i'm confused - the terminology in the article seems fine to me. are you implying otherwise (am i mistaken?), or do you just intend to post this every time power is mentioned?!
No it cannot. What you are linking is a video of using multiple shipping-container generators to form a single power plant. If you explore a bit you will see the brochure(0) for those container based diesel generators and it shows that each one of them produces from .6 to 1.7 MW depending on engine choice.
So you will need around 12-30 of those depending on engine choice(1). You will also need fuel tanks, pipes, fire suppression equipment, electrical equipment access roads etc. Also you will need to space everything apart for fire safety, to prevent overheating and to prevent those diesels from breathing in each other's exhaust.
So by the time you are done I would not be surprised if you require about as much space as the solar plant. And of course you will have a bunch diesel exhaust and a lot of noise, so even if you do get a smaller footprint, the land you save will be of very limited use.
Solar plants have much better footprint than it seems, because they do not really impact the land around them. Most other types of power plants will have very significant impact on the land around them and therefore they effectively take up much more space than it seems.
"By the end of 2012, we’ll meet the energy needs of our Maiden, North Carolina, data center using entirely renewable sources. To achieve this, we’re building our own facilities that will provide over 60 percent of the clean power we need."
Solar is usually a good investment, especially when you can start selling your excess back into the powergrid for a slight profit. One of the current barriers to solar is the cost -- I think Apple have more in the bank any other company right now.
As for "why there", maybe that was one of the sunniest parts of the US. Maybe Apple has a datacenter nearby or will soon build one -- either for expansion of current cloud services or for new services.
Because they have to have solar to make the majority of their customers feel that they are green, and the governor has continued to let large corporations make the NC taxpayers bear the burden to the corporations benefit.
I'm very interested in energy generation and distribution.
In 2010 I visited South Africa and went to Jozi Power, a company that delivers modular mobile power on demand using shipping containers to various sites across Africa. I wrote about it here: http://joubert.posterous.com/modular-mobile-power
interesting. but odd they cannot run the generators continuously. what do they do when used in boats? i can't imagine boats turning off their engines for 6 hours each day.
"SunPower makes higher efficiency solar panels, which are placed on trackers that follow the sun throughout the day." Higher efficiency than what? Or is it a well defined term regarding solar panels, which I'm unaware of?
Most manufactures create "standard efficiency" solar panels, which convert around 15% of the energy that hits them from the sun into electricity, while SunPower's convert over 20%. They also cost significantly more, so in practice SP's modules are usually the most space-efficient, but not always the most cost efficient.
http://www.eia.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pbawebsite/o... gives 18.9kWh per square foot for office buildings. I assume that is per year (that makes it 50Wh per square foor per day, or 2W continuous per square foot. That seems a bit low, but it includes nights and weekends, and the 25W per square foot I get when that 18.9 is per month seems awfully high)
Let's guess 20MW translates to 100MWh per day (probably generous). That way, it would translate to about 5000 square-foot-years per day, or 1.8 million square-foot-years per year. So, it would power a 1.8M square foot office building. At (guessing) 200 square feet per office worker, that would be about 9000 office workers.
I guess this will mainly power a server park, though. As such, it would power a 4MW server park. At (guessing) 500W/server, that would be 8k machines.
(with lots of handwaiving, possibly some miscalculations, so corrections are welcome)
There is no such thing as a typical company and this a data center not an office park to my knowledge. Having said that a typical small office maybe 100 kW or so. Most medium sized office buildings we would be familiar with I would say are 500 kW or less. I would peg Walmart/Carrefour/Tesco/IKEA type store to be 200-400 kW or so at peak power. Typical house would average 1-2 kW. Interesting links from US Gov: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/
Apple is doing this site because its greener than coal and I doubt they want to run diesel or a turbine. Greenpeace and other environmental companies have been giving Apple grief and the solar farm is part of their response to that. Apparently they also have 5 MW of fuel cells in the farm (where FC is more efficient than coal power plants and by extension fewer co2 emissions for same power). Turbines can easily provide that power and can get up to 60% efficiency in converting natural gas to electricity in ideal circumstances but are also pretty big and loud and may require an actual operations team to run and might be hard to get one that small. Diesel can be more compact but tend to be very inefficient in converting fuel to electricity and you still have to ensure its getting fuel.
My guess is that if they are to be angled towards the sun then you have to leave enough space so that a panel at 45 degrees (to pick a number out of thin air) will not cast a shadow on the panel next to it.
Inter-module shading can be a pretty significant problem with trackers. It's surprisingly easy to hit the point where adding more panels has no benefit outside of a few hours in the very middle of the day, and for a data center Apple would probably prefer more consistent and cost-efficient power rather than higher peak power.
This is very good news. It is especially interesting coming from apple, because apple are incredibly ... shall we say frugal. If they opted for a solar plant they must have calculated that it is in their financial interest. Which means that solar plants are becoming price competitive.
This is not surprising considering the plummeting cost of solar panels.
Not necessarily, it could very well be a PR trick. Going solar is trendy so they may have done it to get some press.
It pays off but maybe in extra iPhone sales /brand building
Apple picked the wrong time to invest in NC. The citizens in NC can use the jobs, but are tired of politicians lining corporations' pockets with cash in the form of tax incentives, etc. So, it is going to get expensive to be stationed here. It isn't the new Florida; NC just had a few governors that thought they would be more popular if they threw away tax dollars on corporations that brought very few jobs in, because they knew the local papers and media would spin it in a favorable way.
[+] [-] amirmansour|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewcooke|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattst88|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mistercow|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wcoenen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hristov|13 years ago|reply
So you will need around 12-30 of those depending on engine choice(1). You will also need fuel tanks, pipes, fire suppression equipment, electrical equipment access roads etc. Also you will need to space everything apart for fire safety, to prevent overheating and to prevent those diesels from breathing in each other's exhaust.
So by the time you are done I would not be surprised if you require about as much space as the solar plant. And of course you will have a bunch diesel exhaust and a lot of noise, so even if you do get a smaller footprint, the land you save will be of very limited use.
Solar plants have much better footprint than it seems, because they do not really impact the land around them. Most other types of power plants will have very significant impact on the land around them and therefore they effectively take up much more space than it seems.
(0)- http://pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/hyundai-heavy-industries-d...
(1) I know the video shows around five of them only, it seems the video has been cut off in the middle.
[+] [-] ck2|13 years ago|reply
And how many fuel deliveries a week does it need?
Here is a 47MW plant in Cuba using those generators, looks pretty big:
http://engine.hhi.aramcnc.com/pplant/images/img02_02.jpg
[+] [-] teamonkey|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkrippy|13 years ago|reply
"By the end of 2012, we’ll meet the energy needs of our Maiden, North Carolina, data center using entirely renewable sources. To achieve this, we’re building our own facilities that will provide over 60 percent of the clean power we need."
[+] [-] stephengillie|13 years ago|reply
As for "why there", maybe that was one of the sunniest parts of the US. Maybe Apple has a datacenter nearby or will soon build one -- either for expansion of current cloud services or for new services.
[+] [-] TheOnly92|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baklava|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkrippy|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] just2n|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joubert|13 years ago|reply
In 2010 I visited South Africa and went to Jozi Power, a company that delivers modular mobile power on demand using shipping containers to various sites across Africa. I wrote about it here: http://joubert.posterous.com/modular-mobile-power
[+] [-] andrewcooke|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krisoft|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plorkyeran|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|13 years ago|reply
http://us.sunpowercorp.com/about/the-worlds-standard-for-sol...
Slightly more surface area, back mirror, etc.
[+] [-] shimon_e|13 years ago|reply
The other commentators are missing what the OP is talking about. The grammar is incorrect.
[+] [-] DanBC|13 years ago|reply
What's 20 MW in comparison to usage for a typical company? (I'm not bashing Apple, just for the avoidance of any doubt.)
[+] [-] Someone|13 years ago|reply
http://www.eia.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pbawebsite/o... gives 18.9kWh per square foot for office buildings. I assume that is per year (that makes it 50Wh per square foor per day, or 2W continuous per square foot. That seems a bit low, but it includes nights and weekends, and the 25W per square foot I get when that 18.9 is per month seems awfully high)
Let's guess 20MW translates to 100MWh per day (probably generous). That way, it would translate to about 5000 square-foot-years per day, or 1.8 million square-foot-years per year. So, it would power a 1.8M square foot office building. At (guessing) 200 square feet per office worker, that would be about 9000 office workers.
I guess this will mainly power a server park, though. As such, it would power a 4MW server park. At (guessing) 500W/server, that would be 8k machines.
(with lots of handwaiving, possibly some miscalculations, so corrections are welcome)
[+] [-] tfigment|13 years ago|reply
Apple is doing this site because its greener than coal and I doubt they want to run diesel or a turbine. Greenpeace and other environmental companies have been giving Apple grief and the solar farm is part of their response to that. Apparently they also have 5 MW of fuel cells in the farm (where FC is more efficient than coal power plants and by extension fewer co2 emissions for same power). Turbines can easily provide that power and can get up to 60% efficiency in converting natural gas to electricity in ideal circumstances but are also pretty big and loud and may require an actual operations team to run and might be hard to get one that small. Diesel can be more compact but tend to be very inefficient in converting fuel to electricity and you still have to ensure its getting fuel.
[+] [-] manaskarekar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tvon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plorkyeran|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hamai|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hristov|13 years ago|reply
This is not surprising considering the plummeting cost of solar panels.
[+] [-] onetimeuse001|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsieling|13 years ago|reply
;)
[+] [-] baklava|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Roelven|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]