Greenpeace Under Fire Again After Regrading of Apple's Data Center Energy Plans

[macUser2007]

Ah, I see, you must be one of them. ...!!

Greenpeace is a joke. Stop trying to control everything and reduce out living to caves. That's the only time they will ever b happy. It's never good enough.

"wack jobs," "living to caves...."

With so many susceptible wackos out there, Jobs should have started a religion, like Ron Hubbard did.

Greenpeace simply challenged, based on their own research, numbers provided by Apple. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but both the article and some of the comments are devoid of common sense.

Apple has every incentive to embellish their "green" credentials, both in terms of market appeal and in terms of regulatory benefits and subsidies.

Of course, Greenpeace has an agenda, too, but Apple's incentive to lie is considerably greater than Greenpeace's, so it's not unreasonable to at least question Apple's statements.

But this is too much to ask of those afraid of "living to caves," as is apparently the expectation of more or less coherent English....

 

[Lindono]

"wack jobs," "living to caves...."

With so many susceptible wackos out there, Jobs should have started a religion, like Ron Hubbard did.

Greenpeace simply challenged, based on their own research, numbers provided by Apple. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but both the article and some of the comments are devoid of common sense.

Apple has every incentive to embellish their "green" credentials, both in terms of market appeal and in terms of regulatory benefits and subsidies.

Of course, Greenpeace has an agenda, too, but Apple's incentive to lie is considerably greater than Greenpeace's, so it's not unreasonable to at least question Apple's statements.

But this is too much to ask of those afraid of "living to caves," as is apparently the expectation of more or less coherent English....

Except there'd be major repercussions for lying. I really don't think they have as much motivation to lie as you think they do. Getting caught tends to be a sufficient motivator.

 

[macUser2007]

Except there'd be major repercussions for lying. I really don't think they have as much motivation to lie as you think they do. Getting caught tends to be a sufficient motivator.

Really? Like what? At worst, getting slapped with a fine which is a fraction of the benefits derived by "embellishing"?

Or do you believe that the Data Center deal will be rescinded?

 

[Thunderbird]

"wack jobs," "living to caves...."

With so many susceptible wackos out there, Jobs should have started a religion, like Ron Hubbard did.

Greenpeace simply challenged, based on their own research, numbers provided by Apple. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but both the article and some of the comments are devoid of common sense.

Apple has every incentive to embellish their "green" credentials, both in terms of market appeal and in terms of regulatory benefits and subsidies.

Of course, Greenpeace has an agenda, too, but Apple's incentive to lie is considerably greater than Greenpeace's, so it's not unreasonable to at least question Apple's statements.

But this is too much to ask of those afraid of "living to caves," as is apparently the expectation of more or less coherent English....

Finally, a voice of reason.

 

[CFreymarc]

Many have said that Greenpeace is an Eco-socialist front group that attacks any capitalist entity that is profiting. Their claims state they are "bad for the environment" in an attempt to quash individual rights, creative ability and liberty.

If Apple wasn't making money, they'd make something else up to criticize them. Greenpeace only has power via publicity. If none of the press published their opinions, they would implode overnight.

Post-Steve Apple did a bold move trying to break free from these Eco-socialists. Intentionally stepped out of goose-stepping environmentalist drum beat and found out who went after them. Thus these "environmental enforcement" entities are now politically targeted for a move November post-elections this year.

Well played Tim, very well played!

 

[SwissMac2]

So Greenpeace environmental experts know how much power data centers consume?

This is funny. In reality, the number probably lies somewhere in the middle, closer to Apple's side.

Environmental crazies will always overstate in an effort to hang onto an extra bargaining chip when they're pushing for even more environmentally friendly systems.

It's far more likely that Greenpeace assumes the facility is using PCs as servers. I think we all know that Mac mini servers use far less power than PC servers. We just don't know what kind of servers the facility is running.

 

[CFreymarc]

"wack jobs," "living to caves...."

With so many susceptible wackos out there, Jobs should have started a religion, like Ron Hubbard did.

Greenpeace simply challenged, based on their own research, numbers provided by Apple. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but both the article and some of the comments are devoid of common sense.

Apple has every incentive to embellish their "green" credentials, both in terms of market appeal and in terms of regulatory benefits and subsidies.

Of course, Greenpeace has an agenda, too, but Apple's incentive to lie is considerably greater than Greenpeace's, so it's not unreasonable to at least question Apple's statements.

But this is too much to ask of those afraid of "living to caves," as is apparently the expectation of more or less coherent English....

Apple is simply the most profitable entity on the planet. Greenpeace has a bigger agenda which is enslaving and controlling the human race.

 

[mallwitt]

So the backup power generating permit is 41 MW and Apple is stating that they have four generators in an 2 node active/passive configuration. Looks like Greenpeace is simply stating total capacity of the system (about 82 MW for all 4 generators), not operating capacity (41MW). It also seems to suggest that Apple is understating their energy demands at 20 MW (double that in generating capacity seems a bit much). Whether this is a sin of omission or commission is debatable.

Working for a company that just build a new Datacenter, my guess would be that Apple has sized it's operating capacity around 10 - 15% over current requirements. The assumption is that technology will become more efficient, but that you'll be adding equipment so it's mostly a wash over time. And you never want to run your system near max anyway, since even bringing a percentage of equipment up or down can cause large fluctuations in demand that your system will need to absorb. I'm betting that their real operating load is somewhere around 35 MW, with a planned 2~3 MW load spike, and a 1MW per biennium decrease in overall use.

 

[zzLZHzz]

Greenpeace won't be happy until people stop using electricity. They are just a bunch of luddites.

greenpeace won't be happy unless people go back to cave age

 

[btbeme]

I really couldn't give a wet fart about what GreenPeas has to say about anything. Those donation-grabbing hippies sold their credibility a loooong time ago.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

I really don't know what bug got up Greenpeace's butt, but they just don't know when to let something go, do they? Public sentiment seems to not be on their side, at all. Most people think of Greenpeace as a borderline dangerous fringe group. And I wonder why? Gee, might be the set of horse blinders they have when it comes to their own reality distortion field.

This reminds me of the days when Apple was trying to convince us a G4 PowerBook was faster than comparable hardware by cherry picking and interpreting things under highly contrived scenarios. Actually, I'm not sure we can even give Greenpeace that much credit in this case, because they really don't seem capable of math.

----------



As a tactic, I agree. But in practice, I think you see a lot of Apple fans completely alienated from Greenpeace's message. Attacking a think you hold sacred, in the face of contract factual evidence, is fairly stupid. Who are they trying to convince? I know a lot of liberals (I am a moderate to liberal) who feel like they should support Greenpeace. It's certainly a lefty organization. But it's SO FAR lefty that hardly anyone in the middle could support the radicalization of this loose set of "facts."

At the end of the day, as an Apple lover and a general supporter of Green living, I find Greenpeace infuriating. They're making the Green cause radical instead of being a common-sense incremental approach like it's Whole-Earth style beginnings in the 60's. When over 90% of people who own an Apple product love their Apple product, does it make sense to attack Apple and call them liars? I just don't get it.

I also support green living and I'm against pollution, but I think Greenpeace Has lost its track and pursuing some other interests.

 

[JAT]

There's where you are wrong. It is precisely because of the First Amendment that liable is so difficult to prove in a U.S. court (it's a difficult three-step test, you could look it up). In countries without explicit speech protections, such as the UK, you see a lot more of them.

No, I am not. None of those 3 steps have anything to do with the government or the Constitution. People say "free speech" constantly and apparently don't know what it means. You could look up the Amendments to see that they refer to acts of governments, not corporations.

The testing for libel is difficult because of the proof of intent. Which is actually a 4th step in "public" cases for celebrities, etc. I imagine Apple v Greenpeace would qualify. Also difficult because of definition of "harm". Libel is a financial, civil issue.

I looked it up, btw. Here, wiki article on speech NOT protected by the 1st Amendment, item #2:

False statements of fact
Main article: False statements of fact

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".[5] However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.[6]

The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[7] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[8] Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[9] Additionally, some implicit statements of fact—those that may just have a "false factual connotation"—still could fall under this exception.[10][11]

----------

Of course, Greenpeace has an agenda, too, but Apple's incentive to lie is considerably greater than Greenpeace's, so it's not unreasonable to at least question Apple's statements.

Except there'd be major repercussions for lying. I really don't think they have as much motivation to lie as you think they do. Getting caught tends to be a sufficient motivator.

Absolutely. Apple has zero incentive to lie. It's a flippin' data center. Hardly anybody is even going to work there, let alone care about the big, blank building once all this crap stops.

Meanwhile, they have every incentive to tell the truth. Esp since they have wackjobs on their ass.

Note: this is the same company that decided an obscure revenue-recognition method applied to OS upgrades on some of their devices (iPod Touch) and charged nominal amounts for them, to make sure they were compliant with accounting rules.

 

[applebook]

I'd love to see a green report done on Greenpeace. I'm willing to bet they are hypocrites.

Of course they are, along with most overzealous environmentalists. It's a known fact that crap like the Prius actually hurt the environment more than used cars that they replace. Don't confuse these guys with the FACTS though.

----------

Folks, please stop with the name calling. Many hippies (including Jobs!) would be appalled to be associated with Green Peace.

 

[motorazr]

Seriously ... This is the kind of stuff that's just annoying. I'm glad greenpeace thinks they've got great goals (and maybe they do have great goals) .. but this is just rude to ignore a direct statement on power usage from the people building the plant. I hate to think of the number of people that are going to read Greenpeace's statement and ignore Apple's response, instead resorting to an Apple-must-die mentality; like that falsified radio show claiming the amazingly terrible conditions of Foxconn's Apple assembly lines ...

*sigh* Well, at least I'll believe Apple for now. What possibly motive do they have to build a new site without any future planning in mind for keeping the cost to run it at a minimum? Energy costs keep going up .. why build a crazy inefficient plant?

 

[cosmos]

So the backup power generating permit is 41 MW and Apple is stating that they have four generators in an 2 node active/passive configuration. Looks like Greenpeace is simply stating total capacity of the system (about 82 MW for all 4 generators), not operating capacity (41MW). It also seems to suggest that Apple is understating their energy demands at 20 MW (double that in generating capacity seems a bit much). Whether this is a sin of omission or commission is debatable.

Working for a company that just build a new Datacenter, my guess would be that Apple has sized it's operating capacity around 10 - 15% over current requirements. The assumption is that technology will become more efficient, but that you'll be adding equipment so it's mostly a wash over time. And you never want to run your system near max anyway, since even bringing a percentage of equipment up or down can cause large fluctuations in demand that your system will need to absorb. I'm betting that their real operating load is somewhere around 35 MW, with a planned 2~3 MW load spike, and a 1MW per biennium decrease in overall use.

Having worked in a large Data Center, I believe mallwitt has stated things close to the actual truth. As for the original critique of Greenpeace's claim, I would state it this way:

Greenpeace is having difficulty developing fundraising without attacking prominent companies such as Apple regardless of their green initiatives.

 

[jcpb]

Greenpeace's previous "comprehensive" data center power sources report was full of glaring errors, the most disturbing of which was that Akamai should have received a lower-than-Apple failing grade for not disclosing any hard data on its coal and nuclear power usage at all - but GP gave it top marks instead.

 

[theanimaster]

Aye... I would like to see how much energy GreenPeace uses. Where do we go to obtain that information?

----------

Time to go to GreenPeace's website and flame them. What's worse than a bunch of flaming rabid tree-huggers online? ; )

 

[shu-gu-shot]

The more you know Greenpeace, the more you avoid it.

One example: after reading their report on Chernobyl, where more or less all the cancer cases in Ukraine after 1986 for some years were attributed to Chernobyl (seriously, LOL!!) and given I know the field (I work on radiation protection), I am used to consider every Greenpeace contribution as pure **** until proven I'm wrong. Of course it happens, but every time, Greenpeace has a lot of hidden interests and fundings (i.e. they oppose nuclear as life/death situation, they barely attack oil companies.. WTF??).

Bottom line: ehy, it's Greenpeace man... just smile and forget.

 

[RobertMartens]

This is startlingly naive. Corporations are machines for making money, first last and alway -- and they behave accordingly. They are interested in you precisely to the extent that it benefits them and no further. If people assume that a corporation is good and right just because they like their products, then they are missing something fundamental about how this bargain works.

Did you just get here? I know you didn't.

Apple has been the outcast and underdog and trailblazer and standing up for doing things in a way that they could be proud of since 1976.

Now that they have finally been widely accepted and respected for their values you quickly dump them into the same bin as IBM and Microsoft just because they turn a profit.

Apple was teased because it wasn't savvy like MS and now treated as if they always were.

 

[JoeSixPack]

Just imagine the actual good Grrenpeace could have done if they focused more on the environment and less on headlines and fundraising.

There is a story to be told about companies that are outsourcing data centers (and other functions) to emerging market countries seeking low costs without environmental considerations.

Instead Greenpeace squanders it's credibility and our time focussing on a popular company that is trying to be environmentally-responsible. Why fight the hard fight pointing out that less-known companies are not environmentally-responsible when they can bring in more money showing the popular ones are very good but not perfect?

 

[HelveticaRoman]

Right. Greenpeace = Lama? Fail.

Anyway, Greenpeace is basically arguing that Apple has installed backup generators under 50% of the size they would actually need.

Do you think Apple is that stupid?

Or does Greenpeace have an agenda and doesn't want to be shown to be making stuff up?

I'll leave that for you to decide. You are obviously unbiased.

There's a vast chasm between posing a counter argument and being biased. Reason depends on the former but is impossible with the latter. If Greenpeace are talking actionable nonsense then they should be strung up for it. If they are substantively correct, then they should be heard. That's all.

 

[fredf]

Many have said that Greenpeace is an Eco-socialist front group that attacks any capitalist entity that is profiting. Their claims state they are "bad for the environment" in an attempt to quash individual rights, creative ability and liberty.

Wow. Did you ever attend school or get an education?
It's hard to believe you ever figured out how to use a computer at all.

 

[everything-i]

Just look at the evidence

There seems to be a lot of talk here about who is telling the truth. Apple say 20MW Greenpeace say 81MW. This is a massive difference so there has to be some reason for this. Looking at the permits for backup power generation at 41MW this would suggest that at the absolute outside the data center could use 41MW but not all the generators are used at the same time (an industry standard practice) so maybe 35MW would be an absolute limit.

Given this, why is the Greenpeace figure so high. Well it appears they calculate power usage on how much is spent on the data center. This seams a pretty poor yard stick to me as all evidence from the backup permits for the data center say otherwise.

I would say given the evidence that there is backup capability for around 35MW and given that you have to take power spikes for starting up the data center from scratch, while on backup, into account when designing the backup capacity, there would be no more than probably 25-28MW max in steady state operation.

While I think Apple may be a little on the low side with 20MW as a total this may be there actual projection given what they want to do with the facility. Also I think it would be pointless to lie about this as the utility companies supplying the facility will know exactly the amount of power used so its impossible to cover it up once the facility is in operation with all the bad publicity this would cause.

So it would seem Apple have little to gain from trying to lie about the power usage and the high spend may well be down to using more expensive technology to limit power usage for all Greenpeace know. Either way the Greenpeace figure is totally ridiculous given the evidence and they should be ashamed of themselves for publishing that figure and berating a company that, in this case, is trying hard to do the right thing. With the effort apple is putting into sustainability for its data centers Greenpeace should be praising them and pressuring others to follow their example.

 

[Bjango]

It's far more likely that Greenpeace assumes the facility is using PCs as servers. I think we all know that Mac mini servers use far less power than PC servers. We just don't know what kind of servers the facility is running.

We may know what kind of servers Apple is using.

I highly doubt Apple's filling their data centres with Mac minis. For the record, I have nothing against Mac minis... it's what we're using. I just doubt that's what Apple would use.

With the effort apple is putting into sustainability for its data centers Greenpeace should be praising them and pressuring others to follow their example.

Definitely. Also, your figures make a lot of sense.

 

[RobertMartens]

and given I know the field (I work on radiation protection),

Let's see, that makes you biased in which direction?