backtop


Print 36 comment(s) - last by Moishe.. on Apr 23 at 4:11 PM


Greenpeace's score sheet  (Source: appleinsider.com)
Apple defended its 20-megawatt North Carolina data center, saying 60 percent of its power comes from renewable energy

Independent environmental organization Greenpeace is in the midst of a disagreement with Apple after giving the tech giant and others like Amazon and Microsoft low Clean Energy Index scores. 

Greenpeace recently released a report called "How Clean is Your Cloud?" which investigates the amount of renewable energy that technology companies used to power data centers and the cloud. Some notable companies that made the list include Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard.

Many companies on the list received lower scores, including Apple. In fact, Apple had the highest percentage for coal dependency out of all the other tech giants at 55.1 percent. It also had a fairly low Clean Energy Index percentage of 15.3 percent compared to others on the list. As far as scores go, Apple received a "D" for energy transparency, an "F" for infrastructure siting, a "D" for energy efficiency and GHG mitigation, and a "D" for renewables and advocacy.

Apple didn't take this sitting down, of course. The gadget maker said the estimates were inaccurate, and supposedly told Greenpeace this back when Apple first saw the original report. Greenpeace said it published the numbers anyway as an attempt to make tech companies' dirty energy use transparent.

"Our data center in North Carolina will draw about 20 megawatts at full capacity, and we are on track to supply more than 60 percent of that power on-site from renewable sources including a solar farm and fuel cell installation which will each be the largest of their kind in the country," said Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Apple. "We believe this industry-leading project will make Maiden the greenest data center ever built, and it will be joined next year by our new facility in Oregon running on 100 percent renewable energy."

Apple opened its 100-acre Maiden, North Carolina data center last spring for iCloud and iTunes support. In previous reports, Apple has said that the 20-megawatt facility would generate about 42 million kWh of clean energy on an annual basis. Next to the data center will be Apple's fuel cell installation, which will be a 5-megawatt facility generating 40 million kWh of 24x7 baseload of renewable energy annually.

Despite Apple's efforts to counter the poor Clean Energy Index score, Greenpeace just wasn't buying it.

"While we welcome Apple's attempt today to provide more specific details on its North Carolina iData Center, it does not appear to have provided the full story, and is instead seeking to provide select pieces of information to make their dirty energy footprint seem smaller," said Greenpeace.

Apple wasn't the only company to complain about its poor score. Amazon reportedly disagreed with Greenpeace's estimates as well, which was a Clean Energy Index percentage of 13.5 percent and 33.9 percent of coal dependency. Amazon received terrible scores, consisting of a "F" for energy transparency, an "F" for infrastructure siting, a "D" for energy efficiency and GHG mitigation, and a "F" for renewables and advocacy.

Other notable mentions on the list include Facebook, with a 36.4 percent Clean Energy Index score, 39.4 percent coal usage, and grades of "D," "B," "B," and "C"; Google, with a 39.4 percent Clean Energy Index score, 28.7 percent coal dependency, and grades of "B," "C," "B," and "A," and Microsoft, with a 13.9 percent Clean Energy Index score, 39.3 percent coal usage, and grades of "C," "D," "C," and "C."

Sources: Greenpeace, Apple Insider



Comments     Threshold


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

I don't get it.
By loboracing on 4/18/2012 10:48:01 AM , Rating: 3
I can't make rhyme nor reason out of that chart.




RE: I don't get it.
By slashbinslashbash on 4/18/2012 12:07:25 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, I think they might actually be rating companies down for using nuclear power. That shows you how distorted their worldview is.


RE: I don't get it.
By Omega215D on 4/18/2012 12:44:00 PM , Rating: 3
ugh, that reminds me:

NY, especially NYC is now in a power predicament now that Indian Point Nuclear plant is nearing the end of it's life span with no replacement in sight. The danger is that now they want to try to extend the plant's life as there's nothing to take its place. It was admitted that the nuclear plant supplied the most energy for the city compared to other sources, yet those 'tarded up ecofreaks don't want another nuclear plant.


RE: I don't get it.
By ritualm on 4/19/2012 2:46:58 AM , Rating: 2
The best part is it rated Akamai an A for energy transparency, even though there is no hard data to support getting such good ratings.

Greenpeace's latest report is a sham.


RE: I don't get it.
By tecknurd on 4/19/2012 12:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
FYI, nuclear power is not renewable. Nuclear power is worst than coal because of the very, very hazardous waste that it produces. When the uranium rods are used up, that is the waste and it loaded with hazardous radiation that have to be stored somewhere else safely. That is why nuclear power is not counted by Greenpeace. Solar energy, wind/ocean currents, hydroelectric, geothermal are renewable energy sources that does not create as much waste as nuclear and coal.


RE: I don't get it.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2012 1:00:22 PM , Rating: 3
I don't get why Greenpeace, an irrelevant Eco-terrorist organization, now thinks it's an authority on data center efficiency. When did this happen?


RE: I don't get it.
By kfonda on 4/18/2012 2:24:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I don't get why Greenpeace, an irrelevant Eco-terrorist organization, now thinks it's an authority on data center efficiency. When did this happen?


Maybe all their boats finally got sunk by the pissed of fishermen. Or maybe Al Gore, the inventor of the internet, gave his blessing.


RE: I don't get it.
By Mitch101 on 4/19/2012 10:28:00 AM , Rating: 2
Greenpeace today are Soylent Green tomorrow.


RE: I don't get it.
By ritualm on 4/18/2012 6:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
Do not confuse Sea Shepherd with Greenpeace. The former is in Jihad against Japan simply because of the Japanese race, the other hates anything that is not renewable.


RE: I don't get it.
By Azethoth on 4/18/2012 6:23:44 PM , Rating: 3
No, Sea Shepherd is in a Jihad with the twits in Japan that insist on slaughtering hundreds of whales for "research" purposes when really it is just a cover for an obsolete fishing habit.


RE: I don't get it.
By ritualm on 4/18/2012 6:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
Do you really believe what Sea Shepherd is spoonfeeding you? I don't agree with Japan over its whaling practices, but I also think what SS is doing amounts to terrorism at the same level as Somalia's sea piracy problem that required military ships to escort commercial ships in the first place.

Besides the fact that Paul Watson and their ilk are racist against the Japanese. He publicly praised last year's 3/11 as a "divine wind" punishing Japan.

If you support Sea Shepherd, in some places you can be seen as a terrorist supporter.


RE: I don't get it.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2012 10:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't he also fake being shot by Japanese fishermen to further his cause? I mean honestly, if you believe your cause is just and you're so righteous, why would you lie like that?

I don't agree with what the Japanese are doing, but come on, going out in a boat with a camera crew and ramming them in international waters seems like more of a publicity stunt than a means to enact change. But I guess it keeps the paychecks coming...


RE: I don't get it.
By loboracing on 4/19/2012 8:34:50 AM , Rating: 2
I used to watch that show because they were the most incompetent seaman I have ever seen, lol. I was in the navy for 8 years and I can not for the life of me figure out how they haven't killed someone or sunk their ship. Every knowledgeable person they get on board leaves the first chance they get after going to sea with those clowns.


RE: I don't get it.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2012 11:50:47 AM , Rating: 4
LOL it's true. I loved the one where they broke every rule of international seamanship and played chicken with a massive research ship from Japan by parking a small boat directly in-front of them and expecting them to go around. The Japanese just rammed their stupid asses, of course, while Suck Sheppard and crew acted mortified like they witnesses a criminal terrorist act. AHAHAHA


RE: I don't get it.
By ClownPuncher on 4/18/2012 3:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you need to, when it's clearly irrelevant and arbitrary?


RE: I don't get it.
By Flunk on 4/18/2012 3:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
Greenpeace doesn't understand technology so they just arbitrarily make up their numbers. They have been doing this for a long time. It's more of a rating of Greenpeace's totally uninformed opinion of the companies involved than anything else.


RE: I don't get it.
By CZroe on 4/19/2012 8:18:50 AM , Rating: 2
Simple: Businesses can't just prostrate themselves before Greenpeace or else any competitor could get any info they want by pretending to be an environmental organization, but if a business does not roll over for them, they give them an "F" for transparency and ding their scores in everything else. It's shameful. I remember when they gave Nintendo an "F" in everything because they wouldn't talk to them. *I* wouldn't talk to them either! I laughed at their videos about lead in game consoles poisoning our water table from the landfills: These game consoles wouldn't *BE* in the landfills if they didn't adopt RoHS Pd-free solder! It seems that people don't throw away working game console no matter how old.

I lived in San Diego, the headquarters of these idiots, and every supermarket and department store had signs out front distancing themselves from Greenpeace's solicitors because, well, they appeared at every storefront in rotation to harass customers for "commitments" and membership. They stand out front with binders, petitions, pamphlets, and forms, harassing everyone entering and exiting. Most are obvious hippie kids talking about saving the whales from hunting, as if the Japanese weren't hunting sustainable species and as if the research exemptions of international whaling agreements weren't intended specifically for Japan which, as an example of responsible hunting, was never guilty of driving whale species to near extinction like other countries had. They need to learn a thing or two about their own causes.


Ever since the whales were saved...
By borismkv on 4/18/2012 12:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
Greenpeace has been useless. I mean, the only country that still hunts whales in abundance is Japan. And half of them don't know why they hunt them. Alaskan Natives kill about 1-2 whales per tribe per year, but they use that meat and blubber for just about everything.

As a result, Greenpeace has to resort to publicity stunts like this to get any level of attention and donorship these days. They're pretty much just trying to hang on as a non-profit so their CEO and executives don't have to go get a real job.




By Flunk on 4/18/2012 3:54:50 PM , Rating: 1
Japan hunts whales as a make-work project to fishermen who would be unemployed otherwise.


RE: Ever since the whales were saved...
By ritualm on 4/18/2012 6:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
You're talking about Sea Shepherd, which is not a part of Greenpeace. It was the former's behavior that made the latter uncomfortable and forced it to cut its ties.

Sea Shepherd is about as violent as the negro crime uprising that is hitting many US cities of late (highly offtopic, but this is how you know it's black people doing it: nobody mentions their race or skin color); it clearly believes wiping Japan from its existence is the only way to stop whales from being hunted. Greenpeace doesn't play that game anymore. It's too extremist and scares their donors - their primary source of funding - away.


RE: Ever since the whales were saved...
By borismkv on 4/18/2012 11:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
No I'm not. I'm talking about Greenpeace. The completely useless Non Profit that has no purpose other than self-continuation.


RE: Ever since the whales were saved...
By ritualm on 4/19/2012 2:38:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Greenpeace has been useless. I mean, the only country that still hunts whales in abundance is Japan. And half of them don't know why they hunt them...

That's what you said.

My reply was that you have both Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd mixed up. When is the last time Greenpeace blockaded Japanese whaling ships outside Australian territorial waters?


By borismkv on 4/19/2012 1:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
Reading comprehension fail. Read the freakin title of the post, too "Ever since the whales were saved...greenpeace has been useless".I was stating that Greenpeace's original charter, saving whales, is no longer really necessary because there are very few whale hunters out there anymore. I don't care about the Sea Shepherd.


Obfuscation All Around?
By ltcommanderdata on 4/18/2012 11:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple didn't take this sitting down, of course. The gadget maker said the estimates were inaccurate, and supposedly told Greenpeace this back when Apple first saw the original report. Greenpeace said it published the numbers anyway as an attempt to make tech companies' dirty energy use transparent.

Greenpeace complains Apple isn't providing full facts in order to make itself out in the best light. Greenpeace themselves say their numbers may not be accurate but are publishing them anyways to make Apple look worse. It just seems like environmental issues often become more a publicity play by both NGOs and companies than about the environment itself.




RE: Obfuscation All Around?
By msheredy on 4/18/2012 11:34:08 AM , Rating: 2
Greenpeace...

They're still around?


RE: Obfuscation All Around?
By rcc on 4/18/2012 2:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's been true for quite a while.


RE: Obfuscation All Around?
By MonkeyPaw on 4/18/2012 2:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry. I'm sure Apple will sue them before long. They sue everyone else.


Greenpeace
By rcc on 4/18/2012 2:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have more respect for Greenpeace if their fleet was wind, solar, or nuclear powered. Well, and quit the whole eco-terrorist thing.




RE: Greenpeace
By Azethoth on 4/18/2012 6:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like the sailing ship that got blown up by French commandos?


RE: Greenpeace
By messele on 4/19/2012 1:56:39 AM , Rating: 2
The Rainbow Warrior did have sails fitted but it was still a fishing trawler with two marine diesel engines under all that. How much it relied on those engines I have no idea though.


RE: Greenpeace
By rcc on 4/19/2012 1:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
Which means that it probably did a couple of knots directly downwind under sail, and couldn't sail to windward at all.

But by putting any sails on it, functional or not, they could get the followers to identify it as a sailing ship.


Oh NO!
By StanO360 on 4/19/2012 3:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
Tell me it's not true!! And why should we care about Greenpeace's opinion about anything? That's right, the biggest cost in a data center is power, and power loss (equals heat and therefore chiller space and power), and the necessary UPS size.

Data centers do everything they can to reduce power, they don't need phony "green" ideas. Reduce power 10% means reduced hardware (everything is redundant, so you save double), reduced cooling, reduced backup.




LOL @ Greenpeace
By overlandpark4me on 4/20/2012 12:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
I give them low marks as an organization in general. But on the bright side, I treasure my weekly chuckle when they are mentioned in my local rag.




greenpeace...?
By Moishe on 4/23/2012 4:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone caught taking Greenpeace seriously will be flogged continuously.

Greenpeace is absurd and when they speak, they deserve to simply be dismissed.




By Aries1470 on 4/19/2012 11:15:27 AM , Rating: 1
Ok, I get the blaming and all.. but and this is a big one... please read carefully
quote:
"Our data center in North Carolina will draw about 20 megawatts at full capacity, and we are on track to supply more than 60 percent of that power on-site from renewable sources including a solar farm and fuel cell installation which will each be the largest of their kind in the country," said Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Apple. "We believe this industry-leading project will make Maiden the greenest data center ever built, and it will be joined next year by our new facility in Oregon running on 100 percent renewable energy."


Now, IF you cleared your mind and read carefully, you all should have noticed that (cr) Apple replied in FUTURE tense. Meaning they are either building it, or doing it etc, they DO NOT HAVE IT YET! NOT TODAY, NOT YESTERDAY, NOT LAST MONTH, NOT LAST YEAR! so, in a report, how can you say oh, he is using clean energy, as of next year or what ever, does not matter what he is using now, or yesterday to run those data centre!

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! THEY ARE COAL USERS. There is ABSOLUTILY no way around.
Now, you can all go and make excuses.

It is like saying the following in a AA meeting:
Oh, I am sober, I will not drink, I was not drinking tomorrow, only clean non-alcohol beverages... Um, then why are you here? You were drinking and are in denial! You were past tense, drinking. You can not change the past.

Or,

A police officer pulls you over for speeding, sorry officer, you are wrong, you should not book me! I was not speeding in the next Km / Mile. The thing is you were pulled over for what you have done, not what you have not done yet.

I hope I made my point :-)




listening to greenpeace is..
By kattanna on 4/18/12, Rating: 0
"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














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