Apple Now Powered by 100 Percent Renewable Energy Worldwide

[sunapple]

Oh, I loved that graph! When the experts at the government are able to reduce a whole year's worth of temperature data for our entire gigantic, dynamic planet to one number and get it down to the hundredth of a degree--that just shows how incredible their scientific powers can be! Thank god they don't have to use slide rules, like their still living parents did in college!

Do you realize that "climate" means average weather over a longer period of time, like 30 years? I hope you don't agree with Trump, who thinks that a few days of cold weather somewhere on your continent disproves global warming? Nice job on sounding rational by the way.

I would also like to point out the global animation, just below your favorite graph, which beautifully animates the hot spots and their continuous dynamic changes since 1884.

Oh, my bad, I actually only looked at that animation, that's what I meant. The graph is hardly my favorite, but whatever.

Granted they left out the entire continent of Antarctica and its surrounding seas, and the Arctic as well (obviously! Those places are cold and aren't much covered by satellites even now. Duh. Just leave them out!), but OMG they have been able to determine the temperatures of Africa in the late 19th Century. There are hardly any climate stations in Africa now (the one on Mount Kilimanjaro dates from 2007 and provides data for the 400 square mile park and it's surroundings), but the experts have unmasked the hidden past there and worldwide so that our predictions of the future can motivate us to change our unborn children's lives by changing our lives, today!

I think it's actually clear from the animation the Arctic has become quite warm right? Do you mean to say that both the Arctic and Antartica are not in the animation because it would conflict with the global warming research? I honestly don't know much about it, just the visuals from melting ice and cracking ice caps.

You're trying to find reason to believe the animation is wrong, I expected nothing less. I could maybe understand skepticism about the correlation between CO2 and temperature increase, but the temperature itself is being measured for decades. Don't know about Africa, but that's not enough reason for me to believe the rest is wrong.

 

[Bacillus]

Can you explain your first point? There's no confusion here. Power simply does not mean gas.
I work in the energy sector so have a good understanding of how renewable energy works, and the terminology used, so for the sake of both of us, please don't try spinning this into something it isn't. You're wasting your time.

If you work in the energy sector, you’re supposed to know that gas-fueled heritage buildings simply generate carbon dioxide. No matter how much solar energy you produce elsewhere (and how laudable that is btw)
So the idea that Apple is powered by 100% renewable energy is ludicrous until they have replaced that (which they can’t, as they rent many buildings and depend on others)
So as I said, Apple can produce an equivalent of green energy, but not annihilate that carbon emission
Don’t believe all the half-truths and PR-spin or indeed, all my time is wasted.
This topic should be named:
Apple is now generating green equivalent of its global energy demand, but fossile footprint is remaining

 

[ohbrilliance]

If you work in the energy sector, you’re supposed to know that gas-fueled heritage buildings simply generate carbon dioxide. No matter how much solar energy you produce elsewhere (and how laudable that is btw)
So the idea that Apple is powered by 100% renewable energy is ludicrous until they have replaced that (which they can’t, as they rent many buildings and depend on others)
So as I said, Apple can produce an equivalent of green energy, but not annihilate that carbon emission
Don’t believe all the half-truths or indeed, all my time is wasted.

I'm aware of the carbon dioxide emitted from burning gas for heating. BUT. The claim is simply this: "Apple now globally powered by 100 percent renewable energy". The keyword here is *powered*. This does not include using gas as a fuel. Perhaps they should have used 'electricity' instead of 'energy', but it's non-sensical for power to be sourced from anything buy electricity. They are one and the same.
Read the full article. There's no way this could be interpreted as including gas, except of course if you were a nit-picking troll who never has anything good to say about Apple. That wouldn't be you by any chance would it?

 

[sunapple]

If you work in the energy sector, you’re supposed to know that gas-fueled heritage buildings simply generate carbon dioxide. No matter how much solar energy you produce elsewhere (and how laudable that is btw)
So the idea that Apple is powered by 100% renewable energy is ludicrous until they have replaced that (which they can’t, as they rent many buildings and depend on others)
So as I said, Apple can produce an equivalent of green energy, but not annihilate that carbon emission
Don’t believe all the half-truths and PR-spin or indeed, all my time is wasted.
This topic should be named:
Apple is now generating green equivalent of its global energy demand, but fossile footprint is remaining

Thanks to @ohbrilliance I finally understand the confusion (you didn't provide me with an answer earlier btw). The power (electricity) is 100% renewable energy. Like you're saying, gas is probably still being used in some building.s

They're not saying their carbon footprint is 0, but it's a goal they have. They should actually be given credit for the scope they have regarding their footprint, because they also take into account energy use from their devices for example.

Their website has still data from 2016, but back then the carbon footprint looked like this:

Huge numbers, also huge saving over the years according to the full report from 2016 (don't forget how much they're growing at the same time). Impressive stuff for sure.

 

[Bacillus]

I'm aware of the carbon dioxide emitted from burning gas for heating. BUT. The claim is simply this: "Apple now globally powered by 100 percent renewable energy". The keyword here is *powered*. This does not include using gas as a fuel. Perhaps they should have used 'electricity' instead of 'energy', but it's non-sensical for power to be sourced from anything buy electricity. They are one and the same.
Read the full article. There's no way this could be interpreted as including gas, except of course if you were a nit-picking troll who never has anything good to say about Apple. That wouldn't be you by any chance would it?

The article is about all energy (not electricity) and my time with you is wasted indeed.
Ref. Lisa Jackson:
“In some cases, the company has had to sign long-term contracts to acquire the RECs from a new project it helped create elsewhere in the same region. That was the case recently for a two-person office in Chile. There was no suitable green energy source nearby, so Apple is now offsetting the brown power used by that office with RECs from one of its green-power projects in Brazil.”

So this example of greenwashing goes for all gass-powered real-estate, at a far larger scale that “just an office of 2” which is selective minimalisation PR by Lisa.
But you got the right to believe in half-truths - as you probably got an A-grade at school in your particular definition of an A-grade (getting all answers well that you answered well)
Happy hiking.

 

[ohbrilliance]

The article is about all energy (not electricity) and my time with you is wasted indeed.
Ref. Lisa Jackson:
“In some cases, the company has had to sign long-term contracts to acquire the RECs from a new project it helped create elsewhere in the same region. That was the case recently for a two-person office in Chile. There was no suitable green energy source nearby, so Apple is now offsetting the brown power used by that office with RECs from one of its green-power projects in Brazil.”

So this example of greenwashing goes for all gass-powered real-estate, at a far larger scale that “just an office of 2” which is selective minimalisation PR by Lisa.
You got the right to believe in it - as you probably got an A-grade at school in your particular definition of an A-grade and your reach all your goals by redefining them.
Happy hiking.

Good article. Apple uses renewable electricity directly where it can, and where it can't it attempts to purchase renewable energy in the same region that it uses electricity. In some cases, that is not possible, so renewable electricity is purchased elsewhere. And you're calling this greenwashing? What utter nonsense. Your ideology or agenda, whatever it may be, is fogging your ability to think rationally.

How do you leap from that article to Apple misleading on gas usage, which has already been debunked above? Baffling.

I don't 'believe' in renewables, or Apple. I just follow facts as presented. On redefinitions, you're trying to define power as more than electricity. No amount of shaking your fist is going to make that correct.

Look at the article again. 16 occurrences of the term 'power', 10 of 'megawatts', 1 of 'gigawatt'. How many for 'megajoules'? NONE. This is only about electricity and if you think they're implying otherwise you have rocks in your head.

 

[sunapple]

The article is about all energy (not electricity) and my time with you is wasted indeed.
Ref. Lisa Jackson:
“In some cases, the company has had to sign long-term contracts to acquire the RECs from a new project it helped create elsewhere in the same region. That was the case recently for a two-person office in Chile. There was no suitable green energy source nearby, so Apple is now offsetting the brown power used by that office with RECs from one of its green-power projects in Brazil.”

So this example of greenwashing goes for all gass-powered real-estate, at a far larger scale that “just an office of 2” which is selective minimalisation PR by Lisa.
But you got the right to believe in half-truths - as you probably got an A-grade at school in your particular definition of an A-grade (getting all answers well that you answered well)
Happy hiking.

Are you deliberately ignoring me? Do you care about the facts at all?

 

[Bacillus]

I don't get it. They claim they get their energy 100% renewable, yet you claim the get some of it from fossil fuels. What evidence is their to support that?
From what I understand they get their energy locally from solar or wind farms which they either build themselves, helped building or who they are paying.
https://fastcompany.com/40554151/how-apple-got-to-100-renewable-energy-the-right-way

See my earlier answer to @ohbrilliance. By using REC’s it is clear that they do greenwashing (which is unavoidable in their case) but that demonstrates that their 100% renewable energy claim is false, 100% renewable equivalent with carbon emission remaining would be correct.
[doublepost=1523450590][/doublepost]

Good article. Apple uses renewable electricity directly where it can, and where it can't it attempts to purchase renewable energy in the same region that it uses electricity. In some cases, that is not possible, so renewable electricity is purchased elsewhere. And you're calling this greenwashing? What utter nonsense. Your ideology or agenda, whatever it may be, is fogging your ability to think rationally.

How do you leap from that article to Apple misleading on gas usage, which has already been debunked above? Baffling.

I don't 'believe' in renewables, or Apple. I just follow facts as presented. On redefinitions, you're trying to define power as more than electricity. No amount of shaking your fist is going to make that correct.

Look at the article again. 16 occurrences of the term 'power', 10 of 'megawatts', 1 of 'gigawatt'. How many for 'megajoules'? NONE. This is only about electricity and if you think they're implying otherwise you have rocks in your head.

Your confusion between joules (J) and Watts (J/s) says enough.
Go back to school and learn what greenwashing is, as you probably fulfilled your green mission with a battery in your car.

 

[sunapple]

See my earlier answer to @ohbrilliance. By using REC’s it is clear that they do greenwashing (which is unavoidable in their case) but that demonstrates that their 100% renewable energy claim is false, 100% renewable equivalent with carbon emission remaining would be correct.

I'll just repeat myself then.

But the plot thickens. It turns out RECs (like carbon credits) can be sold independent of the energy itself. So it’s also possible for a large power consumer to buy only the RECs–and not the power–from a renewable energy project and use them to offset its use of dirty energy at one of its own facilities. That facility might be in a different part of the world from the renewable energy project that generated the power represented by the REC. There’s a name for this: Greenwashing.

Apple, on the other hand, has been very consistent about keeping its RECs closely associated with actual energy. This might mean energy created by an Apple green-energy project. In other cases it means green energy the company buys via long-term power purchase agreement with renewable energy projects located near an Apple facility.

[...]

“Companies like Apple and Google are really setting the gold standard for the way governments and corporate entities should execute on their renewable goals,” he argues. “They are moving forward on this by signing initial power purchase agreements and correctly keeping the bundled RECs.” The less conscientious alternative is to sell off the RECs and use the proceeds to offset the cost of the green power.

Read the full thing if you care at all.
https://www.fastcompany.com/40554151/how-apple-got-to-100-renewable-energy-the-right-way

1. Renewable energy is sourced locally
2. They go to great lengths doing it the right way
3. This is only electricity, called "power" in the article
4. Therefore, 100% of Apple facilities are powered by renewable energy
5. Carbon footprint shrunk by 54%, there's still a footprint left, nobody is denying that

 

[Bacillus]

I'll just repeat myself then.
Read the full thing if you care at all.
https://www.fastcompany.com/40554151/how-apple-got-to-100-renewable-energy-the-right-way
1. Renewable energy is sourced locally
2. They go to great lengths doing it the right way
3. This is only electricity, called "power" in the article
4. Therefore, 100% of Apple facilities are powered by renewable energy
5. Carbon footprint shrunk by 54%, there's still a footprint left, nobody is denying that

Your pt3. is nonsense. See picture in article
“Massive vents on the roof of Apple Park intake air for the building’s HVAC systems. The company expects the facility to require no heating or air conditioning for nine months of the year. [Photo: Carlos Chavarria]”
HVAC => Heating and Ventilation
And so (by Lisa’s own Chile office example) their 100% renewable energy claim is false, 100% renewable equivalent with carbon emission remaining would be correct.

(your points 4. en 5. are inconsistent btw)

 

[sunapple]

Your pt3. is nonsense. See picture in article “
Massive vents on the roof of Apple Park intake air for the building’s HVAC systems. The company expects the facility to require no heating or air conditioning for nine months of the year. [Photo: Carlos Chavarria]

And so (by Lisa’s own Chile office example) their 100% renewable energy claim is false, 100% renewable equivalent with carbon emission remaining would be correct.

(your points 4. en 5. are inconsistent btw)

You continuously choose to ignore the fact that they're talking electricity.

 

[Bacillus]

You continuously choose to ignore the fact that they're talking electricity.

Apparently not: HVAC => Heating, Ventilation Airco systems.

 

[sunapple]

Apparently not: HVAC => Heating, Ventilation Airco systems.

Oh, you added the HVAC point in an edit. You know that heating can be done electrically right? Got another example?

 

[Bacillus]

Oh, you added the HVAC point in an edit. You know that heating can be done electrically right? Got another example?

Yes, heating is in the equation, can be done, but isn’t always done electrically (as in the European heritage building example) so there is greenwashing and the 100% renewable energy claim without the phrase “equivalent” is simply false. Bye.
(go look at Leidscheplein or Haagse passage...)

 

[sunapple]

Yes, heating is in the equation, can be done, but isn’t always done electrically (as in the European heritage building example) so there is greenwashing and the 100% renewable energy claim without the phrase “equivalent” is simply false. Bye.
(go look at Leidscheplein or Haagse passage...)

Just so we're clear:

- Your proof that they're not just talking electricity in the article is the mentioning of "HVAC"
- This was most likely electrical heating
- Your assumption that they're not just talking electricity is incorrect
- I know how the heating in my own country works

Got it, bye.

 

[Bacillus]

Just so we're clear:

- Your proof that they're not just talking electricity in the article is the mentioning of "HVAC"
- This was most likely electrical heating
- Your assumption that they're not just talking electricity is incorrect
- I know how the heating in my own country works

Got it, bye.

It's not Apple but you who confuses energy with electricity
If it claims your Volvo is green because of its battery, it bought some RECs for you.

 

[davie18]

Well this might come as a shock, but the sun shines for free. It’s a big investment which is what is holding off some companies, but you’ll get your money back after a few years. Furthermore, costs of renewable energy is going down and fossil fuel will become more expensive in a few years.

Apple Stores can be powered from the grid when buying energy from renewable energy facilities nearby. That’s how I understand it’s done.

This might come as a shock to you, but in big cities there’s no room for solar panels to generate anywhere near enough energy for the building they’re on top of. You make it sound so easy.

Lol like I said if it’s so damn easy and so obviously I economically advantageous why do you think businesses everywhere aren’t doing it? Because they don’t want to invest? Why? It makes no sense

 

[Virinprew]

Recycle program... how many products really make it back into Apple's hands? Few. I've worked at Apple for years. Most customers either don't know the program exists or just trash the dead products because it's easier than going to Apple.

Then blame people for not being responsible, for not recycling. What more can you do for them? Knocking on their doors, begging to recycle their gadgets?

 

[macduke]

*Ahem* https://www.tesla.com/solarroof You should be able to replace your roof with solar for essentially the same price as getting it restored when it comes due for replacement.

So in about 20 years? That's too long. Would like to figure something out sooner as our disposable income has gone up quite a bit recently.

 

[sunapple]

This might come as a shock to you, but in big cities there’s no room for solar panels to generate anywhere near enough energy for the building they’re on top of. You make it sound so easy.

Lol like I said if it’s so damn easy and so obviously I economically advantageous why do you think businesses everywhere aren’t doing it? Because they don’t want to invest? Why? It makes no sense

If you can somehow use renewable energy, you should. Installing solar panels on the roof for example may not be enough for a building (depending on lots of things of course), but it can in some cases provide with a significant reduction on energy costs.

Actually I know a lot of businesses that are investing in clean energy. Where I live it's also supported by the government which has further advantages. If you have a big flat roof, you install solar panels. Happens on regular houses as well.

It all depends on location, local regulations, size of the company and whatnot. All I was saying is that companies should use renewable energy where they can.

Is it uncommon to see initiatives like these where you live?

 

[DrJR]

Apple today announced that its global facilities, including retail stores, offices, data centers, and more, are powered with 100 percent clean energy.

Apple's 100 percent clean energy figure encompasses facilities in 43 countries, including the United States, UK, China, and India. In a statement, Apple CEO Tim Cook said Apple is "committed to leaving the world better than we found it."To reach its clean energy goals, Apple has invested in and constructed renewable energy facilities all around the world, such as solar arrays, wind farms, biogas fuel cells, micro-hydration generation systems, and other energy storage technologies.

Solar panels on the roof of Apple Park, Apple's newest Cupertino campus​

Apple says it has 25 operational renewable energy projects around the world, totaling 626 megawatts of generation capacity. 286 megawatts of solar PV generation came online in 2017, which Apple says is the most ever in a single year. An additional 15 projects are under construction, and once finished, will offer a total of 1.4 gigawatts of clean renewable energy generation across 11 countries.

Some of Apple's renewable energy projects include the solar panels on the roof of Apple Park, its newest campus, 485 megawatts of wind and solar projects across China, solar facilities in Reno, Nevada and Maiden, North Carolina, more than 300 rooftop solar systems in Japan, and an 800-rooftop renewable energy system in Singapore.

Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for all Apple facilities has been a longtime goal for the company. Since 2014, 100 percent of Apple's data centers have been powered by clean energy, and since 2016, 96 percent of Apple facilities have been run on renewable energy.

In an interview with Fast Company, Apple VP of environment, policy, and social initiatives Lisa Jackson said that Apple has been working hard in recent months to ink energy deals to cover its remotest offices and retail stores in countries like Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, and Turkey.Since 2011, Apple's projects have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 54 percent and prevented close to 2.1 million metric tons of CO2e from entering the atmosphere.

Apple has also been pushing its suppliers to use clean energy, and along with its own announcement, nine additional manufacturing powers have committed to using renewable energy sources, bringing the total number of supplier commitments to 23. New suppliers that plan to use renewable energy include Quanta Computer, Pegatron, Finisar, and more.

Article Link: Apple Now Powered by 100 Percent Renewable Energy Worldwide

I miss the off-gassing smell a freshly opened Apple product used to have.....

 

[TaviDuprix]

I am fully aware of the Tesla Powerwall (home) and Powerpack (industrial) batteries (PP 2's capacity is up to 200kWh now). That's nice, and it's a good start, and it's also a hell of a lot of lithium sitting there, of which there is not an endless supply...

By way of comparison, Hoover Dam's generation capacity is 2080MWh (4.2TWh annually). That used to be considered huge, but that only services 1.3 million people, just a fraction of today's Cali population. If Hoover Dam was a solar panel field instead of hydro-electric, you would have to install thousands of acres of solar panels, and 10,400 Tesla Powerpacks (not small, not cheap) to store that kind of capacity for night time consumption.

Now let's set aside for the moment how many more panels it would take to supply electric demand, plus charge all the batteries at the same time, and let's also assume that only 10,400 Powerpacks could sustain a full night time's worth of consumption on the grid. So, these packs have a limited life - about 5000 full charge cycles, or 14 years, but keep in mind charge capacity diminishes over time, so useful life at this scale might only be 7 years. You would then be replacing the batteries every 7 years at about $150,000 each, or $223 million/year. Ouch. Some day lithium will run out too. Again by comparison, Hoover Dam has been operating for 82 years and cost $50 million to build ($650 million, inflation adjusted).

Tesla's packs are good for sub-station use, for smoothing out peaks and dips in the grid distribution system, and making it possible to avoid building some small supplemental power stations, but that's about it. Methinks people are not grasping the sheer size and scale of the world's power generation and consumption. We all also realize "fossil" fuels won't last forever, but neither will lithium. I'm just saying that what Apple and other companies have worked on is great and it should continue, but let's have that reality check so we understand we still have a long, long way to go.

Totally agree, Dave. There is not a magic bullet that will solve all of the issues. And as you say, the power needs we have are not only astronomical but growing at a pretty rapid pace. I like your way of thinking and that we should champion today's achievements but we have to keep reaching further for the next thing. I really don't understand the people that poo-poo the whole thing based upon certain drawbacks. Progress is better than regress, no? Keep up the good fight.

 

[ohbrilliance]

See my earlier answer to @ohbrilliance. By using REC’s it is clear that they do greenwashing (which is unavoidable in their case) but that demonstrates that their 100% renewable energy claim is false, 100% renewable equivalent with carbon emission remaining would be correct.
[doublepost=1523450590][/doublepost]
Your confusion between joules (J) and Watts (J/s) says enough.
Go back to school and learn what greenwashing is, as you probably fulfilled your green mission with a battery in your car.

Apple pursues additionality wherever possible. Another term for you. That means the renewable energy they use is additional to any renewable energy that would have been in the market had Apple not invested in that energy. Greenwashing, no. In fact, if you had bothered to read the full article you'd find that it explains why Apple's efforts are absolutely *not* greenwashing. Cherry-picking a single word does not make a good argument.

Don't be so condescending. Of course megawatt is an expression of power and joules a unit of energy. kWh can readily be converted to joules (1kWh = 3.6MJ). Perhaps I should have been clearer: the article *only* used watts and watt hours, and never joules/time or joules, that would be used to denote gas capacity and usage. Are you implying that my mixed usage of terms somehow weakens my argument, that that somehow makes the article about gas? Really?

It is apparent that the unit of choice is only denoting electricity. megawatts and gigawatts can only be construed to mean electricity. If you think otherwise, find me just *one* usage of megawatt or gigawattt in that article that any reasonable person could interpret to represent gas.
MJ, GJ and TJ or GJ/day or TJ/day would be used to denote measures of gas and gas network capacities *had the article been talking about gas*. Since the article is only about electricity, you will find no occurrences of those units.

I'll give you some more electricity-centric terms from the article, since you don't seem to be grasping this all too well:
generate: 7 occurrences
grid: 6 occurrences

 

[Trusteft]

That’s incredible. Apple is a massive enterprise — all powered by renewables. I am glad to see them accomplish this goal. Our household has been on 100% renewable power since 2010. It all matters.
[doublepost=1523323326][/doublepost]

There is absolutely nothing stoping you form using Apple’s free recycling program. They have one of the best in the industry and will gladly help you be more green.

That's what you understood from that? *sigh*

 

[Bacillus]

Apple pursues additionality wherever possible. Another term for you. That means the renewable energy they use is additional to any renewable energy that would have been in the market had Apple not invested in that energy. Greenwashing, no. In fact, if you had bothered to read the full article you'd find that it explains why Apple's efforts are absolutely *not* greenwashing. Cherry-picking a single word does not make a good argument.

Don't be so condescending. Of course megawatt is an expression of power and joules a unit of energy. kWh can readily be converted to joules (1kWh = 3.6MJ). Perhaps I should have been clearer: the article *only* used watts and watt hours, and never joules/time or joules, that would be used to denote gas capacity and usage. Are you implying that my mixed usage of terms somehow weakens my argument, that that somehow makes the article about gas? Really?

It is apparent that the unit of choice is only denoting electricity. megawatts and gigawatts can only be construed to mean electricity. If you think otherwise, find me just *one* usage of megawatt or gigawattt in that article that any reasonable person could interpret to represent gas.
MJ, GJ and TJ or GJ/day or TJ/day would be used to denote measures of gas and gas network capacities *had the article been talking about gas*. Since the article is only about electricity, you will find no occurrences of those units.

I'll give you some more electricity-centric terms from the article, since you don't seem to be grasping this all too well:
generate: 7 occurrences
grid: 6 occurrences

That’s close to reasoning like a donut.
Car performance obtained by a combustion engine is also measured in kWh - and how green is that ?
As indicated in the article, premises in Arizona and many other states require cooling more than heating.
Airco systems will require more energy than heating there. So therefore, in energy engineering, HVAC is an integrated category in most solar/wind system design. HVAC/Airco requires the electricity infra as much as computer and server systems - so there is no separate grid or measuring.
You seem to understand neither engineering, nor the article, nor its implications, and blindly follow only what you want to think w/o crtitical insight.
Greenwashing apparently has that bad taste for you and others, and Lisa Jackson indicates how Apple aims to do more. When thinking critically, you’d consider the fact Apple uses fossil heating in some of its (rented) real estate - with the direct implication that some greenwashing is unavoidable (which isn’t that bad, as I indicated. Just your denial is bad...)
Any company does it - as it is better than nothing. And Apple of course does more, but is not free of it.
My time with you is over, because you don’t want to believe that so it doesn’t exist for you. You don’t want to understand the difference between “100% renewable” and “100% renewable equivalent” - so fine, it is your right to remain unaware.
Happy hiking with Joules (exactly the same metric as Watts, but including the dimension of time)
You probably got confused with Calories as a slightly obsolete measure - but what does it matter.
I could suggest you to read/google literature on nuclear and fossile energy plants to find MWs to be the current metric to measure their capacity. But you probably will avoid that because it doesn’t fit your reasoning, as you’re completely internalised by what corporate PR and spin want you to believe.