely? Incalculable, because you have to watch over it forever. Who pays to dispose of waste and dismantle old reactors? Governments do, tax payers do. Who doesn't pay? The companies that run the nuclear power plants, who have no intention of incurring the cost of disposal. Privatise the profits, socialise the costs. The risks associated with nuclear power necessitate a highly militarised and policed society to secure the nuclear industry that is inherently secretive and security-obsessed, for obvious reasons. We citizens cede some of our liberty in order to afford such a dangerous technology in our midst. In contrast: solar and wind power have have no equivalent risks, they can be implemented at small-scale by us citizens in our backyard on roof etc. They are inherently more democratic.

    If you're doing a cost benefit comparison you need to ask who pays for the excess fires, floods and droughts brought on by fossil fuel power plants.

    That's not that I'm advocating one over the other.  Merely to point out that every power source has its pluses & minuses.
    colinngjony0watto_cobraAlex_V
  • Reply 11 of 18
    Alex_VAlex_V Posts: 217member
    Alex_V said:
    Once more, in short:

    If you're doing a cost benefit comparison you need to ask who pays for the excess fires, floods and droughts brought on by fossil fuel power plants.

    That's not that I'm advocating one over the other.  Merely to point out that every power source has its pluses & minuses.
    We agree that burning fossil fuels has to end. I don’t see how nuclear power can be “clean” or “green.” Plus, it is incalculably expensive if you consider the full life-cycle of use. The spent fuel at the Tepco-run Fukushima nuclear power station when it was hit by the tsunami, was sitting in pools waiting to be disposed of. They planned to eventually dispose of it in some future underground caverns. That’s a huge undertaking, even more than the original power station itself. Who would pay for all of that? The Japanese government, that is, the taxpayer. Not Tepco. Privatise the profits, socialise the costs. All the spent radioactive fuel of nuclear power plants (extremely toxic to life) all around the world is ominously lying in pools, waiting for some future date when the governments and taxpayers will pay to do something about it. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 12 of 18
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Alex_V said:
    Alex_V said:
    Once more, in short:

    If you're doing a cost benefit comparison you need to ask who pays for the excess fires, floods and droughts brought on by fossil fuel power plants.

    That's not that I'm advocating one over the other.  Merely to point out that every power source has its pluses & minuses.
    We agree that burning fossil fuels has to end. I don’t see how nuclear power can be “clean” or “green.” Plus, it is incalculably expensive if you consider the full life-cycle of use. The spent fuel at the Tepco-run Fukushima nuclear power station when it was hit by the tsunami, was sitting in pools waiting to be disposed of. They planned to eventually dispose of it in some future underground caverns. That’s a huge undertaking, even more than the original power station itself. Who would pay for all of that? The Japanese government, that is, the taxpayer. Not Tepco. Privatise the profits, socialise the costs. All the spent radioactive fuel of nuclear power plants (extremely toxic to life) all around the world is ominously lying in pools, waiting for some future date when the governments and taxpayers will pay to do something about it. 

    Very true!
    The part that bothers me is that most of the risk of nuclear is avoidable if the designers and operators simply did the right thing instead of the cheap and expedient thing.   (But even then, "shit happens".  When I worked with the Red Cross one of our jobs was to practice the evacuation of Beaver County near Pittsburgh in the event of a melt down of the reactor there).

    Perhaps one day all of the fossil fuel and nuclear power plants will be replaced with something both clean and renewable.  But, as always, human stupidity and greed will gum up those works too.)
    Alex_V
  • Reply 13 of 18
    Alex_VAlex_V Posts: 217member
    GeorgeBMac said:

    Very true!
    The part that bothers me is that most of the risk of nuclear is avoidable if the designers and operators simply did the right thing instead of the cheap and expedient thing.   (But even then, "shit happens".  When I worked with the Red Cross one of our jobs was to practice the evacuation of Beaver County near Pittsburgh in the event of a melt down of the reactor there).

    Perhaps one day all of the fossil fuel and nuclear power plants will be replaced with something both clean and renewable.  But, as always, human stupidity and greed will gum up those works too.)
    Fascinating! I completely agree with you about human greed. Our world has numerous urgent challenges. Transitioning to renewable energy is the lowest of all hanging fruits! It is entirely possible with technology from 50 years ago. Naysayers can go to hell! But, even having done that, we will have made only the first step to a sustainable, just, and equitable world.
    muthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 14 of 18
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 1,337member
    rcfa said:
    Disgusting greenwashing effort! Environmentally sound and sustainable energy production is more than just measuring CO2 output.

    These batteries are responsible for the destruction of a unique and sensitive ecosystem, destroying the livelihoods of indigenous people, and are hugely resource intensive for the energy they provide.

    Solar panels by themselves have a single digit EROI, by the time batteries and charging/discharging losses are factored in, it looks even worse.

    If Apple weren’t concerned with catering to the brainwashed “woke”, but would run the actual numbers, they would pursue nuclear power like Gates, and listen to people like Shellenberger…

    https://youtu.be/ciStnd9Y2ak
    I am not sure you know what "woke" means. In this case you would be the 'woke" person calling out manufacturers that are destroying the livelihoods of indigenous people through battery production and mining. Being aware of the environment and wanting to lessen your impact on it isn't being "woke". B)


    So trade one bad for another ? The science of Nuclear power is amazing but human mistakes with design and operation make it too dangerous as someone else stated earlier in the comments. Accidents like this are an ok trade off for the ecosystem damage that you mention? Which I assume is from the NIckel and Cobalt mining needed to make Lithium Ion batteries?


    edited April 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 18
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 1,031member
    rcfa said:
    Disgusting greenwashing effort! Environmentally sound and sustainable energy production is more than just measuring CO2 output.

    These batteries are responsible for the destruction of a unique and sensitive ecosystem, destroying the livelihoods of indigenous people, and are hugely resource intensive for the energy they provide.

    Solar panels by themselves have a single digit EROI, by the time batteries and charging/discharging losses are factored in, it looks even worse.

    If Apple weren’t concerned with catering to the brainwashed “woke”, but would run the actual numbers, they would pursue nuclear power like Gates, and listen to people like Shellenberger…

    https://youtu.be/ciStnd9Y2ak
    All measures of "green" need to measure "cradle to grave". Anything less is dishonest. People who are "woke" know this. 
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 18
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    larryjw said:
    rcfa said:
    Disgusting greenwashing effort! Environmentally sound and sustainable energy production is more than just measuring CO2 output.

    These batteries are responsible for the destruction of a unique and sensitive ecosystem, destroying the livelihoods of indigenous people, and are hugely resource intensive for the energy they provide.

    Solar panels by themselves have a single digit EROI, by the time batteries and charging/discharging losses are factored in, it looks even worse.

    If Apple weren’t concerned with catering to the brainwashed “woke”, but would run the actual numbers, they would pursue nuclear power like Gates, and listen to people like Shellenberger…

    https://youtu.be/ciStnd9Y2ak
    All measures of "green" need to measure "cradle to grave". Anything less is dishonest. People who are "woke" know this. 

    Likewise, you need to measure non-green by the same criteria...  It's effects.   All of them. (including all the subsidies its been getting)
  • Reply 17 of 18
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    jcs2305 said:
    rcfa said:
    Disgusting greenwashing effort! Environmentally sound and sustainable energy production is more than just measuring CO2 output.

    These batteries are responsible for the destruction of a unique and sensitive ecosystem, destroying the livelihoods of indigenous people, and are hugely resource intensive for the energy they provide.

    Solar panels by themselves have a single digit EROI, by the time batteries and charging/discharging losses are factored in, it looks even worse.

    If Apple weren’t concerned with catering to the brainwashed “woke”, but would run the actual numbers, they would pursue nuclear power like Gates, and listen to people like Shellenberger…

    https://youtu.be/ciStnd9Y2ak
    I am not sure you know what "woke" means. In this case you would be the 'woke" person calling out manufacturers that are destroying the livelihoods of indigenous people through battery production and mining. Being aware of the environment and wanting to lessen your impact on it isn't being "woke". B)


    So trade one bad for another ? The science of Nuclear power is amazing but human mistakes with design and operation make it too dangerous as someone else stated earlier in the comments. Accidents like this are an ok trade off for the ecosystem damage that you mention? Which I assume is from the NIckel and Cobalt mining needed to make Lithium Ion batteries?


    “Woke” is just an expression people throw into an argument when they haven’t done the necessary reading. 
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobraAlex_V
  • Reply 18 of 18
    felix01felix01 Posts: 294member
    Where do we stand on fusion? Isn't that the real nuclear Holy Grail if the containment metallurgy problems can be solved? 
Sign In or Register to comment.