Apple to Power 3 Data Centers with 100 Percent Renewable Energy

Meg Cichon, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
May 18, 2012 | 9 Comments

Greenpeace advocates gathered outside of Apple's Cupertino headquarters early this week dressed as iPhones and iPods, declaring their outrage about the company's lack of clean energy use. They projected social media messages from supporters on the side of the building:

“Be part of the next century, not the last.”

“Clean our cloud!”

This protest is just a small part of what Greenpeace has been campaigning for months: How Clean is Your Cloud? According to its report, most major tech companies rely on coal to power their data centers and manufacturing – Apple scored a “D” on its renewable score sheet, while Google and Yahoo led the clean energy movement in the sector, scoring an "A" and "B" respectively, in both usage and policy support. And despite a relatively flat national electricity demand over the past year, data center electricity demand increased 19 percent in 2012 to 31 GW globally, with $450 billion spent annually on new centers.

In response to this outcry, Apple announced yesterday that its new data center in Malden, North Carolina, which will draw about 20-MW of power at full capacity, would be powered by 100 percent renewable energy, with 60 percent coming from onsite solar and fuel cells. According to its website, Apple is currently building two solar installations – a 20-MW project on 100 acres near its data center and another 100-acre installation a few miles away. Apple is also building a 5-MW biogas-powered fuel cell set to come online later this year.

Apple's renewable plans at the Malden, North Carolina site

The remaining 40 percent of renewable power will be purchased from local and regional sources. To encourage renewable growth in the region, Apple partnered with NC Greenpower, a local organization committed to increase renewables in the state, and is already working to generate electricity from methane gas at a local landfill.

According to Apple, “Adding renewable energy sources like these displaces dirtier energy sources from the grid. Directly purchasing clean local energy gives us the flexibility to meet our needs over time, helps us to ensure that our sources are reputable and responsible, and encourages local investment in renewable projects such as wind, solar, and bio-gas power in locations best suited for these resources.”

In addition to its Malden facility, Apple plans to fully power with renewables its facilities in Prineville, Oregon and Newark, California by February 2013.

Image: 96513937 via Shutterstock

9 Comments

Gerry Wootton
March 25, 2013

Greenpeace created a new Canadian national headquarters in Toronto. If you look you won't find a hint of renewable capacity - no solar, no wind. They used old school lighting which provides under 80 Lumen/W, poor performance by modern standards. They use geothermal heating which is a proxy for electric heating. Since they located in Ontario where only 28% of utility power comes from renewable sources, they would need to do a substantial amount of self production in order to obtain the majority of their electricity from renewable resources. Also, although they are on a tear against nuclear power, they chose a locale where nuclear provides 50%. Instead of siting a new facility in Ontario, they could simply have located it in Quebec where 93% of electricity is produced by renewable sources. If they remain in Ontario, they could own some wind turbines or a solar farm in order to replace their electricity consumption with renewable sources. Talk is cheap.

erich knight
May 23, 2012

International Tech Corp,in Oregon,is up and running, producing Biochar, when the generators are hooked up, Facebook will have a baseload renewable energy system. http://www.internationaltechcorp.net/

The Pineville Energy Campus presents a unique opportunity to utilize existing infrastructure for a high profile, integrated, bioenergy project.
The Pyrolysis / oxidizer to provide grid connected, base-load power to FaceBook's server farm, biochar sales, and Greenhouse horticultural production & CO2 capture for even more carbon negativity.

The folks at Apple should look into biomass thermal conversion systems. In my opinion, and the opinion of Google, General Electric, British Petroleum and Conoco, the top technology is now being rolled out by Coolplanet biofuels.
The quick numbers; one ton of biomass yields 120 gallons of tank ready fuel and 1/4 ton of biochar. In their full LCA the cost of this Bio-gasoline, using miscanthus grass from University of Mississippi, is a $1.20 per gallon.
CoolPlanetBiofuels' Mike Cheiky presenting to a Google audience his company's plans for 'Negative-Carbon' biofuels, soil improvement, and poverty reduction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9v_0o

Fred Widicus
May 23, 2012

Clear cutting forests for solar projects is borderline greenwashing--Apple just might have jumped-the-shark. Never mind the inconsistencies regarding Apple's solar plans in the PRs.

David Dunn
May 23, 2012

Hey Apple, locate your data center in Vermont, and get true 100% renewable energy from Cow Power! We have several MW excess now and can develop more with the right market maker. Siri, come to Vermont!

Gerry Wootton
May 23, 2012

Yes Martin, there are also those pesky little fuel cells mentioned in the article - ever wonder what they contribute. In any case, a data center is not hot-wired to the grid as it must be available 24/7 and the grid is not guaranteed. Data centers possibly make a good case for variable supply as storage is already in place. Based on historical QoS, a data center should have at least 6 days of ride-out capacity.
Maury also raises a good point - being net zero or even negative in electricity should be sufficient. After all, the power system operator has a whole bag full of mechanisms for system regulation and their raison d'etre is to manage the grid - why should individual users be responsible for doing their job for them. Solar actually helps them as its capacity tracks peak demand well. A user that generates excess during peak demand and consumes during off-peak demand helps to smooth the system, enabling the more efficient but less dispatchable generators to make up a greater portion of supply and reduces the cost of spinning reserves.
As also noted, they are still depending on external generators for 40% of their supply - when did the rule suddenly become 'it's only renewable if you do it yourself?'

Maury Markowitz
May 23, 2012

"It's a pity companies can't be honest and say they are generating the same total amount of green electricity that they consume"

That sounds like the definition of 100% to me.

"The day they disconnect from the grid"

That doesn't.

Grain farmers produce thousands of times more wheat than they consume. Are you saying that they're not self-supporting if they go out and buy a bag of flour?

Martin Nicholson (Author - ENERGY IN A CHANGING CLIMATE)
May 23, 2012

100 Percent? What wonderful spin. Apple runs a 24/7 data center. You can't do that with solar panels. It's a pity companies can't be honest and say they are generating the same total amount of green electricity that they consume. The day they disconnect from the grid, I'll believe 100 percent renewable energy - unless they are keeping a backup diesel genset.

Gerry Wootton
May 22, 2012

As the frog said 'it's not easy being green'. Did you ever notice that when these big guys go 'green' by adopting renewable power it's always a DIY project. Not the local utility, not the government, just DIY. What's up with that?

It's nice to wallpaper someone else's place. Take a quick look at Greenpeace US office space - you'd expect to see rooftops covered in solar panels and a few turbines in the parking lot. Not! Just a good old-fashioned energy wasting buildings. What's up with that?

When I want to see an example of an energy efficient commercial building with energy efficient lighting and it's own renewable generation, I can got to one of my local Walmarts (everyone's favorite target).

Maury Markowitz
May 21, 2012

Funny timing on the press release, but Apple *did* talk about this many moons ago. I'm willing to hand Apple a one-hand-clap for using Greenpeace's press event to help their own visibility.

So then what is the reason they're doing all of this? It couldn't be about the money, could it?

http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/green-apples/

I used a semi-realistic $2.50 a Watt installed, but the numbers are still interesting right up to about $5.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Meg Cichon

As associate editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com, I coordinate and edit feature stories, contributed articles, news stories, opinion pieces and blogs. I also research and write content for RenewableEnergyWorld.com and REW magazine. I manage...