Apple's Maiden, NC datacenter solar plant

[Jeff Wexler]

Apple's Maiden, NC datacenter solar plant nears completion

Aerial photos of Apple's enormous solar array adjacent to its data center in Maiden, NC have surfaced. The field, nearly complete less than three months since groundbreaking, covers 100 acres and generates 20 megawatts of power, with California's Sun Power sun-tracking panels.

Apple's construction of the farm in North Carolina may soothe Greenpeace's complaints of Apple's use of a primarily coal-and -nuclear powered electric grid provided by Duke Energy. Supplementing the solar array is a 4.8 megawatt peak Bloom Energy fuel cell plant, which converts biogas into electricity. The fuel cell build is the largest non-utility installation of the technology in the US.

The photos show only one of the solar farms that Apple is planning. A second facility, also 100 acres, will also be located a few miles away.

Together, the solar facilities will supply 84 million kilowatt-hours of clean, renewable energy annually. The solar array will allow the data center to use 100 percent renewable energy by the end of this year.

Apple's corporate headquarters in Cupertino uses more than 50 percent renewable energy, mostly supplied by onsite fuel cells. The data center under construction in Prineville, OR has enough access to local renewable energy sources to completely meet the needs of the facility. Apple's Newark, CA data center will have enough direct-access clean energy to meet the needs of the plant by February 2013.

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

I think Apple can certainly afford this massive undertaking and I am all for continued research and development by private companies in renewable energy. However I get leery when these ambitious ventures are touted as 100% beneficial. The photo you have attached only shows 100 acres of Apple's total of 2 solar arrays. I'm not sure how large their biogas facility is?

Here is a cautionary tale from Der Spiegel about Germany's biogas industry. Germany is the largest producer of electricity from biogas conversion.

The main source of material to feed the biogas boon is corn (familiar to the ethanol craze?). However studies show,

"a senior official with the Lower Saxony branch of the Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU). NABU estimates that growing corn releases 700 grams (25 ounces) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for every kilowatt hour of energy it produces. And this happens for years on end. This is comparable to the carbon-released-to-power-produced ratio of some coal-fired power plant."

http://www.spiegel.d...b-a-852575.html

So please buy that new iPhone 5, so we can save the planet. I jest.

[Geoff Tirrell]

My main beef with these things is that they just took 100 acres of arable land and turned them into a parking lot. I love solar as I have said on the other solar thread It is pretty much a matter of time before I make the leap on my own house. But with probably 90 percent of these solar parks that I have seen they put the panels within 5 feet of the ground essentially killing any vegetation or possible other use for the land. Now I have seen others where they put the panels on a pole say 20 feet up and the effect is similar to that of a pergola where light comes through part of the day but not all of it. To me this makes so much more sense because you now have land that can be used for pasture land or park land.

I know it is a bit of an odd quip but like Richard I am for the continued research, development and implementation it is just that I often see cities and companies doing things that are very black in their rush to go green.

[Jeff Wexler]

There are installations that are more above ground and implement multi-use of the land but I agree with you that most do not at this time. I do have little patience with people who seem to object right away to all the land area that is needed for these sorts of solar arrays, and then in the same breath are perfectly willing to support building a new nuclear power plant. With nuclear power plant you are tying up often the same land mass. The big difference is that the land that nuclear power plant is built on creates a potentially toxic totally unusable parcel of land that has to be guarded and protected for decades. There are always going to be compromises and trade-offs when dealing with generating electricity. I would much rather see tons of land rendered useless for other purposes but supporting any of the possible alternative methods of electrical power generation, than to see land dedicated to the oil leases or fraking operations, etc.

[cmgoodin]

So this is why I can't get through to Apple Tech support on cloudy days....

[soundtrane]

when you dont like them, take them solar panels off, and hopefully the land would still serve purpose... not with a nuclear reactor though?

[Geoff Tirrell]

There are installations that are more above ground and implement multi-use of the land but I agree with you that most do not at this time. I do have little patience with people who seem to object right away to all the land area that is needed for these sorts of solar arrays, and then in the same breath are perfectly willing to support building a new nuclear power plant. With nuclear power plant you are tying up often the same land mass. The big difference is that the land that nuclear power plant is built on creates a potentially toxic totally unusable parcel of land that has to be guarded and protected for decades. There are always going to be compromises and trade-offs when dealing with generating electricity. I would much rather see tons of land rendered useless for other purposes but supporting any of the possible alternative methods of electrical power generation, than to see land dedicated to the oil leases or fraking operations, etc.

True and while I am perhaps more nuclear friendly than yourself that is only to say that I am not 100 percent against it in all cases. As I said earlier I just see an unfortunate lack of foresight/design thought in a lot of areas.... not just electricity. Much in the same manner as how I can say I am pro bio fuel but anti corn ethanol in the same sentence.

[Geoff Tirrell]

when you dont like them, take them solar panels off, and hopefully the land would still serve purpose... not with a nuclear reactor though?

True it becomes brown land at best at that point good for industrial use or similar, but not much else.

[Jeff Wexler]

True and while I am perhaps more nuclear friendly than yourself that is only to say that I am not 100 percent against it in all cases. As I said earlier I just see an unfortunate lack of foresight/design thought in a lot of areas.... not just electricity. Much in the same manner as how I can say I am pro bio fuel but anti corn ethanol in the same sentence.

I'm with you on the pro bio fuel / anti corn ethanol thing... it does represent how a good idea, bio fuel, gets so thoroughly corrupted and subverted because of so many other agendas (like profit growing corn to turn into fuel instead of feeding people). These are things to consider all along the way.

[Marc Wielage]

Jeff, I thought of you immediately when I saw this North Carolina picture on an Apple news site, knowing of your aversion to nuclear power. I have to admit, this is one of the coolest things Apple has ever done -- and this solar plant is going to generate a ton of power.

Although, there are still times when I'm in the middle of nowhere (particularly in the middle of Nevada), and I think, "gee, would a fusion reactor out here, 200 miles from anywhere, really be so bad?"

[johnpaul215]

There was a lot of talk of using brownfields for solar fields. Our former Navy base has some land that they left polluted (go figure). For whatever reason they don't want to clean it up, and don't think it should be built on. One proposal was to use it for a big field of solar panels. Not sure how that is coming along.

[Jeff Wexler]

- UPDATES -

Apple Doubling Size of Fuel Cell Facility at North Carolina Data Center

Tuesday December 4, 2012 12:36 pm PST by Eric Slivka

The Charlotte Observer reports that Apple has filed plans to double the size of its fuel cell facility at its data center in Maiden, North Carolina to 10 megawatts.

Fifty fuel cells adjacent to its $1 billion data center in Maiden are expected to be operating by January, Apple said in papers filed with the N.C. Utilities Commission. It will be fueled by “directed biogas” in which cleaned methane gas from a landfill is injected into a natural gas pipeline. [...]

California-based Apple says the initial 4.8-megawatt phase in Maiden began start-up and testing in October. In November it applied for an amended state permit to increase the project’s size.

Fuel cells at Apple's corporate headquarters in Cupertino, California

In North Carolina, Apple is combining its fuel cell facility with two massive solar farms to help achieve the company's goal of using 100% renewable energy at all of its data centers. At its originally planned 4.8-megwatt capacity, Apple's fuel cell facility in North Carolina was already said to be the largest in the United States not owned by a utility company.

[Marc Wielage]

Pee-yew... that's a lotta methane gas!

[Jeff Wexler]

Stinky, but oh so useful.

[johnpaul215]

Has there been a non-PR spin about why Apple is doing this? Is it to be in control of their own power (in case of outages or costs), lack of reliable clean power where they built a data center, cost, environmental concerns? Was it just remembering Enron and their fake "mandatory rolling blackouts" and wanting to make sure some stock manipulating suit doesn't take the iTunes servers offline? We know Steve Jobs very much lived a "never again!" business plan (hence their massive patent collection after the Creative lawsuit). The tons of money spent on trying to ship an iPhone and bypassing the cellular companies also shows that they did not want their future in somebody else's hands. Apple first made an iPod because existing MP3 players kind of sucked, and were all a mess with a Mac. Then they made the iTunes store because the other digital music stores didn't support iPods. Ironically at the event announcing the iTunes Music store Apple even said their goal wasn't to make money, but to make sure iPods could get music in a post-CD world.

[Jeff Wexler]

Has there been a non-PR spin about why Apple is doing this? Is it to be in control of their own power (in case of outages or costs), lack of reliable clean power where they built a data center, cost, environmental concerns? Was it just remembering Enron and their fake "mandatory rolling blackouts" and wanting to make sure some stock manipulating suit doesn't take the iTunes servers offline?

All of the above... and, of course, the good PR perception.

[johnpaul215]

Good point. They are getting a LOT of PR about bringing some (iMac) production back here. That Tim Cook interview from just last week had him saying "an existing Mac product" will shift production here, but people getting the new iMacs said that some say on the back that they are "Assembled in the USA". There is also a story on a Mac news site that the Mac Pro towers have been getting assembled here, and who knows how many of those are selling right now (loooong overdue for an update).

[dfisk]

where were the solar panels made?

I head a story where a company wanted to put a giant solar farm out in the desert, and the environmental activists got upset because it could disturb the habitats of desert wildlife. Then there are those solar farms that use mirrors. They focus the heat from the sun to one fixed point. The problem has been that planes can't fly close (we're talking small planes), and birds were literally getting cooked in the air and dropping from the sky. Putting solar panels in the desert is good idea, but you have to constantly wash them because the dust and dirt will get on them creating a layer of grime that makes them much less effective, which means now you have to ship water out there (it doesn't rain much...it is a desert after all), and then use that water in a big way to clean the things. I'm curious if the amount of CO2 to build these things and then maintain them is the same of running a coal plant. I've always been a fan of Hydro-electric power, but you can only have those in certain places, and you still mess with aquatic habitats in a big way when you do that.

I look at it this way. No matter what, the environment is going to have to get messed up in some way in order for us to generate the amount of energy we need. It's just a matter of the degree we mess up the environment.

[Jeff Wexler]

where were the solar panels made?

I head a story where a company wanted to put a giant solar farm out in the desert, and the environmental activists got upset because it could disturb the habitats of desert wildlife. Then there are those solar farms that use mirrors. They focus the heat from the sun to one fixed point. The problem has been that planes can't fly close (we're talking small planes), and birds were literally getting cooked in the air and dropping from the sky. Putting solar panels in the desert is good idea, but you have to constantly wash them because the dust and dirt will get on them creating a layer of grime that makes them much less effective, which means now you have to ship water out there (it doesn't rain much...it is a desert after all), and then use that water in a big way to clean the things. I'm curious if the amount of CO2 to build these things and then maintain them is the same of running a coal plant. I've always been a fan of Hydro-electric power, but you can only have those in certain places, and you still mess with aquatic habitats in a big way when you do that.

I look at it this way. No matter what, the environment is going to have to get messed up in some way in order for us to generate the amount of energy we need. It's just a matter of the degree we mess up the environment.

All valid concerns, Dave, but every one of the "problems" you site above pale in comparison to the problems posed by coal, oil or nuclear. You worry about planes having restricted flyover --- are you aware of the restrictions regarding air space in and around nuclear power plants? How about the necessity of providing restricted and protected air space above the plants that need to be in place long after a plant has been decommissioned after it 25 year lifespan. Sure, we're going to "mess up the environment", our very existence on the planet has made that painfully clear, but HOW we mess up the planet for our benefit is what needs to be discussed. Utilizing coal, for instance, for which EVERY component of the entire process messes up the environment and our health, along with destroying our entire ecosystem and climate, clearly seems to be a really bad route to pursue. And don't get me started on nuclear...

[Jeff Wexler]

UPDATE: Apple and renewable, sustainable energy

 

 

Apple's Data Centers Now Running on 100% Renewable Energy, Corporate Facilities at 75%

Thursday March 21, 2013 9:47 am PDT by Eric Slivka

Bloomberg notes that Apple has posted the 2012 update of its environmental policy pages, noting that the company has now achieved 100% renewable energy usage at all of its data centers. On a worldwide basis, the company's corporate facilities are now running on 75% renewable energy, up from 35% just two years ago.

Our goal is to power every facility at Apple entirely with energy from renewable sources — solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal. So we’re investing in our own onsite energy production, establishing relationships with suppliers to procure renewable energy off the grid, and reducing our energy needs even as our employee base grows. 

Our investments are paying off. We’ve already achieved 100 percent renewable energy at all of our data centers, at our facilities in Austin, Elk Grove, Cork, and Munich, and at our Infinite Loop campus in Cupertino. And for all of Apple’s corporate facilities worldwide, we’re at 75 percent, and we expect that number to grow as the amount of renewable energy available to us increases. We won’t stop working until we achieve 100 percent throughout Apple.

The move to 100% renewable energy for its data centers represents the completion of acommitment the company made last May to address criticism from Greenpeace over its energy usage. While Greenpeace's ratings were based on erroneous calculations and assumptions, Apple took the opportunity to make more public statements about its energy usage and plans. 

 

Apple estimates that its carbon footprint for 2012 included 30.9 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, with 98% of that total directly related to the life cycles of its products. The total represents a 34% increase over the company's 2011 estimates, but Apple notes that recent increases have been driven primarily by growth in its sales, with emissions per dollar of revenue decreasing by 21.5% from 2008 to 2012.