7 ms·

More info: http://www.apple.com/environment/renewable-energy/ http://www.apple.com/environment/renewable-energy/ It seems like the North Carolina one is home-g

by smackfu 14y ago

More info: http://www.apple.com/environment/renewable-energy/ http://www.apple.com/environment/renewable-energy/ It seems like the North Carolina one is home-grown solar, the Oregon one is hydroelectric (as are most datacenters in Oregon), and the California one is (purchased) wind power.

adventured 14y ago
Their North Carolina datacenter isn't getting even a tiny fraction of its power from solar. So I'm not sure what they're calling renewable energy. It's basically a flat out lie.
- Xuzz 14y ago
  How do you know that more about this than Apple does? I don't see any reason to believe they're lying, from what you said?
  - smackfu 14y ago
    Actually, after rereading, Apple just says they generate X amount of solar, and that the datacenter is 100% renewable, leading dumb people like me to assume that the datacenter is 100% solar. But since they never say how much energy the datacenter needs, that's not supported by the facts... I assume they are actually supplementing the solar with purchased renewable energy.
  - j00lz 14y ago
    Amazon's James Hamilton estimates the north Carolina 171 acre solar array only generates %4 of the energy required for the datacenter http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2012/03/17/ILoveSolarPowerBut.aspx http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2012/03/17/ILoveSolarPowerB...
  - jws 14y ago
    He doesn't. The energy at the NC datacenter is a combination of solar, fuel cells driven by biogas†, and grid power offset with purchased clean energy credits‡. ␄ † This doesn't mean that the methane molecules entering the fuel cell came from the biogas facility. The biogas gets pumped into the natural gas system, and gas comes out at the Apple spigot, but no one tags and sorts the methane molecules in between. That would be silly. ‡ Which means they pay a premium to cause renewable energy to be produced. If tagging molecules was silly in the gas section, there isn't even a physical thing you could tag on the grid. The electrons only move back and forth a few inches in the wires, and joules aren't “real”. A lot of the joules going into that grid are cheap coal, a tiny bit of them are the more expensive renewables. Apple is paying to put enough renewables in to cover their use.
    - marshray 14y ago
      Apple is paying to put enough renewables in to cover their use How is this different than what the rest of us call "the power bill"? Is there some higher rate you can choose to pay for renewable Joules?
      - singlow 14y ago
        yes
        marshray 14y ago
        So there is a special thing called "renewable energy" which travels over the same grid as ordinary energy. It can be substituted for ordinary energy (but not vice-versa) and commands a premium price over ordinary energy. This site looks pretty authoritative: http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_basics.html http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_basics.html Hydroelectric power is considered "renewable" for what seem like good reasons. Yet, if I lived next door to Hoover Dam I would not expect to be charged extra for the privilege of consuming its locally-grown renewability. In fact, I would expect to pay less because there would be less transport loss to offset. I'm trying to figure out to what extent this amounts to Apple writing a check to someone to bless their electricity, much like the selling of indulgences.
        socillion 14y ago
        Producing renewable energy gives you credits which represent a cost difference between regular electricity and renewable. The actual renewable electricity counts as regular energy, and anyone across the country can buy credits to say they subsidized renewable energy somewhere.
        marshray 14y ago
        OK, I'm not saying this a bad thing to do. I'm wondering where's the ROI for a for-profit corporation in "buying credits to say they subsidized renewable energy somewhere" other than, say, Marketing? When one sets out to write checks to charities the Hoover Dam isn't exactly the first to come to mind.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- gilgoomesh 14y ago
  It's getting at least 10% of its 20MW from the first of 2 solar sites. Apple's Maiden County site is designed to use about 20MW of total power: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415501-76/apple-slaps-back-at-greenpeace-for-dirty-cloud-report/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415501-76/apple-slaps-ba... They currently source 60% of that onsite (the rest of their power is sourced through the grid). http://www.apple.com/environment/renewable-energy/ http://www.apple.com/environment/renewable-energy/ What do they have onsite? 10MW of fuel-cell power and a 20MW solar plant. That means that even if the fuel cells are running non-stop at capacity, they're sourcing at least 10% from the first of their two solar sites (the second will be operational later this year). At 2MW, that would have the solar cells operating at 10% capacity factor. Typical capacity factor for solar cell installations is 20% so the actual contribution from solar is likely closer to 15-20% of the data center's total power.

by smackfu 14y ago

adventured 14y ago

Their North Carolina datacenter isn't getting even a tiny fraction of its power from solar. So I'm not sure what they're calling renewable energy. It's basically a flat out lie.

Xuzz 14y ago
How do you know that more about this than Apple does? I don't see any reason to believe they're lying, from what you said?
- smackfu 14y ago
  Actually, after rereading, Apple just says they generate X amount of solar, and that the datacenter is 100% renewable, leading dumb people like me to assume that the datacenter is 100% solar. But since they never say how much energy the datacenter needs, that's not supported by the facts... I assume they are actually supplementing the solar with purchased renewable energy.
- j00lz 14y ago
  Amazon's James Hamilton estimates the north Carolina 171 acre solar array only generates %4 of the energy required for the datacenter http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2012/03/17/ILoveSolarPowerBut.aspx http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2012/03/17/ILoveSolarPowerB...
- jws 14y ago
  He doesn't. The energy at the NC datacenter is a combination of solar, fuel cells driven by biogas†, and grid power offset with purchased clean energy credits‡. ␄ † This doesn't mean that the methane molecules entering the fuel cell came from the biogas facility. The biogas gets pumped into the natural gas system, and gas comes out at the Apple spigot, but no one tags and sorts the methane molecules in between. That would be silly. ‡ Which means they pay a premium to cause renewable energy to be produced. If tagging molecules was silly in the gas section, there isn't even a physical thing you could tag on the grid. The electrons only move back and forth a few inches in the wires, and joules aren't “real”. A lot of the joules going into that grid are cheap coal, a tiny bit of them are the more expensive renewables. Apple is paying to put enough renewables in to cover their use.
  - marshray 14y ago
    Apple is paying to put enough renewables in to cover their use How is this different than what the rest of us call "the power bill"? Is there some higher rate you can choose to pay for renewable Joules?
    - singlow 14y ago
      yes
      - marshray 14y ago
        So there is a special thing called "renewable energy" which travels over the same grid as ordinary energy. It can be substituted for ordinary energy (but not vice-versa) and commands a premium price over ordinary energy. This site looks pretty authoritative: http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_basics.html http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_basics.html Hydroelectric power is considered "renewable" for what seem like good reasons. Yet, if I lived next door to Hoover Dam I would not expect to be charged extra for the privilege of consuming its locally-grown renewability. In fact, I would expect to pay less because there would be less transport loss to offset. I'm trying to figure out to what extent this amounts to Apple writing a check to someone to bless their electricity, much like the selling of indulgences.
        socillion 14y ago
        Producing renewable energy gives you credits which represent a cost difference between regular electricity and renewable. The actual renewable electricity counts as regular energy, and anyone across the country can buy credits to say they subsidized renewable energy somewhere.
        marshray 14y ago
        OK, I'm not saying this a bad thing to do. I'm wondering where's the ROI for a for-profit corporation in "buying credits to say they subsidized renewable energy somewhere" other than, say, Marketing? When one sets out to write checks to charities the Hoover Dam isn't exactly the first to come to mind.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
gilgoomesh 14y ago
It's getting at least 10% of its 20MW from the first of 2 solar sites. Apple's Maiden County site is designed to use about 20MW of total power: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415501-76/apple-slaps-back-at-greenpeace-for-dirty-cloud-report/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415501-76/apple-slaps-ba... They currently source 60% of that onsite (the rest of their power is sourced through the grid). http://www.apple.com/environment/renewable-energy/ http://www.apple.com/environment/renewable-energy/ What do they have onsite? 10MW of fuel-cell power and a 20MW solar plant. That means that even if the fuel cells are running non-stop at capacity, they're sourcing at least 10% from the first of their two solar sites (the second will be operational later this year). At 2MW, that would have the solar cells operating at 10% capacity factor. Typical capacity factor for solar cell installations is 20% so the actual contribution from solar is likely closer to 15-20% of the data center's total power.