Slashdot Mirror
Apple Commits To 100% Renewable Energy Sources for NC Data Center
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."
is the solar array built using renewable energy?
Korma: Good
I'm SHOCKED!
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.
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.
:)
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 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
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
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...
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.
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.
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.
'Fiscal sense' got us in the shit in the first place.
Korma: Good
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).
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'!"
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.
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.
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.