Apple's Data Centers Now Running on 100% Renewable Energy, Corporate Facilities at 75%

[phillipduran]

Apple cares about only one thing: Maximizing total profits.

The fact that they pay substantially more for green power tells me that Apple feels the PR benefit outweighs the higher costs of using green power, and will result in a larger bottom line.

Where do people like you come from. I see this all time. They only thing company X cares about it maximizing profits blah blah blah.

They can use cheaper components in their hardware to maximize profits. They dont.

This IS the company that practically just hands you a new iPhone if you show up with a problem.

It never has and never will be about maximizing profits above all else and the way they do business is proof to this. Get off the hate business bandwagon and start dealing with the truth. They do care about product quality, they make choices that make for a better product but lower margins. Of course they try to balance that, but max profits doesn't trump other considerations.

 

[iGrip]

My company has the 2nd largest vehicle fleet in the UK, and the highest electricity use in the 2nd largest buildings estate. By 2020 - only 7 years away - we're aiming to be carbon negative by a factor of 3 - that is, for every tonne of carbon our activities produce, our customers will be able to save 3 tonnes. It's ambitious, but definitely possible. We're doing it for commercial reasons of course; the cost of energy is projected to rise higher and higher; but also because many of the people who work here, including our CEO, genuinely believe that it's the right thing to do.

We're not installing solar panels on our buildings, except for a pilot scheme. The payback time is around 8 years, so we're concentrating on fast payback efficiency instead - automatic lights replacing ones which used to be left on all night pay for themselves in months; running fewer data centres at closer to full capacity; retuning the vans; increasing the quality of work thus reducing repeat visits; adjusting the air conditioning; and other schemes pay for themselves within 1 year. We're buying more and more of our energy from renewable sources, but there isn't yet enough installed capacity to cover our energy use.

That energy is used to provide communications services which can in some cases replace travel; which is a large part of the saving we're counting on.

ISTM that you guys are doing lots of good things. Going for fast payback first makes tons of sense. If everybody did that, we'd all be better off, both individually and collectively.

I was talking to a guy who built and lived in an energy-efficient model home. He had lots and lots and lots of cool advanced energy stuff everywhere.. His advice to people who wanted to emulate him and install all sorts of high-tech gadgetry? "Increase your insulation first. And second. And third. Then you can think about other stuff. But not before."

 

[phillipduran]

Is it better for the environment for everyone to build their own power company or is it better to have one big one that everyone pulls energy from? How much land would it take up if all companies did this? Has anyone thought about that end of the environmental impact?

 

[iGrip]

Where do people like you come from. I see this all time. They only thing company X cares about it maximizing profits blah blah blah.

They can use cheaper components in their hardware to maximize profits. They dont.

Bull. Apple uses exactly the level of components that they feel will yield the maximum total profits. They could use platinum and gold, but that would lower total profits. They could also use plastic, but that too would lower total profits.

This IS the company that practically just hands you a new iPhone if you show up with a problem.

They do that because they feel that such a policy will help maximize total profits. in case you hadn't noticed, Wal*Mart also will hand you a new product (or a cash refund) if you show up with a problem. Both of these corporations do it for the same reason: they think that doing so will increase total profits.

It never has and never will be about maximizing profits above all else and the way they do business is proof to this. Get off the hate business bandwagon and start dealing with the truth. They do care about product quality, they make choices that make for a better product but lower margins. Of course they try to balance that, but max profits doesn't trump other considerations.

It has always been (or, at least, ever since Apple went public) about maximizing profits. To say so is not hate. Instead, it is mere recognition of reality.

Make no mistake: Long-term maximization of total profits trumps every other consideration. To think otherwise is fantasy.

 

[rbrian]

Is it better for the environment for everyone to build their own power company or is it better to have one big one that everyone pulls energy from? How much land would it take up if all companies did this? Has anyone thought about that end of the environmental impact?

It has been thought of and talked about, and the answer varies. For fossil fuels, big beats small - a power station can turn something like 70% of the potential energy from oil into electricity, losing only 30% as heat. The most efficient cars get around 50%.

For renewables, small can beat big - a solar cell is a solar cell; a big one isn't any more efficient, but plenty of energy is lost in transmission, so it's better to be close to the source.

The future will be mixed.

 

[phillipduran]

that menas that they dont pay for energy anymore? They have their own solar panels?

Only that would make sense to me as no company cares about going green, only about getting more profit

But now they pay employees, health insurance, site insurance, tax, lawn maintenance, security, ground maintenance etc for a private power company.

So there isn't a company in the world that cares about anything other than profit? No one ever says I'm ok with 2% less this year if it means helping the environment or making a product that lowers my margin but is better for the consumer? No one does that eh?

Where do all you people come from that don't think there is one good business out there anywhere? Some are greedy, some are good. Why is your opinion so skewed in thinking all producers are evil, greedy candy stealing thieves?

 

[rbrian]

So there isn't a company in the world that cares about anything other than profit? No one ever says I'm ok with 2% less this year if it means helping the environment or making a product that lowers my margin but is better for the consumer? No one does that eh?

Companies are required by law to maximise shareholder value. That leads to some behaviour that could be considered evil.

 

[phillipduran]

Good News and congrats to Apple. The rest of the world needs to hurry up. We are running out of Oil and Natural Gas.... We only have 200 years worth left...

I think they have found recently that oil fields renew their supplies. That there isn't just a static amount that is gone once it is removed.

I'm no expert on it, just read some stuff about this recently.

 

[rbrian]

I think they have found recently that oil fields renew their supplies. That there isn't just a static amount that is gone once it is removed.

I'm no expert on it, just read some stuff about this recently.

Indeed. And as supplies run out, prices go up, which means that fields which previously cost more to work than could be gained by selling the oil suddenly become economic, and the supply increases again.

 

[iGrip]

Is it better for the environment for everyone to build their own power company or is it better to have one big one that everyone pulls energy from? How much land would it take up if all companies did this? Has anyone thought about that end of the environmental impact?

Lots of people have put lots of thought into this question.

There's a lot to be said for "distributed generation" of the type you describe. one huge problem we have (in the US) is with out transmission infrastructure. It needs work, and that work is expensive.

By constructing small plants connected with the distribution system (rather than big plants connected to the transmission system) certain economies are realized, and reliability is enhanced.

That being said, it gets difficult to regulate things when there are many small sources coming on and offline constantly. The ability to deal iwth that problem is one impetus behind the "smart grid" we've heard about lately.

So yes - both the implications of, and the necessary infrastructure changes needed to respond to, distributed generation are being dealt with currently. DG has good points and bad points economically, ecologically, and WRT reliability.

 

[TallManNY]

Well, yeah. I would be pretty amazed if Apple was not grid-connected.

But keep in mind that they set up fuel cells too. So whenever the solar system is not putting out much juice (which would likely be most of the time, given that it is nighttime much of the time) the fuel cells kick in. Despite the fuel cells burning natural gas to operate, Apple has some sort of deal with agricultural sources to get "renewable" gas to run the fuel cells.

So I'm not at all sceptical that Apple's actual generation of "renewable energy" equals or exceeds its consumption, averaged out over some reasonable length of time. Maybe not moment-to-moment. But on average? Why not?

Yes, I strongly suspect that solar farm in peak periods (noon on a cloud free day) makes much more electricity than the data center uses. Apple sells that energy back to the grid and when it takes from the grid it counts that energy as offset by the solar energy and deems itself 100% renewable. The fuel cells could run 24/7, but obviously with the solar farm in place that isn't the plan.

 

[zosobao5150]

You are correct. Since the article states "now running on 100%....", which implies the supply source is all renewable, which would be very expensive to achieve. (meeting your demand with renewable supply instantaneously)

Well, yeah. I would be pretty amazed if Apple was not grid-connected.

But keep in mind that they set up fuel cells too. So whenever the solar system is not putting out much juice (which would likely be most of the time, given that it is nighttime much of the time) the fuel cells kick in. Despite the fuel cells burning natural gas to operate, Apple has some sort of deal with agricultural sources to get "renewable" gas to run the fuel cells.

So I'm not at all sceptical that Apple's actual generation of "renewable energy" equals or exceeds its consumption, averaged out over some reasonable length of time. Maybe not moment-to-moment. But on average? Why not?

 

[AndyR]

In response to someone asking what the time is, Samsung's CEO hit hit himself in the face with his 26" S-Watch and knocked himself out cold.

Best post ever

 

[576316]

Really pleased to hear this. I think we can all be even prouder of our choice to use Apple now.

 

[iGrip]

It has been thought of and talked about, and the answer varies. For fossil fuels, big beats small - a power station can turn something like 70% of the potential energy from oil into electricity, losing only 30% as heat. The most efficient cars get around 50%.

For renewables, small can beat big - a solar cell is a solar cell; a big one isn't any more efficient, but plenty of energy is lost in transmission, so it's better to be close to the source.

The future will be mixed.

All good points. Another consideration which guarantees that the future will be mixed is that the most popular forms of renewable energy are all intermittent sources. for every megawatt of solar capacity that gets built, another megawatt of baseline capacity must also be built (or not retired). When the sun is not shining, there needs to exist a coal or gas or oil fired traditional plant ready to go. Otherwise, we would end up with brownouts and blackouts.

That is one reason why renewable energy is so capital intensive: it is almost always an intermittent source, necessitating that additional pants be built, just to keep in reserve for when the intermittent source cannot operate.

Big electric companies are paid to build (or to preserve and maintain) these plants and keep them offline. They receive "capacity" payments which cover the capital costs of construction, and they operate only when needed.

Generally, these plants are the oldest or the most expensive to operate. That is why they are kept in reserve. At all times that plants can be run which have low fuel costs (like hydro, solar and wind) then those plants are utilized. But when the load exceeds the capacity of those types of plants, like every hot, hazy day in August, then the coal, gas and oil plants get fired up.

 

[robeddie]

Green Energy! The wave of the future.

Yea, but how much energy and toxic materials were used to construct all that? Not to mention the once forested land that these miles of solar panels now inhapbit.

 

[rbrian]

All good points. Another consideration which guarantees that the future will be mixed is that the most popular forms of renewable energy are all intermittent sources. for every megawatt of solar capacity that gets built, another megawatt of baseline capacity must also be built (or not retired). When the sun is not shining, there needs to exist a coal or gas or oil fired traditional plant ready to go. Otherwise, we would end up with brownouts and blackouts.

There has been talk of a European Super Grid, connecting solar panels in the Sahara desert (which is in Africa, not Europe) with geothermal in Scandinavia (also not Europe) with wind in Scotland (which is in Europe, but might not be next year).

It seems to me this would be easier to achieve in the US, which has plenty of desert for solar cells, Chicago for wind power, Yellowstone for geothermal...

 

[Edsel]

Not to be critical, but.....

...what was the environmental impact of removing 100 acres of forests and indigenous species to install 100 acres of solar panels?

 

[jasondeno]

Hey Greenpeace- this thing was built in 1975 and runs on diesel as it breaks up the remaining polar ice.

Your turn to step up to your own plate..

 

[etrinh]

I believe that only applies to companies which are publicly traded. Privately held companies have different rules. Or so I've been told. Can someone confirm or deny my statement please?

Companies are required by law to maximise shareholder value. That leads to some behaviour that could be considered evil.

 

[jagolden]

I guess Green Peace will find other things to b*tch about

I see every tract of forest as a parking lot that hasn't come out.

 

[komodrone]

Video is missing a white background with Jony Ive and his signature 45 degree angle head tilt.

 

[Avatar74]

Apple cares about only one thing: Maximizing total profits.

The fact that they pay substantially more for green power tells me that Apple feels the PR benefit outweighs the higher costs of using green power, and will result in a larger bottom line.

Or it means they did the math and realize that green energy on their own facilities may be a large initial investment but with very low variable operating costs down the road, compared to tapping power elsewhere... Green is sustainable and profitable. It's a win-win and many companies are starting to wake up to that.

The challenge has always been the huge initial costs of development/deployment, but coming up with that cash isn't a problem for Apple...

 

[jmorgan76]

I'd hate to be the guy that has to keep those clean..... Lots or windex....

 

[thasan]

Apple cares about only one thing: Maximizing total profits.

The fact that they pay substantially more for green power tells me that Apple feels the PR benefit outweighs the higher costs of using green power, and will result in a larger bottom line.

so, in your wise opinion, what large companies should do?