Apple Tips Plans For Solar, Biogas Systems at NC Data Farm

Are we really sure tha tthe plant will be 500,000 acre? I know that Apple is big, but a plant that measure 45km along each side?

Let's just hope that it's not sitting on top of a major geological ifault!

Whatever the size, you can't help but admire the lead that they provide to all of us!

Are we not doing things which do not really matter ?

Why not Apple spend that much money spending on different ways of absorbing Carbon emission or finding ways for running vehicles on bio-fuels.
The idea seems to be more of a megalithic than useful for the world !

The building is 500,000 square feet. The initial piece of land at least is 200 acres.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217259/Apple_Google_Facebook_turn_N.C._into_data_center_hub

Yikes... yes it's 500,000 sq. ft., not acres. Sloppy mistake is fixed, thanks for pointing it out.

Once you count the sunk costs and the personnel to operate it, and add fuel costs.....this project will be a complete bust.

Wick10, can you give some numbers on what you think the personnel, operating and fuel costs will be, as opposed to expected future energy costs and reliability issues, in order to let us understand your reasons for your view that the project will be a complete bust?

Nigel Just look at any cost factors for coal, hydro, gas, solar, wind or what ever. It is very difficult to find costs for these; and do not forget the exorbadent costs of ethanal.
It is happening to us here in Washington state where voters mandated the purchase on wind power and now we have to seek cheap hydr to Californea and us the expensive wind power. After this is fully implemented an we are required to us 15 percent wind our electrical bills Obama has said: " your electric bill will sky-rocket". Just at our now required 3 percent usage here in my little utility we paid an extra $3.2 million for this privilege of using wind. When fully implemented and more dams and coal plant closed the wind generator folks can charge any aount they want as by law I have to buy it. Plus I will be able to get electricity about; at the most; thirty percent of the tme. Now tell NE how inthudiastic

Ronald,
yes, renewable energy is more expensive to produce at present than coal or gas fired, if you just measure the accounting costs. But the cost to all of us of the continued emission of greenhouse gases and other pollution is high, and will rise. The cost of renewables continues to fall.

In addition, why should we burn all the world's coal and gas to give us cheaper power today? We should think about the future our kids and their kids and decide that we aren't going to be the greediest generation of people int he earth's history.
You suggest that wind will be able to charge any price for electricity that it wishes. But "wind" isn't a single entity. If there are lots of wind producers they are likely to compete for the price and drive it down. In addition, the cost of renewables is coming down all the time due to economies of scale and further efficiencies as we learn more about the most efficient ways of generating it. The cost of coal and gas power is only going to go up, and faster than it has previously.
I think we need to look past today, and past our own pocket books, and past our own desires to consume.
Still, there are no numbers anywhere on which to have a fact based discussion.

Cut down a forest on cheap land, build a road &parking & put up a sprawling data center with some solar panels & a gas burner -- green? At least there won't be exploited Chinese jumping out of upper-story windows. Even a major oil-exploration company's research HQ in Texas has been greener for over a decade.

Definitely another reason not to buy Apple stuff.

Dr Alex,
as a user of the internet (witness the fact that you read and commented here) it is you and me who create the demand for server centres, so pointing a finger at Apple for building a server centre is really pointing at you and me.
There appears to be no evidence for your assertion about cutting down a forest, nor that the data centre is wastefully sprawling. Rather, the reports of LEED Platinum and other energy efficiency measures means that it is likely better than other data centres built to pander to your and my internet babblings.
Apple is saying that it has made efforts to minimise many aspects of the new data centre. Why should it not be commended?
Until you and I reduce our consumption there will be more data centres.
There may be lots of reasons not to buy Apple, but this data centre doesn't appear to be a valid one of them.

Solar back up should be mandated at all large data centers so they have quadruple security. 1- Cross wired (in case of faults). 2- Battery back up. 3-Generator. 4-Solar.

Besides being a green source, the energy from sunshine will be free after ROI.

The more rooftops America has utilizing consumer and small business owned solar, the better prepared we are for the upcoming onslaught of electric vehicles.

I am always amazed at how many Doubting Thomases' there are in the world. When I hear, people state how a project this valuable to our economy and environment will be a bust, I guess they just do not understand the dynamics of buying coal or oil based products. The money is used to harm the environment, what is the real bust? Plus, the obvious fact is they do not know anything about what it is like to have energy for a minimum or 25 years at a nominal yearly investment after the initial investment when speaking about solar. I am not sure how many people know that there are panels producing over 80% of their original efficiency today that were manufactured in the mid 70's.

Electric has it right. But, to Nigel & RWB, the data center is built on formerly forested land in S. Carolina, with an improved/new road, etc. -- just look at Apple's promo pics.

Now, being from NJ and reading about some of our 'prime' lands in Edison, Elizabeth, etc. being abandoned by refineries, etc., I'm certain Apple could have done all a service by converting such wastelands to their important data-service needs.

So, as Apple has consistently demonstrated lack of care for American manufacturing of its products, it now shows naivete in caring for our environment, in very simple ways it could have easily avoided.

There's a reason Calif., the Sierra Club, etc. support local solar PV (DG) -- a realistic combination of engineering & environmental reasons.

So many commenters on this site just don't get it. People are doing this because there is a return on the investment and it averages around 5 years inNJ. Is it subsidized? Of course. But much less than fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies. Keep your heads in the sand while the "chosen few" get the 20% ROIs.

There are 3 kinds of people in the world...
- Those that make things happen (solar investors)
- Those that watch things happen (neighbors of solar investors)
- Those that wonder what happened (non-believers)

Ooooh, solar whatever. You left out 1 category: Folks that are only concerned with themselves.

Again, the reason there's no need for solar 'farms' is the engineering reality that >2% of Earth's land is covered by human structure, so no need for wasted transmission, wasted land, etc.. Now, if Apple actually were planning to cover their data center with panels, great!

But, they still took the cheap, selfish way out in clearing forest land away from previously-developed areas, etc. They, with $100B in cash, could have spent a few bucks more and done a truly environmentally useful thing. But, why would we expect that, given their long record of exploiting the cheapest path for their products?

ROI is a Fool's Accounting fib -- the I & the R are too often fudged.

By the way, fossil fuels are indeed subsidized, but nukes ain't by any comparison, and they pay into their own decommissioning per kW. Wonder how many coal burners pay into the cost of their emissions killing >10,000 Americans each year? Yep, you know.
;]

Thanks DrAlex. I rest my case.

Didn't know you were a lawyer or had a case! Silly me. But, if you did have a case, you'd have to have a name too. And that might make what you're selling us more believable.
;]

I do have a name and it's on my profile. Solar & More is the name of my company and my website is www.solarnmorestore.com. Check it out and become educated on the benefits of solar and and how it can help you. Once you understand it, you'll be a believer too!

I can see why America is so far behind in everything but weapons. I feel any company that is providing jobs with a low impact on the environment is to be commended and I find nothing useful in sarcasm of one another. I believe hubris is the proper term!

Ok Solar Tom, you want to make $ from solar, great! Just do it the scientific & engineering way -- efficiency is key. That's why I, as an engineer, and various environmental orgs I support, and Calif., all advocate local solar PV/hot-water on existing structures.

You should know why too.

20 MW...in North Carolina...no tracking...producing 42 million kWh each year..are you kidding??? If the project were located in the Mohave desert, maybe.
Assuming you mean 20 MWp and not 20 MW-AC (either way the numbers are still way OFF)
20 MWp x (1350MWh/1MWp)= 27,000 MWh or 27 million kWh--the article shows an estimate that is about 50% off.

Apple has to be smarter than:
"A 100-acre, 20-megawatt (MW) solar array, supplying 42 million kWh of energy each year."

Fred,
I know it states there will be a 100 acre array, but did you think that it could possibly be mounted on the roof of all the structures also. And 20,000 Kw/ 245 w panels = roughly 81632 panels. Now there is more to it than that, but 81632 panels that take up roughly 3 sq ft each. so you're looking at roughly 245000 sq ft. And my math my be a little off.But if the building is 500,000 sq ft, the arrays could theoretically be mounted on the roof.

There aren't ANY 245W pv modules that are "3 square feet". Look up the dimensions before commenting. Some are 3 feet LONG but area = length times width.
For future reference 100 sqft of roof equates to about 1.1 kWp of modules--depending on tilt and other design choices.

you know what Fred you are right. 40"x65" doesn't equal 3 square ft. 3.3'*5.4'=17.82 sq ft.
Sorry, if I misled anyone. But tell me this why do you think it has to be a desert to produce. If it was a solar thermal system, yeah it would help to be in the desert. But solar photovoltaic, does best in 77* F. Over that you start degrading due to the heat. So what is your solution to our dependency on fossil fuels?

Talmadge, it's easy to make mistakes today, because there's so much hype, both from vendors & companies showing off their 'green'.

Your last question is indeed the key. 1st there's more structural surface (roofs...) available worldwide than needed to meet peak daytime needs, even with just current, 20% efficient cells. That efficiency will double in this decade. Apple could have covered their building with panels & may well do that, but they still caused more forest destruction than needed -- more floors, less cleared surface, which also makes for higher building efficiency/

2nd we waste >50% of US generation, so there's a source of emissions-free power, products & jobs.

Third, even the Saudis don't want to burn oil for cooling their indoor, desert ski runs, but they would like us (& Chinese, etc.) to keep buying their oil, as would the Canadian tar-sands investors. Those folks hope we don't address our power needs anytime soon, so are willing to invest $1 trillion to deliver 1 million barrels of oil/day to anyone. So baseload power should be chosen to minimize environmental impact, while maximizing availability. That's exactly what nuclear has been doing since 1957. And, that's what China, India, UK, France, Norway, Sweden, Korea, & even we & the Japanese, can grasp. There's no more environmentally-sound way to meet global power demands than the newer generations of fission reactors, just as JFK asked & was told in 1962: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

We didn't put enough effort behind it & all the fossil folks have opposed nuclear because unlike 'renewables'' it can put them out of business, as it was supposed to by 2000. So now the Chinese and others are taking what we did after 1962 and running with it...
http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojde
www.greenprophet.com/2012/01/saudis-china-nuclear-energy
http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b
http://tinyurl.com/7u9hssb
www.thoriumremix.com/2011

So, we may be sending even more T-bills offshore if unwise.

more sunlight produces more kWh...
"A 100-acre, 20-megawatt (MW) solar array, supplying 42 million kWh of energy each year."
This equates to a specific yield of 2100 MWh/MWp--these specific yields are generally only found in deserts--they are never found in North Carolina due to insufficient sunlight. Even dual axis tracking in NC results in system specific yields of well under 1900 MWh/MWp.
These production projections are laughable from the perspective of the solar investment community--thus Apple will fund this off their own balance sheet. Any due diligence provider worth a damn would see this red flag very quickly.

43 560 Square Feet*100/18 sq ft =242000 possible if they were connected frame to frame. Obviously they won't be. They will be mounted elevated on racks that are spaced apart. But theoretically if they could put up 200000 panels at 235W they could produce 47 mWh. 20,000,000w / 235w = 85,106 panels. just to kind of put things in perspective. And that doesn't account for degradation, temp, alignment issues, or insolation.
85,106 would be almost enough to cover 2 acres completely if they were mounted frame to frame. spacing it out over an 100 acres seems to be like planting trees in an orchard. far enough apart you could drive a car in about any direction imaginable between them. I guess I need to do some calculation on how they would mount the arrays, the spacing needed and the amount of inverters to run a system that size. It could be interesting.