Our new report “How Clean is Your Cloud” is out today – to show that the massive increase in Internet use is mainly being powered by dirty energy. Apple, Amazon and Microsoft all score badly in the report for relying on dirty coal and dangerous nuclear power for their data centers.
Since 2010 and again in 2011 we have been calling on all the major Internet companies to come clean about the amount and type of power behind the Internet services we use everyday.
Today Apple responded:
In a statement issued in response to the report, Apple disclosed for the first time that the data center would consume about 20 million watts at full capacity — much lower than Greenpeace’s estimate, which is 100 million watts. In territory served by Duke, a million watts is enough to power 750 to 1,000 homes.
Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Apple, added that the company is building two large projects intended to offset energy use from the grid in North Carolina: an array of solar panels and a set of fuel cells.
While it is good to see Apple acknowledge it should reveal more details of the energy consumption of its data centers, the information they released today does not add up with what they have reported to be the size of the investment and physical size of the data center. When Apple announced they were building a data center in North Carolina, they announced a commitment to invest $1 Billion (USD) over 10 years. For a number of the facilities in the “How Clean is Your Cloud?” report, we made estimates of power demand using fairly conservative industry benchmarks for data center investments: 1MW of power demand from servers for every $15 million, though the number is often closer to $8 Million for many companies. Thus, a $1B investment should net Apple 66MW of computer power demand. Assuming a fairly standard energy efficiency factor for new data centers for non-computer energy demand of 50% gives you a 100MW data center. While Apple is well known for making more expensive consumer products, if Apple’s plans for the $ 1Billion investment only generates 20MW in power demand, that would be taking the “Apple premium” to a whole new level.
Size Matters
The size of the facility at 500,000 sq foot would also indicate a much larger power demand. Amazon’s chief web engineer recently conservatively estimated that based just on the size of the facility, the iDatacenter would consume at least 78MW, and speculated that it is probably higher.
We made these estimates because companies like Apple and Amazon have not disclosed details of how much energy data centers use now and will in the future. We provided Apple with our data prior to releasing the “How Clean is Your Cloud?” report, and while they did not agree with our estimate, they declined to provide specific information on their energy demand.
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.
The IT industry can be a part of the solution to old-fashioned problems like emissions from coal. Some companies, like Google, Yahoo and Facebook are already doing that, by taking steps to move toward powering their clouds with clean energy, not coal or nuclear. This campaign is creating an opportunity for Apple to join them and start becoming a part of the solution to climate change, so that we can deal with emissions from the growth of ‘cloud computing’ before it becomes an irreversible problem. Step one in seizing this opportunity is for companies to be transparent about their energy use.
Gary Cook
So your response to Apple’s official company statement on their power use at their data center is to (a) suggest they must be fudging the numbers and (b) quote hearsay from their direct competitor as proof they must be hiding something?
The fact of the matter is your analysis here makes no mention of the massive solar array built to help power this data center. You also conveniently pass on any mention of the upcoming Oregon center being 100% powered by renewable energy sources.
You guy’s didn’t do your due diligence. And now one of the marquee names in your branding on this campaign has come out with the truth. Act tactfully as an organization and acknowledge your mistake. I would have far more respect for an organization that did that instead of sticking to their story just so they could keep the worlds most recognizable brand front and center in their campaign.
Why don’t you get your damn facts straight about Apple’s energy usage! You sure aren’t engendering any support by putting out flawed data and then not quickly correcting yourself when you’ve made a mistake. Taking a hard stance just to take a hard stance shows your intransigence. Take a look at Susan G Komen. At least they corrected themselves in a couple of days.
I’m an environmentalist, but even *I* think you guys are off your rockers.
Apple is not only building a data center in NC, they are building a huge solar farm specifically to avoid relying on coal power. Apple is in a position to know the power requirements of their own data center, they have publicly stated that it will be 20MW. The huge solar farm will provide more than 60% of the data center’s power. Apple is spending a very large amount of money building that huge solar farm: not because anyone is forcing them, but because they’ve chosen to be environmentally responsible. Greenpeace is now openly mocking Apple for spending too much money on green tech? Going green costs money, and Apple is putting their money where their mouth is. If Greenpeace honestly cared about the environment, they’d be praising Apple for walking the walk. I’m honestly disgusted with Greenpeace over this.
i’ve read all the comments condemning greenpeace regarding facts. however, can’t we all agree (to anyone on here for genuine purposes) that IT companies should set the example with 100% clean renewables? they have the resources (money), consumer pressure, and common interests to do so. whether they use 20mw or 100mw is not the question. whether the electricity is generated via coal or via renewables is the question. right on apple, i love to hear you taking major steps in the right direction!!! but please my fellow earth lovers, lets not argue semantics and focus on the real issues at hand, whether or not we believe greenpeace portrays them 100% accurately or not. please!
for the globe, peter.
We welcome this first step from Apple of disclosing its current energy demand at its iDatacenter in North Carolina. Full transparency around its electricity consumption is key in order to truly set the bar for the industry and for helping its own customers understand the carbon footprint of their cloud use.
Greenpeace and Apple are talking about two different things here. Greenpeace is talking about the future total electricity of Apple’s data center in North Carolina. As Gary points out above, Greenpeace, along with others, have asked Apple for this number, but Apple chooses not to discuss or disclose it.
The reason we keep talking about this number is because the future electricity demand of a business as big as Apple sends a signal to utilities for the amount of power the facility will need to keep its customers operating. And in this disclosure Apple will be in a strong position to influence the type of future energy received from the utility.
Apple can lead the industry and steer Duke Energy in the right direction, away from dirty energy and towards renewable energy. And as the cloud grows, as it’s estimated to do, Apple can have a really big impact on helping reduce climate change causing emissions.
Over 100,000 people have already signed our petition asking Apple and other IT leaders to Clean Our Cloud. so the real question is, what is Apple waiting for?
Renee Blanchard
Greenpeace International
CoolIT Campaigner
Hi David,
Thanks for commenting. In February 2010, Greenpeace launched a campaign to get Facebook to set a responsible data center siting policy and in October 2011, they did. Facebook is now working towards cleaning their own cloud and gives preference to renewable energy. That’s a policy we can get behind.
You can check out more about that campaign and how Facebook users helped to make this happen here: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/cool-it/ITs-carbon-footprint/Facebook/
Renee Blanchard
Greenpeace International
CoolIT Campaigner
Apple. It’s not about math. It’s about being a leader and setting the right example. Unless you can say you’re heading for 100% renewables as fast as you can, I say more power to those who are pressuring you to do so.
As the iCloud grows worldwide, Apple could transform the industry if it committed to a strong company policy to seek renewable energy when siting future data centres.