Apple Commits To 100% Renewable Energy Sources for NC Data Center

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Commits To 100% Renewable Energy Sources for NC Data Center

Posted by Unknown on Saturday May 19, 2012 @03:18AM from the hippie-fired-power-plant dept.

judgecorp writes "Stung by continued criticism from Greenpeace and protests at Apple's headquarters over its use of electricity from non-renewable sources, Apple has promised that its data center in Maiden, North Carolina will use 100 percent renewable electricity, 60 percent of it generated by Apple itself. The update is possible because it is building a second giant solar array, and because its data center only needs 20MW at full capacity, instead of the 100MW which Greenpeace had estimated."

108 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

But... by biodata · 2012-05-19 03:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

is the solar array built using renewable energy?

--
Korma: Good
1. Re:But... by ifwm · 2012-05-19 03:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It's coal and oil all the way down...
2. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  trolololol
3. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  Good point, we'd best use this solar array to power the construction of more solar arrays!
4. Re:But... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-05-19 03:38 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yes, the Chinese work force who built the solar panels is quite renewable.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
5. Re:But... by MtHuurne · 2012-05-19 03:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The array will produce far more energy during its lifetime than was used to produce and install it. So while it would be nice if it was built with renewable energy, it's not all that important.
6. Re:But... by RobotRunAmok · 2012-05-19 03:58 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  is the solar array built using renewable energy?
  No, but it IS being constructed by highly-paid union dolphins, so Greenpeace is fine with that.
7. Re:But... by biodata · 2012-05-19 04:10 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  That's good to hear, but unless it generates more energy than the plant needs, to the point where it exceeds the plant's requirements by enough to recover the energy used to make it, then it undermines the claim that the plant uses 100% renewable energy.
  
  --
  Korma: Good
8. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  The array will produce far more energy during its lifetime than was used to produce and install it
  {citation needed}
9. Re:But... by khallow · 2012-05-19 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Come on. This is old news. If you take a look at the links above, you'll see that energy payback time, even for a roof top installation (with all the gear and labor) is on the order of a few years for a system that can last a couple of decades.
10. Re:But... by khallow · 2012-05-19 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  If solar power does become a lot cheaper than other sources of power, then yes, it would make sense to power construction of solar arrays with solar arrays. It is an interesting form of technology bootstrapping and it would give the manufacturer a valuable testing ground.
11. Re:But... by SolusSD · 2012-05-19 04:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  would it be better to consume coal energy for the life of the datacenter, or spend a bit of (possibly dirty) energy to build renewable alternatives?
12. Re:But... by MtHuurne · 2012-05-19 04:41 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I might be feeding a troll here, but I did a quick search and found this. Depending on the type of cell and the manufacturing process and where the panels will be deployed, somewhere between 1 and 3 years, while panels typically come with a 20 year warranty and will likely last 30 to 40 years. That study is from 2000, manufacturing may have become more efficient since then.
13. Re:But... by niftydude · 2012-05-19 04:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The array will produce far more energy during its lifetime than was used to produce and install it.
  I wouldn't say far more.
  
  It takes about 10 years for a typical silicon solar cell to generate the amount of energy that was used in the cell's production. The typical lifetime of the cell is about 25 years. So these types of cells only produce about 2.5 times as much energy as was needed for its production.
  
  There are other solar cells such as organics that take less energy to produce, but because they have a much shorter lifespan, they aren't that much better from this point of view, and they don't get used in large arrays like this one.
  
  The upshot is that the situation with solar cells is not yet as good as we would like it to be, and I don't think that we should be recommending large uptake of solar cells as a truly environmental solution until there is an large improvement in energy required to energy produced ratio.
  
  --
  You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
14. Re:But... by MtHuurne · 2012-05-19 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  They probably mean 100% renewable energy during operation, excluding construction.
15. Re:But... by TooMuchToDo · 2012-05-19 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Otherwise known as EROEI, or Energy Returned On Energy Invested:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
16. Re:But... by AmiMoJo · 2012-05-19 06:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The upshot is that the situation with solar cells is not yet as good as we would like it to be, and I don't think that we should be recommending large uptake of solar cells as a truly environmental solution until there is an large improvement in energy required to energy produced ratio.
  2.5 times as much generated as put into production is still infinitely better than "burn a load of coal" or "produce a load of nuclear waste". It is a net gain, and drives investment and improvement in the technology. We should encourage it as much as possible.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
17. Re:But... by Belial6 · 2012-05-19 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  EROEI sounds suspiciously close to Eloi... I'm just saying...
18. Re:But... by mysidia · 2012-05-19 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's good to hear, but unless it generates more energy than the plant needs, to the point where it exceeds the plant's requirements by enough to recover the energy used to make it
  It probably will. If they intend to be 100% renewable; there must be some spare capacity to cope with upgrades and peak usage.
  They presumably also need backup power sources, such as a grid backup, or emergency generators.
  So to be "100% renewable" they'll need to estimate their annual usage of that, to make sure they will generate the amount of extra power to recover that.
19. Re:But... by mysidia · 2012-05-19 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  2.5 times as much generated as put into production is still infinitely better than "burn a load of coal" or "produce a load of nuclear waste".
  "Load of Nuclear waste" is an artificial thing created by the ban against recycling nuclear wastes, out of concern that the plutonium produced by said recycling might fall into the wrong hands.
  Nuclear power generation properly implemented is much more efficient than either Coal fired plants, OR manufacture of solar cells, and produces only Tiny amounts of waste, which can (and must) be 100% contained; whereas the manufacturing process and the burning of Coal EACH produce massive amounts of highly toxic waste, in the form of heavy metals, MOST of which are released directly into the air.
20. Re:But... by Xest · 2012-05-19 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Someone I know paid for his own panels as he runs a tropical plant nursery here in the UK, so similarly needs a fair bit of power to heat it during the winter. The warranty on his panels was 20 years, but he said the folks providing it seemed pretty honest and were fairly confident they'd last as long as 60 years.
  It's worth noting that to have confidence in a product lasting 20 years without fault means that you have to have a low chance of that product failing in or close to that period else it becomes economically unfeasible to provide that kind of warranty. A 3-fold actual life time on most panels seems a reasonable margin to ensure you don't really lose out by offering a 20 year warranty on the product. As you say also if this study was from 2000, we're now 12 years on, so it's also not suprising that newer panels could last as long as 60 years if the technology has improved.
21. Re:But... by biodata · 2012-05-24 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  The answer to this question depends how much non-renewable energy is used to build the renewable alternatives. You could imagine super efficient solar collectors, built out of materials that take so much energy to mine out of the ground and process that they would never recover their own energy production cost. This might still be economical to do, because energy costs always increase, so anything that can recover its own energy cost will be economical in the long run, because if it is still gathering energy in 5 years time, it will be saving more expensive ($) energy than was used to build it, even though it is equally environmentally desctructive. That was why I asked about this in the first place - they are quoting 100% renewable, and I think we need to ask what they really mean, because from the other discussions here it is starting to sound more like about 67% renewable, given the energy cost of the solar panels in the first place. I think the real answer is to capture the heat which is wasted by computers, and use it to power them, rather than using even more energy to run aircon, but that's my opinion and I am not a datacentre engineer.
  
  --
  Korma: Good
You mean Greenpeace lied? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 03:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm SHOCKED!
1. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by jellomizer · 2012-05-19 03:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We really need to stop giving Greenpeace press. They just make things worse.
  I am for more environmental conscious companies. However Greenpeace with its lies and over exaggerations, make it seem companies who are trying to do the right thing are doing nearly enough, or give estimates that a company knows it cannot meet, so may just scrap the whole idea. or because they are being called the environmental bad guys even when they did the good thing, they will not try to improve their press relations much on that topic.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by geekmux · 2012-05-19 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  We really need to stop giving Greenpeace press. They just make things worse. I am for more environmental conscious companies. However Greenpeace with its lies and over exaggerations, make it seem companies who are trying to do the right thing are doing nearly enough, or give estimates that a company knows it cannot meet, so may just scrap the whole idea. or because they are being called the environmental bad guys even when they did the good thing, they will not try to improve their press relations much on that topic.
  I'll take 10 Greenpeace Orgs any day over the utter stupidity surrounding global warming. Greenpeace looks as tame as a cat lovers convention by comparison.
3. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. Greenpeace achieved its goals decades ago. They used to be all about taking reasonable and cost-effective measures to reduce pollution. After years of campaigning they managed to convince the majority of people that those goals were worth of pursuing.
  
  Now, how does your organization remain confrontational and relevant when everyone already agrees with you? You have to adopt ever more extreme and absurd positions. It is around this time that Patrick Moore, one of Greenpeace's founders, left the organization because it had been taken over by loons and, after the wall fell, by Marxists. (Often called watermelons: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.)
  
  Patrick Moore talk about Greenpeace
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMRUOSlQJ9A
  
  Greenpeace, MADD, and other such organizations are irrelevant in today's world. They won, game over, move onto something else.
4. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by Jeremi · 2012-05-19 03:47 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  We really need to stop giving Greenpeace press. They just make things worse.
  Unless you think that getting Apple to move to 100% renewable power is making things worse, it's hard to see how you arrived at the above conclusion from this article. It seems to me that this was a win all around.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
5. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by gnasher719 · 2012-05-19 04:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Unless you think that getting Apple to move to 100% renewable power is making things worse, it's hard to see how you arrived at the above conclusion from this article. It seems to me that this was a win all around.
  Do you really, really think that Apple would do anything because of Greenpeace? Greenpeace has been attacking Apple for years, after Apple refused to donate money to the worthy cause. And again and again their attacks have been proven to be completely clueless.
  
  If Apple is using 100% renewable power for some data centre, then the only reason for that is that they planned to do exactly that from the start.
6. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by Mashiki · 2012-05-19 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'll take 10 Greenpeace Orgs any day over the utter stupidity surrounding global warming. Greenpeace looks as tame as a cat lovers convention by comparison.
  Really? Before or after they decided they want everyone to go back to the darkages to live? Well they're not as bad as David Suzuki, but still pretty bad.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
7. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by jo_ham · 2012-05-19 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Greenpeace didn't "get" Apple to do that though, Apple were doing that anyway.
  Greenpeace just came along and accused them of lying about the numbers, then when Apple put out a press release gently correcting them, and also talking about a second data centre also targeted to be powered fully by renewable, Greenpeace can now sweep in and claim all the credit for "keeping Apple honest" and "making big companies think about being green" when really they were doing it anyway.
  Much like the very low score Greenpeace gave Apple on their "greenness" chart thing (and much lower than other companies that were nowhere near as green as Apple) because they simply hadn't done the research. For example, HP scoring big green points for making a plan to decide on when to remove BFRs from their products, and Apple scoring very low for no plan... but they'd already eliminated use of BFRs in their products 2 years before. And the same with reduced use of lead, and expanded polystyrene, and PVC in cables etc. Then when Apple releases a press release all about this, Greenpeace claim that they are the ones making Apple behave responsibly.
  Greenpeace are doing more to hurt the green cause than helping it. There's only so many times you can be a dick - like soliciting donations that will directly fun criminal damage - before people start getting turned off the message, which is the last thing we want.
  I'm as pro-green as they come - my future doctoral work will be into sustainable energy and catalytic water splitting etc - but I want absolutely nothing to do with Greenpeace. They do not represent me.
8. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I do think Apple did things because of Greenpeace. But they aren't reacting to Greenpeace.
  Greenpeace is stupid and predictable. Apple had to have known how they would react since, as you note, they've been attacked by Greenpeace for years. Apple simply planned ahead. This was a win on every front for Apple and makes Greenpeace look stupid (not that they need help with that).
  This is exactly what I would do to discredit a critic if I were Apple.
9. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by Mindcontrolled · 2012-05-19 05:41 · Score: 2
  
  And that whole dark ages thing, you get that from where? Argument by anal extraction? Well, straw-men are carbon-neutral...
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
10. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by data2 · 2012-05-19 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  While it might not be the case in the US, Greenpeace is highly respected in many parts of the world, so the danger to image is real.
  Also, Greenpeace would never accept money from Apple as it is a corporation.
11. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-05-19 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  Also, Greenpeace would never accept money from Apple as it is a corporation.
  I know that Greenpeace says that they will not accept money from corporations, but they do not reveal where their money actually comes from, so we only have their word for that.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
12. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  It's because Greenpeace is like Yelp. You play nice with them, or bad things happen. They want sponsorships with the companies to survive, and Apple won't fork over any donations to them. So, they get nitpicked by GP every chance they get. I stopped paying attention to Greenpeace ages ago because of this.
13. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 14:10 · Score: 0
  
  Greenpeace would never accept money from Apple as it is a corporation.
  Bullshit. They tried to shake Apple down, Steve told them to fuck off.
14. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by AK+Marc · 2012-05-19 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm glad you mentioned MADD. IT achieved its goals back in the 1980s (the laws in place, but it took another 10 years for the public opinion to change). And so they went after .05 and such, so that cell phones are more dangerous than "drunk", and the organization has been taken over by a bunch of prohibitionists who want to outlaw alcohol, and use "think of the kids" as the excuse.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
15. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-19 15:54 · Score: 0
  
  Unless you think that getting Apple to move to 100% renewable power is making things worse,
  Green power besides hydro and nuclear is more expensive than fossil fuels. That higher price is the market telling you that it takes more resources to use "X" source of power than "Y". By using more resources you are doing more damage to the environment than by using the cheaper source of fuel that uses less resources.
16. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by Mashiki · 2012-05-19 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  And that whole dark ages thing, you get that from where? Argument by anal extraction? Well, straw-men are carbon-neutral...
  From science, from their own mouths, and from what, how and in the ways they act. Don't worry if reality has to kick you in the chops every now and then.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
17. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by Xest · 2012-05-19 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with Greenpeace is that it doesn't always lie.
  It was quite right regarding the whales, and has been quite succesful as a result.
  Obviously on nuclear it's almost entirely wrong though.
  But I disagree that we should stop listening to them because a) it means there's a counterbalance to the massive fossil fuel lobby that due to their past successes, people listen to, and b) I don't think most companies are doing nearly enough, most carbon neutral schemes are actually complete bollocks and don't actually result in a reasonable amount of carbon neutrality, and do we even definitely know that Greenpeace did lie in this case? or are we supposedly meant to trust Apple (whose now deceased CEO was famous for outright lying to the world)?
  Look at jo_ham's retarded post below in the discussion "Apple put out a press release gently correcting them", oh well, if Apple put out a press release then obviously it's true. If you read TFA then Greenpeace made an estime of 100 MW sure, but even Amazon queried their 20 MW value and believed it would be at least 78 MW - I fail to believe someone with as much data centre experience with Amazon would come up with an estimate 4x too high.
  Still, fanboys will believe what fanboys believe - Apple releases a press release and it's obviously completely true, and would never be an attempt at saving face.
  Really, reading TFA the only evidence that Apple's new datacentre will only use 20 MW is Apple's say so? Sorry, but I'd rather trust Amazon and Greenpeaces's estimate than blindly swallow anything the company at the centre of the criticism has to say. If it was just Apple vs. Greenpeace then sure you'd have two polar opposites, but Amazon is relatively neutral in this because is itself wouldn't want to get tangled up unnecessarily in data centre controversy when it owns so many so that adds sway to Greenpeaces argument somewhat. The Amazon article is far more interesting than the PR piece in the summary:
  http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/amazon-queries-facebook-apple-sola-69713
  Or the original blog:
  http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2012/03/17/ILoveSolarPowerBut.aspx
  171 acres of trees are being cleared for Apple's solar array.
  So in this case it seems perhaps the real problem is immediately assuming Greenpeace is lying and Apple is right based on nothing more than an Apple press release.
18. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by arth1 · 2012-05-19 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who cares about conservation should support the nature conservancy, ducks unlimited, the sierra club, or best of all, your LOCAL environmental organizations.
  I have to betray my ignorance here. Ducks Unlimited sounds like a rather kinky thing, and I thought the Sierra Club was for Ford owners?
  As for acting locally, yes, but that isn't enough. We need global initiatives too - the inhabitants of the poles aren't going to preserve them locally. But not Greenpeace, no. With their emotional spiel they're untrustworthy. Go to a serious organization that works with governments and people, and not against them.
19. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by jellomizer · 2012-05-20 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  Well any pollution that is happening will happen local to someone. If there are strong local environmental groups globally then then there will be better protection globally. These global institutions are ineffective and stupid, they will let some things slides and others that don't mean anything go threw. With local stuff things like this will happen however their effect will be minimized as multiple groups each with a different set of priorities.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
20. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by jellomizer · 2012-05-20 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  If an organization lies half the time and tells the truth the other half. You really shouldn't listen to them because you never know if it is a lie or not.
  There are other organizations out there that are more honest. Listen to them... They may say the same thing as Greenpeace or they may say something else. Listening to them empowers them, and then they talk more with more 50% lies and 50% truth, confusing the general public and giving the GOP excuses to make the Liberals seem out of touch and just a bunch of corrupt idiots.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
21. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by Xest · 2012-05-20 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  "If an organization lies half the time and tells the truth the other half. You really shouldn't listen to them because you never know if it is a lie or not."
  Really? Yet many people listen to everyone from Apple to the media every single day despite being guilty of a far larger proportion of lies in their press releases. It's a sad truth, but if you don't lie some of the time then you're fighting a battle with one armed tied behind your back. Telling organisations not to lie is akin to telling them not to try and even compete with those that will in the political arena, and to effectively give way to them. If more people held the likes of Apple and News International to account when they lie then I'd agree with you, but no one does, instead, here on Slashdot you can find thousands of fanboys who will defend such lies when it comes to Apple, elsewhere you can find fanboys who will defend Microsoft's lies, other places you can find people who will defend the media's lies. We don't live in the pictoresque ideal world where issuing equally over the top rhetoric is an option.
  "There are other organizations out there that are more honest. Listen to them..."
  Who are these mystical organisations who always tell the truth? I can't even think of a single one that has lied sometimes pushing them into your "don't listen to them category".
  Really, the solution isn't "don't listen to those who lie", chances are those you think don't lie have just been more succesful at pulling the wool over your eyes. The solution is to recognise the reality that politics is a fucking dirty game, that lying is inevitable and that listening to both sides of the argument to try and judge the middle ground is the most sane option. That's why I suspect Amazon's position is the most realistic - it's not quite as extreme as Greenpeace's position, but it provides more reasoning as to why Greenpeace might think Apple's position is little more than a bit of fluffy PR even if it's not quite as bad as Greenpeace says - either way, on the weight of the evidence it seems unlike Apple is telling the complete truth, and it seems unlikely Greenpeace is. I doubt even Amazon's evaluation of the situation is perfect but it seems Apple's 20MW and 100% renewable claim is most likely bullshit and that there is at least some merit to what Greenpeace has to say.
22. Re:You mean Greenpeace lied? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-24 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  The only reason Apple is doing that is for the cheaper energy and the tax write-off for going 'green'. One of the biggest business write-offs of our time and how all the big corps keep their bottom line lower.
I guess the walled garden... by schitso · 2012-05-19 03:25 · Score: 1, Funny

...couldn't keep the environmentalists out.

(I'm so sorry.)
1. Re:I guess the walled garden... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  It sure didn't take long for the shills to come out!
Lesson learned by nurb432 · 2012-05-19 03:27 · Score: 0

If you protest you get your way, even when it doesn't make fiscal sense.
Great lesson.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Re:Lesson learned by bakuun · 2012-05-19 03:35 · Score: 2
  
  If you protest you get your way, even when it doesn't make fiscal sense.
  Fiscal sense is not the only type of sense worth pursuing.
2. Re:Lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed, fiscally a lot of things make no sense. But they are often right.
3. Re:Lesson learned by nurb432 · 2012-05-19 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  It is if you want to grow your business. Screw the 'greenies'.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
4. Re:Lesson learned by biodata · 2012-05-19 04:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  'Fiscal sense' got us in the shit in the first place.
  
  --
  Korma: Good
5. Re:Lesson learned by ifwm · 2012-05-19 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree, without "fiscal sense" Apple wouldn't exist to go green in the first place.
6. Re:Lesson learned by Mindcontrolled · 2012-05-19 05:43 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You mean "screw your neighbours and the future generation, I waaaaaant profit now, mum!!! WAAAAH!". Thankfully, most people exceed that maturity level by age of 6 or so.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
7. Re:Lesson learned by nurb432 · 2012-05-19 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, that isn't what i said. If you are capable, re-read my post and you will see i said something far different.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
8. Re:Lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  | You mean "screw your neighbours and the future generation, I waaaaaant profit now, mum!!! WAAAAH!". Thankfully, most people exceed that maturity level by age of 6 or so.
  But very few Corporations every get past that level.
9. Re:Lesson learned by mysidia · 2012-05-19 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  If you protest you get your way, even when it doesn't make fiscal sense.
  You assume it doesn't make fiscal sense, BUT: Who says it doesn't make fiscal sense what they are doing?
  Surely there are some tax incentives and other benefits for Apple to make this choice.
  
  Electricity has been getting more expensive, and generating your own helps make costs more predictable, and less influenced by outside elements, especially if you anticipate the market price will be increasing in the future, AND there is a concern of possible "carbon taxes" being implemented in the future.
  Apple has a surplus of cash, it's not as if they can't fiscally afford the 100% renewable thing, especially if it helps them maintain the corporate image they want to maintain, and reduces some risks; AND creates another argument Why users should utilize iCloud: It's GREENER than using your own spinning rust, because your files will be stored on a system that utilizes 100% Green energy. Win win win for Apple.
10. Re:Lesson learned by BasilBrush · 2012-05-19 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  No, that isn't what i said. If you are capable, re-read my post and you will see i said something far different
  ... and stupider.
11. Re:Lesson learned by BasilBrush · 2012-05-19 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  Apple isn't what it is because of accountants and MBAs. Apple is where it is because it brought the liberal arts in to product design. And unlike most companies didn't allow accountants and MBAs to penny pinch.
  Having a datacentre powered with renewables fits perfectly with Apple's business model.
12. Re:Lesson learned by nurb432 · 2012-05-19 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Go hug that tree and leave us adults be.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
13. Re:Lesson learned by BasilBrush · 2012-05-19 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  You're getting stupider by the minute.
14. Re:Lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 12:43 · Score: 0
  
  Your comments are going downhill. I suggest you stop sucking on the tailpipe so much.
15. Re:Lesson learned by nurb432 · 2012-05-20 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  *yawn*
  How about you get out of the way before the industrialists roll over you. "Green" is not the future, no more than it was the past.
  Going down this path will end Apple. Which is too bad, as i have always liked apple products and own many ( all the way back to the ][ ).
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
foo by AWeishaupt · 2012-05-19 03:32 · Score: 1, Interesting

Bloom Energy's fuel cells run on methane (natural gas) drilled and/or hydrofractured out of the ground, and they react this methane with atmospheric oxygen to yield carbon dioxide which they vent to the atmosphere. The system's thermodynamic efficiency is scarcely higher than a conventional Brayton-cycle gas turbine. As with the rest of the natural gas industry, they've been quite successful in greenwashing their fossil fuel industry. So, how is it exactly that this is "renewable energy"? Anyway, I wouldn't pay attention to any circus of Greenpeace activists outside Apple headquarters. They are science and engineering illiterate neo-luddites. "just days after Greenpeace protested at Apple headquarters over the firm’s use of coal and nuclear-powered electricity at the site." Apple's NC data centre is powered, at least in part, by nuclear energy? That's great news. Now you're really talking about sustainable, scalable, high-capacity-factor, fossil-fuel-replacing, environmentally friendly energy supply.
1. Re:foo by UnknowingFool · 2012-05-19 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Bloom Energy fuel cells can run on any hydrocarbon gas like propane, butane, methane, etc. It has different efficiencies based on the gas. In Apple's case they are attempting to use waste gas coming from a landfill which is mostly methane. It's not renewable per se but much greener than drilling. The renewable was the solar array (which they already built one). This news is for the second array which will increase the amount of green energy the plant uses. I think however Apple was planning this all along as they provisioned for it in their site design. Greenpeace wants to take credit for making Apple do it when they were always going to do it.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
2. Re:foo by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2012-05-19 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  So, how is it exactly that this is "renewable energy"?
  Oil? Natural gas?
  Pigs. I mean, landfills. Landfillshit. The lights, vehicles, all powered by a high energy gas called methane. Methane comes from landfillshit.
  It's called Underworld. It's where Bartertown gets its energy. And don't forget, bust a deal, face the wheel.
3. Re:foo by dkf · 2012-05-19 04:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In Apple's case they are attempting to use waste gas coming from a landfill which is mostly methane. It's not renewable per se but much greener than drilling.
  It's enormously better than the alternatives. The landfill is producing methane gas anyway (dumping organic matter tends to make that happen) so it's not like it is being specially produced. What's more, methane is a hugely more powerful gas than carbon dioxide when it comes to generating global warming; it's far more efficient at trapping heat itself, it catalyzes the generation of ozone in the atmosphere (itself a heat-trapping gas, as well as otherwise general Bad News when in the troposphere) and eventually it breaks down all the way to CO2 anyway. Far better to burn the methane that would have been otherwise vented and get some useful power out of it than just about any other alternative you can think of (and the second best alternative is actually to just burn that methane as it is produced). Of course, if it was possible to prevent the formation of the methane in the first place then that would potentially be better still, but that's not a realistic option.
  In short, whether or not you consider it a renewable option is moot; it's definitely the green option.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
4. Re:foo by Solandri · 2012-05-19 07:08 · Score: 2
  
  Landfill gas (methane), wood-burning, and biofuels are classified as renewables. There's a tendency for people to think that "gives off CO2 = not renewable". Renewable just means the net mass balance is zero - after all is said and done, you've left the chemical compounds in the same place they started at. In the case of landfill gas and burning wood and biofuels, the carbon in the CO2 released was originally extracted from CO2 in the atmosphere by plants as a part of photosynthesis a few years or decades ago. It got incorporated into the organic matter of the plant, and is eventually released when you burn the wood or biofuel, or the matter decomposes in a landfill. Essentially, they're just acting as a chemical battery storing solar energy originally captured by the plant.
  
  Technically the same is true for fossil fuels. However, the carbon there has been sequestered underground, out of the system for millions of years. So the carbon is considered to have "started at" underground, rather than in the atmosphere. Burning them is considered adding "new" carbon into the atmospheric system. Unless you can figure out a way to convert the CO2 they generate back into carbon and O2 / H2O, and stick the carbon underground again, they're not considered renewable.
North Carolina by cosm · 2012-05-19 03:36 · Score: 2, Informative

I live in Raleigh, NC, and for those who have a jaundiced perspective of the south I would like to say that this region is booming in terms of technology-centric business. We have research triangle park with many large corps, labs, data-centers, and rising businesses. We get many migrants from silicon valley who come this way for the better tax benefits and all that jazz. It's a beautiful state. Moving here from Illinois has been great for me and my family.

We also get many business from the DC beltline area and the Virginia tech-sector as well, so there's a lot of growth here in that regard. With the ocean on our east coast and Appalachia on the west, it's a pretty sweet state. Of course there are your stereotypical types, your poor areas, your up-close-and-personal political issues, corruption, et al, but compared to some of our neighboring states down here NC has a very modern feel (SC I'm looking at you!). "North Carina is best Carina!" as some like to say :) Anecdotal, of course, but if you're looking for a city to move to in the south, The Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area has its benefits.

--
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
1. Re:North Carolina by FauxPasIII · 2012-05-19 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  > I live in Raleigh, NC, and for those who have a jaundiced perspective of the south I would like to say that this region is booming in terms of technology-centric business
  You know, maybe it's because I've always lived to the south of you (Atlanta), but I never really applied the negative southern stereotype to North Carolina, not until you amended your constitution just a couple weeks ago.
  It will be interesting to see how that decision affects the state in the medium term... stereotypes and reputation like that can have a lot of impact on whether companies choose to set up shop there.
  
  --
  25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
2. Re:North Carolina by khallow · 2012-05-19 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  You know, maybe it's because I've always lived to the south of you (Atlanta), but I never really applied the negative southern stereotype to North Carolina, not until you amended your constitution just a couple weeks ago.
  Even California did the same in 2008. I don't like it, but it's not a good measure of a state's attitudes.
Apple's Renewable Energy Plan. by Nyder · 2012-05-19 03:44 · Score: 3, Funny

1. Build Giant Hamster wheel, connect to power grid.
2. Tell Foxconn employess you have a better job for them.
3. ...
4. Profit!!!
5. Fight Lawsuits.

--
Be seeing you...
1. Re:Apple's Renewable Energy Plan. by jo_ham · 2012-05-19 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Surely just easier to install a bucket wheel on the side of the Foxconn plant that rotates as it catches a suicidal jumper. Connect output shaft to generator. Profit?
2. Re:Apple's Renewable Energy Plan. by hey! · 2012-05-19 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it will be a water wheel. Apple's new renewable energy source: the tears of Chinese workers.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Stung by? by UnknowingFool · 2012-05-19 03:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

WTH? Apple's first response to Greenpeace was something along the lines of "Bullshit. They don't know jack." Reading the article, it looks like Apple caved into Greenpeace's demands. If the reporter had followed Apple's proposal from the beginning, Apple had always proposed a solar array for the site. They also were planning to use landfill gas as another means of energy. Apple never disclosed how much energy the site would be required and how much would be fueled by green power but Apple estimated the center would use 20MW. Greenpeace in their vast inner knowledge of technology estimated Apple would use 100MW. Greenpeace based their estimate solely on how much Apple paid for the total cost of construction. Greenpeace never factored in that part of the construction cost was the solar array (which are expensive) and other non-server related costs. Instead of acknowledging that calculating power based on total construction cost instead of server costs was a miscalculation, Greenpeace acted as if they did something to change Apple's minds. All they did was make fools of themselves. Apple like other tech companies are interested in green power like solar and power efficiency. Part of it is being a good corporate citizen, and part of it is that it saves them money.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
1. Re:Stung by? by Kaenneth · 2012-05-19 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  Just like with Global Warming; it it gets warmer "We warned you!", if it doesn't "Yay! we saved the world!"
  Global Warming isn't Science, because it's not falsifiable (in their minds)
2. Re:Stung by? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 14:25 · Score: 0
  
  Just like Medicine: It is not science because it is not falsifiable that the result of a heart attack was the fact that the person drank 10 liters of soda and ate 5 kilos of butter a day.
  It could be genetic. Or god.
  Or you are simply a retard.
what "estimate"??? by sribe · 2012-05-19 03:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Greenpeace did not estimate anything. They pulled a number out of their asses.
Now of course they'll try to take credit for Apple's "change of heart". Even though the Apple announcement clarifies that the reason they're going from 50% to 100% is that they have now, after presumably months of work on it, been able to acquire an additional 100 acres (40 hectares) of land for a second solar array.
1. Re:what "estimate"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  You're a little far west there, hombre. Maiden's electricity is provided by Duke Energy. And while they do operate some hydro power, there's far more nuclear generation than hyrdo.
2. Re:what "estimate"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  True, but it's all on the grid. Any power company will be happy to sell you "green" electricity at a premium as long as they can swap "dirty" electrons for it.
I too have commited to renewable energy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 04:08 · Score: 0

My plan is to eat at Taco Bell every day. Let the methane production commence!
Agreed, Greenpeace doesn't deserve credit by wisebabo · 2012-05-19 04:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Since Apple announced "their planned solar array" just "days after Greenpeace's protest" it is clear Greenpeace didn't push them into doing anything (except maybe making their press release earlier). You don't spec, design, budget and plan a multi-megawatt facility in a few days.
I'm as green/liberal as any other guy (supported Gore, yada yada) but this Apple bashing just because they're Apple is stupid. Why don't people make a fuss about Google or Facebook? Likewise I like my non-Apple electronics (my hi-def TV says "SAMSUNG") but don't people get the fact that EVERYBODY makes their electronics in Chinese sweatshops and that the working conditions at Apple suppliers are probably the best? That's why there are thousands of "apple-icants" whenever there's openings at Foxconn's plants making Apple products. Nobody ever focuses on the fact that ALL the other global electronics makers are building their stuff at places where the conditions are most likely considerably worse (not to mention the second and third tier companies).
1. Re:Agreed, Greenpeace doesn't deserve credit by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-05-19 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't people make a fuss about Google or Facebook? Likewise I like my non-Apple electronics (my hi-def TV says "SAMSUNG") but don't people get the fact that EVERYBODY makes their electronics in Chinese sweatshops and that the working conditions at Apple suppliers are probably the best?
  
  Because the hipsters using Apple products want desperately to believe that Apple is indeed somehow 'better' than all those others. When they find out it isn't (FOXCONN) they lash out.
  They don't call out the other companies because they know they are evil, and as such cannot be fixed. But Apple is somehow supposed to rise above the masses and market forces. Steve told them so, so it must be so.
2. Re:Agreed, Greenpeace doesn't deserve credit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  People don't make a fuss about Google because Google has always been transparent about their dedication to clean energy, and has been recognized many times for it. They're even making giant investments in renewables. http://www.google.com/green/energy/
  Meanwhile, Apple has been as opaque as possible regarding their environmental effects, only opening up about it when they think it'll affect their bottom line.
3. Re:Agreed, Greenpeace doesn't deserve credit by SuperKendall · 2012-05-19 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  Because the hipsters using Apple products want desperately to believe that Apple is indeed somehow 'better' than all those others. When they find out it isn't (FOXCONN) they lash out.
  The really funny thing is Apple IS better - Apple is giving money to Foxconn to improve factories, no other company is doing that. They have also given workers bonuses in the past.
  The only people lashing out mindlessly are the green companies that are ignoring the companies that actually do not care and punishing one of the few that cares even a little.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
4. Re:Agreed, Greenpeace doesn't deserve credit by tlhIngan · 2012-05-22 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  People don't make a fuss about Google because Google has always been transparent about their dedication to clean energy, and has been recognized many times for it. They're even making giant investments in renewables. http://www.google.com/green/energy/
  Meanwhile, Apple has been as opaque as possible regarding their environmental effects, only opening up about it when they think it'll affect their bottom line.
  And that's why the greenpeace thing was BS to begin with - they're not measuring "environmental friendliness", they're measuring "environmental PR column-inches". The more PR crap you post about being green, the higher you are up in the rankings.
  Hell, HP kept winning with vague promises to "reduce emissions" and crap that like with no firm targets or anything.
  All Apple's doing is producing PR column-inches on what they're doing which increases their ranking. (it is easy to do when plans are already being executed to do it).
  Hell, I bet BP could get to be the #1 cleanest company in the world according to the greenpeace metric.
5. Re:Agreed, Greenpeace doesn't deserve credit by judgecorp · 2012-05-23 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Apple clearly didn't plan a second giant array in two days. I should have spelt this out, but hoped it was clearly enough implied. Peter
6. Re:Agreed, Greenpeace doesn't deserve credit by AK+Marc · 2012-05-25 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  When they find out it isn't (FOXCONN) they lash out.
  The suicide rate at Foxconn is below average, and the conditions above average. Foxconn isn't a blow against Apple, unless you are an ignorant idiot.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Timing Sucks. by bmo · 2012-05-19 04:30 · Score: 1

This, after the US has slapped a 31 percent import tariff on photovoltaic cells from China, which happened just the other day.
The protests from the PRC came in yesterday.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303360504577411693605403040.html
My take on it is that China has been dumping and this protesting is pro-forma but it sucks if you're an end-user of pv cells.
--
BMO
1. Re:Timing Sucks. by jo_ham · 2012-05-19 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Might be a good short term boost for the US economy though - I mean, now Apple needs 40MW of solar panels and the cost of the Chinese ones just got more expensive. Should be a few happy US workers tonight (although ultimately I think punitive import tariffs are something of a double edged sword, there's not much you can do against a determined dumping on the market).
Siting questionable by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-05-19 04:45 · Score: 1

If they wanted to save electrical power, they picked a bad location. In North Carolina, their air conditioning costs will be very high. They'd save a lot on power by builing in Colorado, Utah, Nevada or Wyoming where the air is cooler and dryer and for large parts of the year you can just open the windows for cooling.
1. Re:Siting questionable by jo_ham · 2012-05-19 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just in NC for the power though - there's land prices, network links to the backbone, various tax breaks from the local city, etc all factored into the location.
  I'm assuming they did their homework on where to build it given how much it cost. ;)
2. Re:Siting questionable by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-05-19 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't for energy efficiency reasons is all I'm saying.
  I think it must have been mostly for the tax breaks.
3. Re:Siting questionable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  Being in those other parts of the country isn't so awesome when you're trying to shorten the routes to destination devices on the eastern seaboard. If the primary concern was power efficiency, they could build in Alaska. Fuck Utah. There are other concerns that come first. After those are satisfied, then power concerns.
4. Re:Siting questionable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-21 18:40 · Score: 0
  
  On a project this size, you can buy a lot of energy efficiency with the savings from even a small tax break.
Whale oil steam boilers! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 04:48 · Score: 0

We will generate electricity on site (at night when the solar array is useless), by burning whale oil in the steam boilers (and generating electricity from the steam turbine). That oil from the ground is non-renewable, but oil from whales is renewable! Now lets kill us some whales!
OMG, No! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 05:52 · Score: 0

Slavery was outlawed in NC a long time ago. I can't believe they think they can--what? No slave driven pedal power? Solar panels, you say? Very well then, carry on.
1. Re:OMG, No! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  1986 wasnt that long ago...
First Phrase by dwightk · 2012-05-19 05:53 · Score: 1

leave off the first phrase of the summary and it's accuracy and quality increase dramatically.

--
Like anyone can even know that
1. Re:First Phrase by judgecorp · 2012-05-23 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  .. and I am so wishing I'd left the first phrase off....
If Greenpeace wanted to do something useful... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 07:56 · Score: 0

...they could lobby Apple to stop making devices that are nearly impossible to repair.
Most idevices will end up in the trash since Apple designs them to be not repairable. I bet the environmental impact of itrash is greater than the electricity consumed by this data center.
Of course, when your idevice fails, Apple would rather sell you a new one than let you fix the one you already bought.
1. Re:If Greenpeace wanted to do something useful... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-19 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  ...they could lobby Apple to stop making devices that are nearly impossible to repair.
  I repair Apple devices every day, and so do hundreds of Apple service technicians and outside repair vendors. Your incompetence isn't their fault.
Bullshit by Brannon · 2012-05-19 09:10 · Score: 1

you hate Apple because someone with a nicer haircut than you likes their iPhone. That doesn't make you a rebel, it makes you a douchebag.
The awful, awful loss. by SuperKendall · 2012-05-19 15:24 · Score: 1

Unless you think that getting Apple to move to 100% renewable power is making things worse, it's hard to see how you arrived at the above conclusion from this article. It seems to me that this was a win all around.
You think it's win/win.
Yet everything is as it was. Apple as noted was already going the solar path. So Greenpeace wasted YOUR money in an effort to get Apple doing something that was happening already.
Furthermore my people like you declaring "win" it takes all the heat off every other company to do anything. After all, you had a "victory", you can all rest now.
Instead your money could have gone to Greenpeace looking at a company like Dell or Sony and pushing them into more renewable energy use. But that's not as sexy.
So it was not a win at all, it was nothing. The world is no better because of Greenpeace and in fact worse because of the opportunity cost.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley