PCWorld Forums: Apple Contests Greenpeace's Coal-fired Data Center Claims - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for Apple Contests Greenpeace's Coal-fired Data Center Claims here

Greenpeece: When faced with no data, let's make some up.

Pardon me!! But greenpeace are nothing but terrorist. When any of the so-called green objectives are spouted I turn them off. The cost of all their objectives are not cost effective. Maybe we should send them out to another planet then they could do it their way.

After reading this document I will have to agree with Greenpeace.

http://www.greenpeac...isYourCloud.pdf

Apple located the data center in a state that a grid that is 60% Coal, 40% Nuclear . And it appears Apple only built solar panel to power a portion of the computers not the infrastructure of the data center.

buckfushhncy, on 18 April 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

How do you stand by this when there is an 80% discrepancy between Greenpeace's admitted GUESS about usage and Apple's stated use. Also, GreenPeace used 2007 data to evaluate Duke energy when a 2011 report was available. Even the report they used show only 55% coal but the newer report shows that number down to 45%.

Greenpeace wants headlines, and attacking Apple gives them that. What amazes me is how arbitrary their grades are. The report breaks things down into categories. One of which is transparency which Apple received an D and maybe that's fair, but they certainly seem to publish a lot of data about their Green credentials. But lets say it is true. The next category is Infrastructure where they receive an F because
"Apple’s two most recent data center announcements to power the iCloud (Maiden, NC and Prineville, OR) highlight the urgent need.....reliant on coal."
But again Apple states that it's OR center will be 100% renewable powered, so where is the disconnect?
Then they go on to Efficiency where Apple has an amazing track record but still get a D? Read further and they admit that Apple kills it with efficiency, the NC site received LEED Platinum certification, but they aren't transparent enough...wait a second wasn't that a category all on it's own? It doesn't seem right to ding they on two categories for transparency.

Bottom line, Greenpeace has no credibility.

Greenpeace really has done little to effect positive change over the years. They are into sensationalism and self promotion with the apparent goal of garnering publicity and contributions. In my opinion Greenpeace's methods are little more than "puppet show politics", and having read the screed linked above, they are not above twisting alleged "facts" to take advantage of those who will swallow anything negative about Apple, whole.

How about reading a balancing perspective from Apple

http://www.apple.com...nment/progress/

Or this report from Wired

http://www.wired.com...12/04/area-i51/

More on biomass and fuel cell

http://idealab.talki...s-pig-power.php

or this...

http://www.datacente...math-is-busted/

This post has been edited by nonseq: 18 April 2012 - 03:33 PM

Good for Apple!