Does it pale? How? AWS is very opaque when it comes to power demand, but you could use that to estimate machine counts and they admitted to Greenpeace that in 2

Does it pale? How? AWS is very opaque when it comes to power demand, but you could use that to estimate machine counts and they admitted to Greenpeace that in 2016 they used 500-650MW — a wide range that obviously obfuscates on purpose. See the last Clicking Clean report from 2017. Google/Alphabet used 6514 terawatt hours in 2016 according to data collected from yearly reports at https://www.statista.com/statistics/788540/energy-consumption-of-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/788540/energy-consumptio... If my math is right, dividing that by 8760 hours in a year, you get 743MW. Of course, that also includes office space, etc. (did the AWS number, too?) but it should be clear that, cross checking with data center builds, optic fiber and energy purchases as well, for years Google+YT+Apps+GCP were larger than Amazon and all other AWS customers combined. I didn't even factor in efficiency, something that Amazon started focusing on quite a bit later. Someone might be able to extrapolate both numbers to today based on infrastructure, other metrics or other spend in quarterly financial statements (or power procurement, which will be complicated by the non trivial Amazon vs AWS distinction). All of the above to say that Amazon probably has more compute now, but it's a stretch to talk about "paling".