backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by testerguy.. on Feb 23 at 3:23 AM


Apple's North Carolina data center  (Source: allnewsmac.com)
Apple's report also details its electricity consumption and green efforts over the last year

Apple has made some considerable green contributions to the renewable energy effort recently, including the company's Maiden, North Carolina data center, which will feature the U.S.' largest end user-owned, onsite solar array.

According to Apple's 2012 Facilities Report and Environmental Update, which describes the company's energy savings and environmental footprint in Apple stores, data centers and R&D buildings, solar power will become a huge part of its Maiden, North Carolina data center. In fact, Apple is out to build the largest end user-owned solar array in the nation.

The onsite solar array surrounding the facility will be approximately 100 acres. It will be a 20-megawatt facility that will generate about 42 million kWh of clean energy on an annual basis. Next to it will be the largest non-utility fuel cell installation in the U.S. as well, which will be a 5-megawatt facility generating 40 million kWh of 24x7 baseload of renewable energy annually.

The data center has already received some attention from the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave it LEED Platinum certification. Apple also mentioned that no other data center of its size has been awarded such a high level of LEED certification.

In addition to the Maiden, North Carolina data center, Apple has been making other green efforts to reduce its negative environmental impact. In 2011 alone, Apple consumed 493 million kWh of electricity as well as 3 million therms of natural gas. According to the report, Apple used renewable energy efforts to escape about 30 million kilograms of CO2e emissions. It has also managed to convert 54 million kWh of consumption annually to renewable energy in facilities around the world.

Apple seems to be joining the likes of other tech giants like Google, which has invested in many renewable energy initiatives such as a $75 million residential solar panel venture, the world's largest wind farm, and a $168 million investment in the Ivanpah solar electric generating system.

In December 2011, Apple patent applications described two new fuel cell-powered mobile device patents called "Fuel Cell System to Power a Portable Computing Device" and "Fuel Cell System Coupled to a Portable Computing Device."

Source: 9 to 5 Mac



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Baby step
By AnnihilatorX on 2/21/2012 11:42:20 AM , Rating: 2
I said resources is limited. Economic growth is putting a strain on earth's resource, be it metal, fresh water, food. You cannot grow an economy without raw material resource, that's on top of energy. You are telling me if the world suddenly run out of iron ore tomorrow, the economy still carries on growing forever? No it will stall immediately after storage run out. You can't build new buildings for one, no new machinaries, no new cars. The economy generate wealth by adding value to raw materials in staggered stages. Good luck in continuously adding value to a hammer which reaches the end of its material value chain.

Assume you can 100% recycle all materials, at best that keeps an economy afloat with percisely zero growth ONLY if population growth is also exactly zero. That's a hypothetical thought experiment anyway.


RE: Baby step
By Coldfriction on 2/21/2012 11:51:11 AM , Rating: 2
You are still believing in an artificial limit. Do some research on how much metal is current recycled and how much is created from raw ore. The economy is about creating things, not raping the world as you see it.

Value is always added through recreating something to be better. Try adding value to a stick, or a rock; cavemen did it, why can't you. There is no end of a value chain, everything is simply recreated and remade to be better. Population growth has nothing to do with it, if you had 10 people who lived forever, they could all build their own castles given enough time and increase their standard of living. People who create stuff drive the economy, not people being born.

People with the kind of beliefs you're presenting kill the economy, not an actual real world limitation.


RE: Baby step
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 11:54:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You are still believing in an artificial limit. Do some research on how much metal is current recycled and how much is created from raw ore. The economy is about creating things, not raping the world as you see it.


He isn't talking about metal. He's talking about ENERGY. Energy can't be recycled. The economy requires ENERGY to 'add value' to things. Even if he was talking about metal, though, you're mistaken - since increase in industry, population and popularisation of new areas of the world mean that all the time the overall requirement for metal is increasing. At some point it will reach a point where not enough metal is available for recycling since it's all in use. While you may claim a replacement material could be found - it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be, and even it is, there aren't indefinite new materials which are available. With the current world population, taking your castle example for people who live forever - there would NOT be enough accessible material in the world to make this happen.

People creating 'stuff' do contribute to the economy (they are by no means all of the economy) - but they require energy exactly as everyone else does.


RE: Baby step
By Coldfriction on 2/21/2012 7:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
Energy is the most recyclable thing there ever has been. Ever heard of E=mC^2? Even mass theoretically can be made into energy or vice versa. We can take chemical energy and change it into kinetic energy. Take kinetic energy and turn it into thermal energy. Take any energy and it can theoretically be changed into any other form of energy. You can't take a pope can and make a horse with it; energy is the most recyclable thing that has ever existed.


RE: Baby step
By Coldfriction on 2/21/2012 7:54:08 PM , Rating: 2
ugh, pop can*


RE: Baby step
By testerguy on 2/22/2012 2:34:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Energy is the most recyclable thing there ever has been. Ever heard of E=mC^2?


Don't confuse recyclable with the conservation of energy.

Much of the energy from say, driving a car, burning a fire, any movement actually, light, radiation - is dispersed over a massive exponentially increasing radius and it is not within even our theoretical capabilities to recapture said energy. Every day the earth loses lots of the energy we used ourselves in the form of heat dispersion, light and radiation. Good luck catching up with that energy and recapturing it. Any net 'in-flow' of energy is only relevant when you use said energy in the form of the exact renewable energy this factory is using.

quote:
Even mass theoretically can be made into energy or vice versa


The point being, the types of mass which we know how to generate energy from effectively, are running out, or we can't produce them quickly enough in high enough volumes to satisfy our ever increasing energy needs. Thus many power companies are turning to renewable energies.

quote:
We can take chemical energy and change it into kinetic energy


Only until we run out of the chemicals in question. Since you quote E=mC^2 - you must also therefore recognise that energy lost into space is also equivalent to mass being lost into space - it's not an unlimited supply.

quote:
Take any energy and it can theoretically be changed into any other form of energy


The obvious scientific principle that energy can be converted (with efficiency losses in nearly all cases, by the way) - is completely irrelevant when faced with the reality of our current world, in which our capability to 'covert' energy from certain materials is limited. Renewable energy sources are examples of converting energy - energy of which there is going to be a very long term stream. Contrast this to burning oil - which is running out. No matter what you cite in terms of E=mC^2 will mean that we can replace oil with mud, certainly with current technology. You seem to be envisaging a future world in which we can use any material for fuel - a scientific possibility but not even close to our current reality.

quote:
energy is the most recyclable thing that has ever existed.


Given that you quote E=mC^2, and given that mass and energy are arguably the ONLY things that exist, energy is only as recyclable as everything else in the world, making your sentence pointless. The difference is, energy typically (such as in the form of light or radiation, or heat) is far harder to re-capture and is currently lost in ever increasing spherical areas into outer space. The energy still exists, of course, but not in any relevant or helpful way to humans.


RE: Baby step
By Coldfriction on 2/22/2012 9:49:25 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you believe in the benefits of global warming. Keep the energy at home;)


RE: Baby step
By testerguy on 2/22/2012 1:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
Whether I believe in global warming or not, I believe that using renewable energy is a good and necessary thing.


RE: Baby step
By Coldfriction on 2/22/2012 4:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone agrees that the idea of a perpetual motion machine is a good thing, but it's also something impossible in a system on earth. Economics isn't about what's "good" per se, but what's the correct price for things. At what cost to everything else are you willing to obtain some renewable energy?


RE: Baby step
By testerguy on 2/23/2012 3:01:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone agrees that the idea of a perpetual motion machine is a good thing, but it's also something impossible in a system on earth


... which is completely irrelevant since renewable energy isn't a scientific possibility.

quote:
Economics isn't about what's "good" per se, but what's the correct price for things.


In this case, nobody is talking about 'good' - we're talking about necessary . The fact is oil is ALREADY running out - and thus there is a REQUIREMENT for alternative sources of energy. The cost of said sources doesn't change that fact - and can in fact only come down when more and more people (like this factory) implement it.

Since solar power, in this case, already pays for itself - the cost is actually less over time than alternative energy sources.

Turn your question around, at what cost are YOU willing to leave us with a worldwide dependence on a fuel which is running out, a clearly unsustainable path?


RE: Baby step
By testerguy on 2/23/2012 3:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
impossibility*


RE: Baby step
By FaaR on 2/22/2012 3:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Energy is the most recyclable thing there ever has been. Ever heard of E=mC^2?

Sure I have. Have you ever heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Due to the nature of this universe, energy recycling is either NOT possible, or lossy - and often very much so. Try recycling the energy poured into a microprocessor for example - it turns into heat, which basically is pure waste.

quote:
Even mass theoretically can be made into energy or vice versa.

"Theoretically" does not help us in the real world.


RE: Baby step
By Coldfriction on 2/22/2012 4:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
All recycling and renewable energy is "lossy." What's your point again? The sun isn't renewable, the energy from it comes at a loss to the reserved energy of the sun.

And theories make everything more understandable. Newton's theories on motion didn't only describe what existed at the time, but helped people create more useful things that Newton never imagined could exist. The engine for example. "Theoretically" is one of the things that does help the real world, and quite significantly at times.


RE: Baby step
By testerguy on 2/23/2012 3:23:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
All recycling and renewable energy is "lossy."


Don't group recycling with renewable.

Recycling, in the case of heat, light, radiation escaping the earth, is not just lossy - it's actually impossible to achieve any net gain in energy using current technology. If you drive your car up and down the country with your headlights on - you can't recapture the energy you used in doing that. It's simply outside what is possible right now.

Renewable energy, on the other hand, can (and does today) provide massive amounts of additional usable energy (within the context of the earth) which will not run out for the forseeable future.

quote:
The sun isn't renewable, the energy from it comes at a loss to the reserved energy of the sun.


The level of energy at the sun reducing is not of concern to us until the billions of years later when it runs out. Indeed, the level of energy at the sun reducing is essential to our survival. Within the definition of 'renewable energy' - the sun is indeed renewable. Contrast this, if you will, to oil - which will run out millions of times faster. To use your own quote, burning oil comes at a loss to the reserved energy of the oil. The difference is, the sun has far, far more which will last a lot longer.

quote:
And theories make everything more understandable. Newton's theories on motion didn't only describe what existed at the time, but helped people create more useful things that Newton never imagined could exist. The engine for example. "Theoretically" is one of the things that does help the real world, and quite significantly at times.


Your own comment describes how 'theoretically' only becomes useful or relevant when it is ACTUALLY implemented in a practical way, and at that point it is not theoretical at all. Theoretical methods of energy are of no use to someone who needs energy right now - unless you think that every scientist in the world is embarking down the wrong path and that you know better ways to capture energy.

Remember, solar power was 'theoretical' at one point - it's now reality - and that's why it's useful.

Honestly, I don't think even you know what your point is in all of this - you say that society has to adapt, going from oil, to nuclear, to renewable - yet when society does exactly that, you start banging on about the sun not being renewable, as if that has any relevance whatsoever? So really, what exactly is the point you're trying to make? Should all of the world ignore any renewable energy?


RE: Baby step
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 11:49:04 AM , Rating: 1
Agree with Annihilator, while resources can be re-harvested, they can't necessarily be re-harvested in time to produce energy. Oil is a good example of this. It cannot be recycled.

The whole quest for renewable energy is to move away from energy sources which aren't renewable enough to sustain current demand, such as Coal, Oil, Gas - and instead move to Solar / Wind / Wave energy - which are.

If the economy does not adjust to said renewable energies in time before the limited resources run out the economy would clearly be adversely affected. The chances are that this will be a gradual effect and since alternatives are already in place we may never hit that point - but we will never hit that point precisely because of projects like this which focus on renewable energy.


RE: Baby step
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 12:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Can motor oil be recycled—and how?
Franceschi: Yes, oil can be recycled.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=c...


RE: Baby step
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 12:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
Not when it's being used for energy, no.

You're referring to lubricants.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki