Apple Invests $848 Million Into Solar Farm 191
An anonymous reader writes: Apple is making a huge investment in solar energy, sending $848 million to First Solar's California Flats Solar Project. The deal will supply Apple with energy for 25 years. Construction of the new 2,900-acre solar farm will start this summer and finish by the end of 2016. Apple's share of the energy produced will be about 130 megawatts, while another 150 MW will be sold to Pacific Gas & Electric. "The iPhone maker already powers all of its data centers with renewable energy. Tim Cook, Apple's chief executive officer, has advocated taking more steps to combat climate change."
So which kind of solar is it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is this the kind that incinerates all the birds that fly by, just so it can boil some water in a central tower?
Or is it an actual solar cells of some sort that directly produce electricity?
They really need some sort of better name to differentiate between these...
Re:So which kind of solar is it? (Score:4, Informative)
First Solar only does photovoltaics, so no birds will be incinerated.
Re: (Score:2)
yes trees can do that.
Re: (Score:3)
yes trees can do that.
One tree provides shade in the desert, to cover the floor of the desert, you'd need a forest. But then it wouldn't be a desert anymore.
Re:So which kind of solar is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Great. So all the desert critters will be displaced and in constant shade.
One option for those critters would be to move to the 99.9999% of the desert not being used.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But that .0001% is their rightful homeland as proclaimed by the Great Lizard Godking.
When did Hillary say that?
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.firstsolar.com/en/about-us/projects/california-flats
Call me stupid, but is the bird incineration thing an actual concern holding back solar thermal energy? Or is just classic /. sarcasm? The former scenario sounds just impossibly stupid enough to be real
Re:So which kind of solar is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
is the bird incineration thing an actual concern holding back solar thermal energy?
No:
1. There are far bigger problems holding back solar thermal, especially the falling price of PV solar.
2. The number of birds incinerated is negligible compared to the number killed by things like habitat destruction.
This particular plant is PV, not thermal. So it isn't even an issue.
Solar thermal makes little economic sense. It is more expensive than PV, and the only advantage is its ability to provide base load power. But that is only a theoretical advantage, not a real one, since the current demand curve for electric power fits the production curve of PV quite well.
Re: (Score:3)
1. There are far bigger problems holding back solar thermal, especially the falling price of PV solar.
Solar thermal makes a good base load supplier, and can react fairly quickly to changes in demand which makes it ideal for backing up solar PV. Price isn't everything, we need different technologies to solve different problems.
Considering what early solar thermal plants are costing it looks like it will be very price competitive with the alternatives (nuclear, coal, gas) and is of course very clean. Bird deaths are similar or lower to nuclear and much lower than coal, and they are all a fraction of the carna
Re: (Score:3)
Solar thermal makes a good base load supplier
In theory. In reality, California does not lack base load capacity, we lack peak load capacity. So providing extremely expensive electricity in the middle of the night, when prices are lowest, has little practical benefit, and is financial insanity.
Solar thermal may make sense in locations with base load shortages, and high wholesale prices around the clock, like Hawaii. But it makes no sense in California.
Re: (Score:2)
True today, but even California needs clean base load going forward. Solar thermal is rapidly dropping in cost as the technology matures. If you are lucky enough to have room and sunshine, it's a good option and already cheaper than nuclear over its lifetime.
Re: (Score:3)
True today, but even California needs clean base load going forward.
No it doesn't. Electricity consumption is falling, as people adopt LED lights, more efficient TVs and computers, adaptive thermostats, etc. California is unlikely to need any additional base load for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does. Power stations don't last forever. Eventually they need to be replaced with something. Some are quite dirty as well, so replacing them might be desirable.
Your mistake was assuming I was talking about additional capacity. Re-read what I wrote. All I said was that in future there will still be a requirement for base load, hence there is a place for solar thermal as well as solar PV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes sense in California, too.
First: it is cheaper than coal or nuclear.
Second: it produces no CO2, compared to coal.
There are no places with 'base load shortage' is that a new FUD term?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rofl.
A NEW solar thermal plant might be more expensive then an EXISTING nuclear plant.
But a NEW thermal plant is cheaper than a NEW nuclear one.
Replacing existing stuff, whichs investments are written off, with new stuff, regardless how cheap, is always difficult.
Does not change the fact that per W a new solar plant is the second cheapest thing you can build in our times (regardless of PV or CST) The only thing cheaper is wind.
Re: (Score:2)
Rofl. A NEW solar thermal plant might be more expensive then an EXISTING nuclear plant. But a NEW thermal plant is cheaper than a NEW nuclear one.
Replacing existing stuff, whichs investments are written off, with new stuff, regardless how cheap, is always difficult.
Does not change the fact that per W a new solar plant is the second cheapest thing you can build in our times (regardless of PV or CST) The only thing cheaper is wind.
Not to mention that storing energy in a fluid before it becomes electricity is much more efficient than storing electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm ... you wrote 10c/kW, you are aware of that, right?
Every power source you can imagine is cheaper. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OMG, my solar plant blew up. Someone get a mop.
Versus
OMG my nuclear power plant blew up, run for your lives.
Even new nuke plants have issues with waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Base load plants don't adjust to demand.
They stay on a fixed output all day all night all year long.
Hence the name: base load.
Solar thermal plants have a very small range of adaption/reaction. You basically can only store more heat in the storage medium and drop steam production for the turbines, and that you can only do 'so long'. Afterwards the only thing is to power up to a higher level again.
I'm not aware of a single solar thermal plant that even does that. AFAIK they all run at full power all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
> It is more expensive than PV
The proper comparison is to PV at the same installed capacity. Solar thermal started later, and therefore has had less of a learning curve. Also, heliostat mirrors are inherently cheaper than solar panels because a sheet of mirrored glass is simpler to make than a finished panel. Most of the cost comes from the steerable mount that aims the mirror at the tower, but there is a lot of room for improvement there.
> The number of birds incinerated
Could be reduced quite a
Re: (Score:3)
Peak consumption is around 7 pm, after solar drops off.
I live in California, and I pay "time of use" rates. I pay more for noon to 6pm. That would make no sense at all if the "peak" was at 7pm. According to PG&E: Peak periods occur from noon to 6 p.m., May through October [pge.com].
Visit the California ISO site caiso.com and look at their renewable graphs.
I found nothing on that site that backs your assertion. Can you cite a specific page?
Re:So which kind of solar is it? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, to both. CSP has been known to singe/kill birds that fly into the concentrated light.
OTOH, the number of birds killed that way is insignificant compared to the number killed by house cats, or by flying into windows. It's a non-issue except for people who want to argue using emotional appeals instead of rational cost/benefit evaluation.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not actually worried about the handful of birds so much as I just think CSP is a waste of money that could better be spent developing cheaper and more efficient photovoltaic cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not actually worried about the handful of birds so much as I just think CSP is a waste of money that could better be spent developing cheaper and more efficient photovoltaic cells.
You might be right, but CSP does have its advantages; cheaper materials for one (at least until PV cell prices come down a good deal more), and more importantly, the ability to continue generating power after sunset (or when clouds pass overhead) by using heat that was stored up earlier during the day. The heated salt solution acts like a huge, inexpensive battery in that respect.
Re: (Score:2)
It has plenty of industrial use where what you want is heat, and not electricity. You don't get the conversion losses from heat to electrons moving. A big example is the 6% of the world's CO2 emissions that come from making Portland Cement (the binder in concrete). Making that product involves heating a mix of shale/clay plus limestone to high temperatures, which changes it chemically. Today it is mostly done by burning fossil fuels, but solar would work just as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually don't care how many rats, mice and even rabbits a feral house cat kills. Even birds.
If you had not extinct wild cats, tomcats, lynx, fox, wolf, coyote or what ever used to live in 'your wilderness' those would take care of it.
Do you really think a house cat would dare to run free in the territory of a lynx or tomcat? Well, dare it would ... but punished it would be, too.
You are an idiot who has no clue about wildlife, and I bet the only way for you to figure if a cat is a feral house cat or a tom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two kinds of people holding a cat.
Those who keep it indoor and those who let it go where it wants.
As long as the cat comes home often enough it is not feral.
In germany the law regarding shooting cats is that they need to be quite far outside of habitated zones. No idea how far.
If you have so much wildlife around you, then the feral cats don't do much harm. Pretty idiotic to shoot them. Sounds like a knee jerk reaction of: I can shoot that legally! BOOM!
As long as a certain animal is not run rogue,
Re: (Score:2)
Feral cats do great harm. They have no real predators. Not sure about Germany, but 'rouge' perfectly describes feral cats in US wilderness areas.
Squirrels can get out of hand in an area where all their predators and competition are gone. (Cats often killed that competition btw.) The squirrels themselves will then start murdering each other; it's an awful sight to see. And hear too; young squirrels scream and sound a lot like tiny children as the adult males go around killing them.
But I sort of agree with yo
Re: (Score:2)
>Never understood why it is a common children sport in the states to shoot Squirrels.
You've never seen one eat the insulation and wiring in a house then. They are rodents, and just like other rodents are very destructive if their numbers grow too large.
Re: (Score:2)
It's neither - just another excuse for baseless obstructionism. First of all you're dealing with the minuscule number of birds that fly over a given piece of featureless open desert. Within that area, the bird incineration takes place in the tiny volume of concentrated sunlight at the focus point. Birds can roost on the collectors all day long and not come to harm. Only the few really stupid birds get the Sierra Club lawyers.
Re:So which kind of solar is it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So which kind of solar is it? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It WOULD generate power, if people weren't holding it wrong!
Re: (Score:2)
The Apple iSolar panel will have a brushed aluminum back, rounded bevel and will do everything but generate solar power.
Samsung will a better, cheaper solar panel and will immediately be sued by Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
The Apple iSolar panel will have a brushed aluminum back, rounded bevel and will do everything but generate solar power.
Samsung will a better, cheaper solar panel and will immediately be sued by Apple.
However, Samsung's panel will inject adverts into your power stream and record everything you say while you're using it.
Re: (Score:2)
The Apple iSolar panel will have a brushed aluminum back, rounded bevel and will do everything but generate solar power.
Samsung will a better, cheaper solar panel and will immediately be sued by Apple.
Nevertheless Samsung will happily continue to deliver said same panels to Apple during and after the lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung in fact does make solar panels:
http://www.samsung.com/us/busi... [samsung.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> They really need some sort of better name to differentiate between these...
Like "PV" vs. "CSP" maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but until more people start using "photovoltaic cells" and "concentrated solar power", whenever people just say "solar", it's going to be somewhat ambiguous. One of these things probably has a lot of room to be developed into something inexpensive, small, and efficient, while the other is basically a dead-end technology that is just a short-sighted a waste of money.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why people always claim production of solar PV cells would create poisoness waste.
Production of raw Si should not produce any waste at all.
When you + or - dote Si to create semi conductors you should not have any waste either.
I doubt China is there any different to Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
When I toured New Zealand, I was that one guy who applauded when we paused at the dock where the Greenpeace boat was sunk.
Vive la France!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, zero population growth is a perfectly good reason to criticize them.
Myself, I like people, and I'm very suspicious of people that hate people. Why would someone want to deny new people their existence? Well, greed would be the only answer.
It's only 7 billion anyway. Possibly around 40ish billion, something cool will have to be invented to sustain us all. But then we'll have 33 billion new people, one of which will have been smart enough to think of it.
More successful companies should do this (Score:5, Insightful)
But if we take a step back I think it is great that a company sets this example to combat climate change while it would be so easy not to anything that doesn't bring direct shareholder revenue. I hope that more successful companies follow this example.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's more about saving money than caring about the climate. Lots of big companies running data centres are doing it because solar is so cheap compared to the grid. There is some initial outlay for the panels, not that much in comparison to the rest of the data centre, and then in a few years they have paid for themselves and your electricity bills are slashed.
Looking like you care is a nice bonus, but secondary to making your product more competitive by reducing costs.
Re: (Score:2)
4) Apple has to buy power and does not control its power source
It's California. Who knows what crazy power issues they'll create over the next 25 years? I don't think it'll be out of the question that California does brownouts/blackouts again except combined with a prohibition against running diesel generators. At that point, any data centers with a "green" power source will have a big advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
California's reputation as a crazy place is a little overblown. There's a lot of smart folks in CA.
Those smart people aren't running the show.
California just approved very drastic standards for power generation over the next few years. I think they'll be okay, and in a few years some of the coal and oil states will need to follow their example.
Which coal and oil states will that be? What's the payoff for decades of economic harm?
My view is that this is more of the expensive status signalling that California is infamous for, much like riding a motorcycle without a helmet or wearing a tie. It's ok, if a person does it, but not ok if a few elites are doing it at the expense of the public.
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice that Apple can carve out a niche of sanity in an insane land.
But it apparently costs a pretty penny to buy sanity in CA.
Re: (Score:2)
Clear cutting
Not sure what would prompt using that description here [google.com], but none of the candidates looks healthy.
Advocate only? (Score:2, Interesting)
Tim Cook, Apple's chief executive officer, has advocated taking more steps to combat climate change."
The thing is when you're the CEO of the richest company in history (maybe?), you're in the unique position of actually being able to do something instead of suggesting other people do it (aka advocating). Way to be just like the rest of us, Tim Cook.
But for today I'll be glad Apple has spent ~0.7% or whatever of it's cash reserves on something they would have to buy anyway and thus gets counted as an investment. I'd be really impressed if they took $10B or so and spent it on some promising new nuclear or fu
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is when you're the CEO of the richest company in history (maybe?),
Not even close
Dutch East India company at an inflation adjusted capitalization of $7,000,000,000,000.00
http://www.fool.com/investing/... [fool.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Adjusting for inflation over that many years is tricky, and often subsumes real increases in wealth. The Wikipedia article references an article in the Atlantic about Apple, which makes it difficult to find supporting evidence. I haven't seen the basis for these estimates, or how the valuation was split between its functions as a company and its functions as a government.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be really impressed if they took $10B or so and spent it on some promising new nuclear or fusion project.
Why should a bunch of techno hippies invest into nuclear power, regardless what kind?
(Considering that solar is cheaper right now already and in the long run will be cheaper than any other energy source we can think of right now)
Re: (Score:3)
Pray tell, how much of a company's cash reserves should go towards impressing you?
Well since you're asking me, obviously ALL of it!
But seriously I am glad that when given the option of buying power from the grid (mostly coal) or a new PV project, they chose PV. BUT....its not like they stuck their neck out very far. Apple will (probably) need power for 25 years, they just paid for it up front. Their "investment" is essentially a purchase or a sunk cost for the future (probably not using that term correctly but hopefully you get the point).
All these tech companies have immense power (aka
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is well taken; Apple is simply making a smart financial move, albeit with some small amount of risk in an area that is not their specialty. Just a nerd worthy bit of cool news.
But I'm correcting you on the 3/4 trillion and even the 160 billion figures; they mean far less than you think they do. It's not like Apple is an Exxon, or even a Sears back in the day. They can crash and burn with very little notice, and also go in a slow motion spiraling arc; they've done both. They know this about themse
Re: (Score:2)
OPEC Is done man. Seriously, fracking has done that. New technology, in the end, always destroys monopolies and cartels.
While one can't help but worry about longer term environmental issues, everyone must appreciate the shorter term benefits. Not just cheap gas; that's one of the manifestations, but OPEC has been soaking us for many many years now. All those shiny new cites and ports and resorts; that's all our money. Some from Europe, most of it US. Think about what our economy would look like now, if that
Re: (Score:2)
They got out of those taxes by doing without the money. I'll repeat: they didn't take the money. It's literally sitting in a vault overseas somewhere. If and when they take it, they will then have to pay the tax on it.
Why don't they take it? Aren't they greedy? It's not making them any more money sitting there; interest rates are near zero. Now they've lost some because of oil and the strong dollar. What are they waiting for?
If the greedy rich won't take their own money, simply because of the tax, that's yo
Re: (Score:2)
Or....our best indicator you're in outer space. If all these corps paid all their taxes, they'd still be some of the richest corps in the history of the world, Mr. Galt.
"powers data centers with renewable energy" (Score:2)
"[Apple] powers all of its data centers with renewable energy"
Solar makes lots of sense in the California desert. However, I find statements like the above really annoying. In the night, solar provides zilch. On calm days, the same for wind. Apple's data centers hang off the grid like anyone else, and the great weakness of all renewables is irregular production and lack of storage.
Re: (Score:2)
They use more than just solar PV. You should probably do some research before you "get annoyed" about a statement that you have not checked up on in detail.
Re: (Score:2)
"lack of (local) storage" is a technological issue.
not sure on the numbers but it is possible that Apple produces enough during the day to offset its use at night and being "hang off the grid" is the energy storage system during peak production.
Re: (Score:2)
Capacity can be smoothened out with battery storage-- that's where someplace like Tesla's Gigafactory comes in; it drops the price LiOn batteries by 30%, while the used batteries can then be sent off to solar farms to hold excess capacity, releasing it at night.
Terrible price (Score:3)
$850 million for 130 MW? That's $6.50 a watt. Commercial scale solar is supposed to be around $1.60. Am I missing something here?
Re:Terrible price (Score:5, Funny)
$850 million for 130 MW? That's $6.50 a watt. Commercial scale solar is supposed to be around $1.60. Am I missing something here?
It is much more expensive to make the solar panels with rounded corners.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's 280MW, 150MW will be sold to PG&E. Apple will be running a profit during peak hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no.
Apple is HELPING to build the installation. They're not funding it fully. They're funding enough to get 130MW as their share of the pie.
Re: (Score:2)
130 MW is the nameplate capacity, aka peak generating capacity. i.e. If the sun were directly overhead on a cloudless day and the panels had just been cleaned, how much power would they generate?
Actual production over a year is the nameplate capacity times capacity factor times one year. PV solar's capacity factor for the continental U.S. averages about 0.145. It peaks in the desert southw
Re: (Score:2)
You are mixing up 'nameplate capacity' with 'peak capacity'.
Nameplate capacity is what a plant actually does produce, not what it could, or does at peak, hence the name: nameplate.
Actual production over a year is the nameplate capacity times capacity factor times one year.
Not it is not. Solar panels have no capacity factor. They have a power production curve depending on orientation and tilt. They have a 'correction factor' local to the location where the panel is set into operation. E.g. same latitude on e
Re: (Score:2)
There's risks to the company and its employees and stockholders. There's often too little risk for the decision makers.
well, factories (mills) used to dam rivers (Score:2)
130 MW for 25 years for $848M (Score:3)
That all works out to about 3.0 cents per kWh (24-7).
If they're not paying extra for the actual electricity, of course. TFA seems to be saying this will be their actual cost for the electricity for the next 25 years.
I find myself wondering how they're managing such a low rate given that half the power they're buying (at least) will be generated by the local electric company the old-fashioned way (which charges about five times that for commercial power).
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, they usually report peak wattage rather than total energy production. It doesn't produce anything at night, and less most of the day. So the price per actual generated kWh may be closer to 10 or 12 cents. Which happens to be right around the national average, though considerably less than most of California.
In the end, I don't think it's purely a price thing. They're hoping to have a positive impact on the world as well. But if they can do it while netting about the same price as they wo
Re: (Score:2)
It's purely a price thing. Plus a little bit of publicity.
If they were after having a "positive impact on the world", they could have spent $80B building solar installations without seriously straining their bankroll....
Solar farms are very compatible with (Score:3)
Solar farms are very compatible with ecosystems and pasture based farming.
I've seen several now and am impressed.
In a desert situation the solar farm creates shade which conserves water by reducing evaporation and creating microclimates where life thrives. That's a good thing.
In non-desert situations livestock can be grazed around the panels. Especially smaller livestock like sheep, goats, pigs and chickens. Cattle are more of a problem from rubbing on the bases but with big strong bases this becomes a non-issue. The livestock do the mowing that otherwise would be done mechanically. Done as managed rotational grazing this results in the sequestering of about 1.4 tons of carbon a year per acre or more. That's good for the environment. It also produces food, meat, from solar, the sunshine and plant activity. The moving shade of the panels is also beneficial to the livestock while letting the forages, plants, grow between them.
Big win in either climate.
Re: (Score:2)
I give you negative points for you're knee-jerk negative reaction and lack of solution. I hear you're also a liberal.
But back to the point you tried to make. No, you're wrong. Those ecosystems were not raped for the materials. The materials are mined from mostly underground and in confined areas. This produces huge numbers of solar panels that then produce power that avoid the need for burning fossil fuels and other truly negative methods.
Rather than being a knee-jerk, NIMBY, liberal anti-everythingist star
unbelievable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They just wanted to spend some money in USA so they can bring some more off-shore profits back without tax.
The real quote (Score:2)
The iPhone maker already powers all of its data centers with renewable energy and it's factories in China with second-born children
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's 2,900 acres of local ecological disruption through lack of sunlight.
What do you predict the results will be compared to the former farming operation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a decrease in carbon consumption.
a decrease in PGE's bottom line (fuck em)
Well, aren’t you a glass half empty type. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ecologically speaking I think you could describe the desert areas of the world as biologically under-productive, true they have a unique ecology, but they are largely unthreatened because they are hostile environments (so little development historically). Now here is the thing, you can probably make these areas more bio-productive with these types of solar energy initiatives thus enabling more wild animals in total to inhabit the planet (and actually strengthen the web of life). The reason I say more bio-productive is because the heat, lack or water, and lack of shade prevent lots a plant growth. Direct sunlight is not needed for plant growth, most plants only utilize 2% of direct sunlight for growth. With large swaths of shade, there will be more plant growth because ground temperatures will be lower and more water can be maintained by what plants choose to live in the sheltered areas. While the areas may seem shady by contrast, they likely will have more than enough scattered/indirect light for plant growth. With more plant growth, more wildlife.
You have to pick your battles. Does converting deserts to energy production do the environment and biosphere less damage than business as usual? Sure it changes the environment, but to resist all change, because it alters the biosphere in someway, is not a war you are going to win. Trying to keep the Earth totally as it once was is more a religious crusade than a practical goal.
Re: (Score:2)
I pity the poor service men that will have to maintain these panels because every snake, lizard and cactus will be fighting for the shade. You are exactly right that this will become the metropolis of the desert.
As another point what if we put a solar farm in the Atacama Desert? As the driest place on earth there is hardly any life at all even on a bacterial level so would it be habitat destruction to turn the whole thing into a solar farm?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually now that I am thinking about this could it be possible to use massive solar farms to combat desertification? I know that it's a huge problem in west Africa where desert encroachment has been taking over the precious agricultural land and causing food shortages. If you could boost the shade amount in the desert which would theoretically increase the amount of plant life while cooling the surface it could be possible, when done on a massive scale, to reclaim stretches of desert. All while developi
Re: (Score:3)
Developers are already building solar farms in the Atacama:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]
Not only is it very sunny, it is high altitude and cold. Less air above it means the sunlight is more intense, and solar cells are more efficient when they are cooler. The combination makes it the best place in the world for solar, aside from the fact nobody lives there and you need power lines to the coast, where people actually live.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did shade destroy an ecosystem? Look at rainforests.
Re: (Score:2)
A rainforest replacing a desert would destroy the desert ecosystem. Would it not?
Re: (Score:2)
Since Greens are generally afraid of rainforests turning into deserts, wouldn't this be an improvement?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you don't have any idea how much land is disrupted when you strip mine for coal. It's a lot, and it continues as long as you need to feed the power plant. Solar is a one time installation.
Re:2,900-acre(!) solar farm (Score:4, Informative)
Solar panels don't use/contain rare earths.
They are made form pure Si which is plus doted with Boron on one side and minus doted with Phosphor on the other side.
You learn that in 6th - 8th grade school in a physics class btw. depending when the physics education starts in school.
Regardless, it is easy to google.
So: no raw earths involved at all in PV cells.
Re: (Score:2)
*facepalm*
They are not: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki... [wikipedia.org]
But, you are right, I forgot that there are PV cells not based on Si.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there are all the rare earths needed to make 2,900 acres worth of panels, so it's not like it's for free. In fact on a per MWhr basis I'm willing to bet that nuclear fission is still more environmentally friendly (though heat pollution of the cooling water source can be an issue depending on where the plant is sited).
What rare earths? These panels are made from a thin film of cadmium and tellurium on glass, no rare earths required. Tellurium is somewhat rare, if that's what you meant. Since it is mostly produced as a byproduct of copper production, the panels increase the total economic benefit derived from that environmental cost.
Nuclear being more environmentally friendly on per MWhr basis depends heavily on how you define "environmentally friendly".
As for water, "The project [firstsolar.com] will also displace over 152,000 metric ton
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, because Apple's has a terrible track record when it comes to investing in marketing. ::rolleyes::
can't pull the plug on him now, beeotches! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, PV power is rated at. Temp = 25 degrees C, and Insolation = 1000 watts/Meter**2. (peak sun and cool panels)
NREL maps provide the equivalent peak-sun hours per day for a given area. So, that is a reasonable number to work with for estimates.
But the temp rating is unrealistic for a black solar panel getting direct sunlight. As panels get hotter, their production decreases. So, some manufacturers also offer numbers for warmer temperatures.