Greenpeace slams Apple's iCloud for relying 'heavily on dirty energy'
A new report from Greenpeace accuses Apple of lagging behind other technology companies, such as Facebook and Google, in utilizing environmentally friendly power for its cloud-based services.
The new report issued on Tuesday, entitled "How Clean is Your Cloud?," pans Apple's iCloud service for relying largely on coal-based power. Apple was lumped in with Amazon and Microsoft as companies that Greenpeace claims "rely heavily on dirty energy to power their clouds."
"Instead of playing catch up, Apple has the ingenuity, on-hand cash and innovative spirit to Think Different and make substantial improvements in the type of energy that powers its cloud," the report reads.
Greenpeace ranked Apple poorly in four different categories that the company was graded on, earning a 'D' for transparency, 'F' for infrastructure siting, 'D' for energy efficiency and GHG mitigation, and 'D' for renewable energy investment and advocacy.
The environmental organization also dismissed Apple's 20-megawatt solar array that will help power its server farm in North Carolina. Greenpeace said that although "much has been made" of the solar farm, it will only account for 10 percent of their total power generation for the data center.
Greenpeace views the iCloud data center in Maiden, N.C. as "a good first step," but believes that the company should do more to reduce its reliance on "dirty energy."
"If Apple is really interested in having the 'high percentage' of renewable energy it claims to want for the iCloud, it will have to look beyond the initial steps for on-site generation and use its tremendous cash reserves to invest in or purchase renewable energy and also to put pressure on Duke Energy to provide cleaner energy," the report reads.
Duke Energy is the primary utility company for the western part of North Carolina where Apple's iCloud data center is located. Greenpeace has criticized Duke's reliance on "dirty coal plants" to provide power to facilities like Apple's.
Tuesday's report isn't the first time Greenpeace has called out Apple's data center in North Carolina. A year ago, the organization's "dirty Data" report rated Apple has having the lowest Clean Energy Index and the highest Coal Intensity among companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
Apple actually went down in the rankings this year for transparency, as last year the company was given a grade of 'C' in that category by Greenpeace. But this year Apple earned a 'D,' as the environmental group feels that Apple only offers "nuggets of detail and data that it feels are most favorable," while declining to reveal less flattering information.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Comments
Why don't they focus on deforestation in Brazil, instead of publishing a bunch of worthless numbers that no one actually pays attention to?
Do you mean the forest that Foxconn cut down to build their ipad assembly plant?
Sorry couldn't resist.
Greenpeace should stop crying wolf and praise Apple for all that they are doing.
Supporting Apple or other companies' efforts to go green would probably be more fruitful than slamming them as they publicly make greener efforts. Instead of yelling at them for not going green fast enough, focus on those that are doing the opposite.
Greenpeace is run by environmentally overzealous fanatics that have clouded visions of impossible grandeur. It is a 'do this now or die' vibe they send out and that is why I refuse to support their efforts.
I would like to see the number of coal fired power plants quadruple, and an increase in the production of petroleum by squeezing shale. Greenpeace can kiss my posterior and go crawl back under the rock where they came from.
Apple should build several more data centers and locate them right smack in the center of coal powered areas of the country (where they're also likely to realize the lowest operational costs).
I wonder how Greenpeace will rate Apple's new HQ in Cupertino when it opens?
They'll give it an F.
But they'll give it that before the roof panels are installed.
Kinda surprised that Dell ranked so high TBH.
That's just because Dell isn't using much energy. If you're not building anything that anybody wants, it's easy to be green. Sorry. I normally hate snark.
Greenpeace should stop crying wolf and praise Apple for all that they are doing.
I'm pretty sure that that's what the "D" in Renewables & Advocacy is being given for. I expect that Greenpeace's complaint is mostly that, with so much money sitting around, Apple should be doing more than they are.
That's probably true, but Jobs never seemed to care all that much about these kinds of issue at the corporate level. If "100% recyclable" helped Apple market good looking products, then great. This doesn't really help market the cloud though (yet). Apple will care once consumers care. This is shrewd business and is one of the reasons that they have the pile of cash that Greenpeace is complaining about.
I suspect Apple's simply locating for reasons other than getting the cheapest electricity. And paying more for that electricity may mean is actually wastes less of it.
Kinda surprised that Dell ranked so high TBH.
Why are you surprised? They donate to Greenpeace and Apple doesn't.
I guess you have to slam them before they Solar and Fuel Cell solutions go on-line, eh?
Of course then they can claim credit when these projects start-up because their push "made a change".
I wonder how much wasted energy went into creating this report?
Too much. I guess all of these little commies have to figure out some way to spend their trust fund from mommy and daddy...
Really, who cares what Greenpeace says. At one time I thought they were doing something important , now they just make these stupid statements with these stupid charts. This group is a waste of everyones time. Go find a real cause to complain about.
I never much cared one way or the other. But if they slam Apple, then I hate them.
How DARE they?
Greenpeace is clueless about electrical power distribution. Locating close to hydropower may save money, but it has little to do with clean versus dirty. If these allegedly 'clean' hosting sites weren't using that power, it'd be going out over the grid to other areas of the country, displacing coal power. The Pacific NW where I live routinely sends power down to California.
I suspect Apple's simply locating for reasons other than getting the cheapest electricity. And paying more for that electricity may mean is actually wastes less of it.
You could have stopped at "Greenpeace is clueless".