Slideshow

nnnknkn

Pages

Greenpeace: Apple has the Dirtiest Data center

April 22, 2011
A recent report by environmental watchdog Greenpeace on energy practices in cloud computing called out Apple for relying on "dirty" energy for its $1 billion data center in Maiden, NC.
In a report titled "How dirty is your data?", Greenpeace rated Apple as having the lowest Clean Energy Index and the highest Coal Intensity among tech giants such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Amazon. Apple also received a 'C' for Transparency, an 'F' for instrastructure Siting and a 'C' for Mitigation Strategy on the environmental group's "Clean Cloud Power Report Card."
Apple, along with Facebook and Google, was criticized for contributing to a "dirty data triangle" in North Carolina, where substantial tax incentives from the state have attracted billions of dollars in data center investments from tech companies.

"Apple’s decision to locate its iDataCenter in North Carolina, which has an electrical grid among the dirtiest in the country (61% coal, 31% nuclear45), indicates a lack of a corporate commitment to clean energy supply for its cloud operations," the report said.

Greenpeace estimates that Apple's $1 billion, 500,000 square-foot facility will require 100MW of electricity at full capacity, which could as much as triple the company's energy usage. Reports have also suggested that Apple plans to double the size of the facility to a massive one million square feet.


Apple's data center in Maiden, N.C. was scheduled to begin operations by the end of last year, but has been met with unspecified delays. In February, the company revealed that the server farm will be used for iTunes and MobileMe when it opens this spring.

Reports emerged on Thursday that Apple has completed work on a cloud-based iTunes music streaming service that will allow users to store their music collections via Internet-connected devices. Last year, Greenpeace rated Apple the greenest electronics maker. In years past, Apple had been taken to task by the group for its lack of transparency and use of toxic chemicals.

For instance, in 2006, Greenpeace gave Apple a 2.7 out of 10 environmental-friendly rating, with low marks for recycling and its take-back programs.

In its most recent report, however, even as Greenpeace praised Apple for becoming "increasingly transparent about the environmental footprint and operational performance of its products," the group took Apple to task for not being as forthcoming about its data center and future plans for the cloud.