Apple Contests Greenpeace's Coal-fired Data Center Claims
Posted 18 April 2012 - 04:29 AM
Posted 18 April 2012 - 07:48 AM
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.
Posted 18 April 2012 - 02:50 PM
Apple located the data center in a state that a grid that is 60% Coal, 40% Nuclear .
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.
Posted 18 April 2012 - 03:24 PM
How about reading a balancing perspective from Apple
Or this report from Wired
More on biomass and fuel cell
This post has been edited by nonseq: 18 April 2012 - 03:33 PM