6 ms·

As this article [1] explains, Apple does not (and cannot) actually run on 100% renewable energy globally, as any of its stores/premises/facilities that are conn

As this article [1] explains, Apple does not (and cannot) actually run on 100% renewable energy globally, as any of its stores/premises/facilities that are connected to local municipal power grids will use whatever power generation method is used on that grid, and that is still likely to be fossil fuel in most locations. But they purchase Renewable Energy Certificates to offset their use of non-renewable energy, so they can make the claim that their net consumption of non-renewable electricity is negative. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/9/17216656/apple-renewable-energy-worldwide-climate-change https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/9/17216656/apple-renewable-e...

GeekyBear 9y ago
The other strategy they pursue is to build their own large scale solar farms next to their datacenters, starting in North Carolina back in 2011. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/10/apple-building-171-acre-solar-panel-farm-to-power-nc-data-center/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/10/apple-building-171-a... The tech giants all pursue this strategy now. They build out renewable energy projects near their datacenters, put solar panels on the roof of their buildings and purchase renewable energy offsets for everything else. For instance, Google. https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/04/google-wind-solar-offset-all-operational-energy/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/04/google-wind-solar-offset... Microsoft is on the same path. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/03/21/new-solar-deal-moves-us-ahead-of-schedule-in-creating-a-cleaner-cloud/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/03/21/new-sol...
- mulmen 9y ago
  Amazon's new Seattle campus is heated by waste heat from the data center across the street: https://www.aboutamazon.com/sustainability https://www.aboutamazon.com/sustainability
comex 9y ago
Well… > Apple says that when it purchases REQs, “we require that they are Green-e Energy certified and come from the same power grid—and preferably the same state — as the Apple facility they support.” So "whatever power generation method is used on that grid" does actually have to include an equivalent amount of renewable energy, although it presumably also includes fossil fuels.
- sp332 9y ago
  I think the important thing is that they're paying green-energy prices for electricity even if it is more expensive. That encourages development of more power sources, and also decreases demand for fossil-fuel-based electricity.
mehrdadn 9y ago
This is weird. So if I run a wind farm that generates 1 MW(...h? why is this an energy unit and not power? but whatever...) and I use all of that electricity myself, I can also sell 1 REC to someone else so that they claim they run on green electricity. Which means that now either (a) I have to legally claim I run on dirty electricity (which is a lie on its face and make no sense???) or (b) we both claim we run on green power, double-dipping and screwing up the accounting of greenness. Am I misunderstanding something? How does this work?
- dx034 9y ago
  No that's how it works. That's also the reason why Norway, despite only using hydro, has only 40-50% renewable energy in some statistics. They sell green energy certificates to consumers abroad (e.g. in Germany). Officially, Norwegians then use coal power whereas in reality it's all hydro power. There isn't even enough transmission capacity to the south to get that kind of exchange physically.
  - mehrdadn 9y ago
    Wow! And I just realized there seems to be another loophole: that means (say) a company like Apple could start a separate power company in Norway based on hydro power, have that company completely waste 100% of the energy it produce there, and yet "buy" the equivalent REC in another jurisdiction where they run on coal and suddenly get to 100% "green" power... potentially even making more money in tax credits, if there are any, all while consuming more and more dirty power without actually helping anybody shift to renewable energy. Right?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - PeterStuer 9y ago
      Go one better, waste your 'green' energy on crytocurrency mining to buy more 'green' energy for cryptocurrency mining to buy more ...
    - 9y ago
ryandrake 9y ago
I don’t understand how purchasing these indulgences allow someone to claim anything about themselves. It’s like me drinking a 6 pack of beer then claiming I dont drink, since I also paid for someone’s Alcoholics Anonymous treatment.
- 1123581321 9y ago
  Sure, but if there was a public interest in reducing the total number of drinkers, your paying for treatment would be a legitimate negation of your habit.
- savanaly 9y ago
  If drinking beer only had a negative effect on society based on how much beer we collectively drank and you drank beer only when you paid someone else to drink that much less beer, then the analogy would fit and yes, you would indeed not be contributing on net to the drinking problem such as it were.
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    Then they should say that. “Our net energy impact is 100% clean, after considering the other clean energy projects we subsidize to offset our non-clean facilities.” Rather than “Our global facilities are powered with 100 percent clean energy” which is false if it can be shown that some of their facilities are powered by non-clean energy.
blablabla123 9y ago
>But they purchase Renewable Energy Certificates to offset >their use of non-renewable energy, so they can make the >claim that their net consumption of non-renewable > electricity is negative. Yes, or than can get a (or create ;)) a power consumption plan. I mean in Germany there are various plans like they exist for telecommunication providers. Of course the power is in part nuclear, from coal etc. but as you say the net consumption can be 0. Greenpeace Energy has as far as I know the most progressive interpretation of that as they make sure new power plants are built.

GeekyBear 9y ago

The other strategy they pursue is to build their own large scale solar farms next to their datacenters, starting in North Carolina back in 2011. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/10/apple-building-171-acre-solar-panel-farm-to-power-nc-data-center/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/10/apple-building-171-a... The tech giants all pursue this strategy now. They build out renewable energy projects near their datacenters, put solar panels on the roof of their buildings and purchase renewable energy offsets for everything else. For instance, Google. https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/04/google-wind-solar-offset-all-operational-energy/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/04/google-wind-solar-offset... Microsoft is on the same path. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/03/21/new-solar-deal-moves-us-ahead-of-schedule-in-creating-a-cleaner-cloud/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/03/21/new-sol...

mulmen 9y ago
Amazon's new Seattle campus is heated by waste heat from the data center across the street: https://www.aboutamazon.com/sustainability https://www.aboutamazon.com/sustainability

comex 9y ago

Well… > Apple says that when it purchases REQs, “we require that they are Green-e Energy certified and come from the same power grid—and preferably the same state — as the Apple facility they support.” So "whatever power generation method is used on that grid" does actually have to include an equivalent amount of renewable energy, although it presumably also includes fossil fuels.

sp332 9y ago
I think the important thing is that they're paying green-energy prices for electricity even if it is more expensive. That encourages development of more power sources, and also decreases demand for fossil-fuel-based electricity.

mehrdadn 9y ago

This is weird. So if I run a wind farm that generates 1 MW(...h? why is this an energy unit and not power? but whatever...) and I use all of that electricity myself, I can also sell 1 REC to someone else so that they claim they run on green electricity. Which means that now either (a) I have to legally claim I run on dirty electricity (which is a lie on its face and make no sense???) or (b) we both claim we run on green power, double-dipping and screwing up the accounting of greenness. Am I misunderstanding something? How does this work?

dx034 9y ago
No that's how it works. That's also the reason why Norway, despite only using hydro, has only 40-50% renewable energy in some statistics. They sell green energy certificates to consumers abroad (e.g. in Germany). Officially, Norwegians then use coal power whereas in reality it's all hydro power. There isn't even enough transmission capacity to the south to get that kind of exchange physically.
- mehrdadn 9y ago
  Wow! And I just realized there seems to be another loophole: that means (say) a company like Apple could start a separate power company in Norway based on hydro power, have that company completely waste 100% of the energy it produce there, and yet "buy" the equivalent REC in another jurisdiction where they run on coal and suddenly get to 100% "green" power... potentially even making more money in tax credits, if there are any, all while consuming more and more dirty power without actually helping anybody shift to renewable energy. Right?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - PeterStuer 9y ago
    Go one better, waste your 'green' energy on crytocurrency mining to buy more 'green' energy for cryptocurrency mining to buy more ...
  - 9y ago

ryandrake 9y ago

I don’t understand how purchasing these indulgences allow someone to claim anything about themselves. It’s like me drinking a 6 pack of beer then claiming I dont drink, since I also paid for someone’s Alcoholics Anonymous treatment.

1123581321 9y ago
Sure, but if there was a public interest in reducing the total number of drinkers, your paying for treatment would be a legitimate negation of your habit.
savanaly 9y ago
If drinking beer only had a negative effect on society based on how much beer we collectively drank and you drank beer only when you paid someone else to drink that much less beer, then the analogy would fit and yes, you would indeed not be contributing on net to the drinking problem such as it were.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Then they should say that. “Our net energy impact is 100% clean, after considering the other clean energy projects we subsidize to offset our non-clean facilities.” Rather than “Our global facilities are powered with 100 percent clean energy” which is false if it can be shown that some of their facilities are powered by non-clean energy.

blablabla123 9y ago

>But they purchase Renewable Energy Certificates to offset >their use of non-renewable energy, so they can make the >claim that their net consumption of non-renewable > electricity is negative. Yes, or than can get a (or create ;)) a power consumption plan. I mean in Germany there are various plans like they exist for telecommunication providers. Of course the power is in part nuclear, from coal etc. but as you say the net consumption can be 0. Greenpeace Energy has as far as I know the most progressive interpretation of that as they make sure new power plants are built.