This is some pretty deceptive marketing. Apple's data centers still run on coal in places like North Carolina because that's is what is producing the electricity on the grid.
Their renewable projects produce a decent amount of electricity, but one of the most critical issues of the electrical grid is stability and solar, even with the fuel cells does not provide enough electricity on cloudy days or over night.
Solar, wind, biogas and other renewables rely on coal in places like North Carolina to keep the grid running. This marketing might make some people feel good, but it is deceptive.
Simultaneously correct and incorrect :-) A number of great studies have shown the futility of depending on transient energy renewables (solar, wind, tides) for all generation, and yet the ability to cover peak loads does directly reduce the required amount of non-renewable fuel. If you're renewables generate the same amount of energy during their 'active' hours, that you consume in total, you have effectively arbitraged your use of non-renewables by carrying the load for others during the 'active' time and using their power during inactive times. The total amount of coal/gas/oil burned to create power for the 24 hr period is not affected by the amount of energy your datacenter used.
Given the drop in gas prices I expect that even in NC the power folks are considering changing/upgrading their power plants to burn that instead.
Solar and wind do not necessary help cover peak loads--because they are not reliable. Instead, much of the peak load will be covered by peaking plants (which are generally natural gas).
For example, here's the current load data for the California grid operator: http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx#Renewables Note that today's peak electricity production will come at 9pm--far after solar is helpful.
Solar and wind also don't help keep the lights on in the middle of the night--that's the role of baseload plants like coal and nuclear.
According to the Energy Information Administration as of December 2012, 40 percent of NC's electricity came from coal and 39 percent from nuclear. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NC#tabs-4
100% of what Apple said is true, on a monthly basis the amount of energy they consume in their data centers is exactly equivalent to the amount of energy, generated by renewable sources, that they create or buy.
The reason is human psychology: the systemic costs we pay for the old stuff is familiar and therefore doesn't seem noteworthy. From the link:
nuclear and large fossil plants actually have “far higher integration costs than renewables,” Goggin said. “Contingency reserves, the super-fast acting energy reserve supply required of grid operators in case a large power plant shuts down unexpectedly, are a major cost. Comparing the incremental cost of wind to those costs that ratepayers have always paid, the wind cost looks even more trivial.”
This is like Power To Choose in Texas. You could choose a renewable energy source from the list. You might be supplied from the nearest coal based plant. However you are still helping the few companies that produce and sell renewable energy to the grid.
But doesn't the energy produced still get used, offsetting coal that would otherwise be burnt? That would seem an admirable step, even if it isn't so simple as removing non-renewable sources entirely from the picture.
This marketing might make some people feel good, but it is deceptive.
I just assume marketing == deception, anymore. I know that isn't really an accurate view of reality, but it leaves me less upset when I find out they are in fact being deceptive.
Just model the grid as a battery in your head. Just because the grid is really bad at storing energy now, doesn't meant hat this won't change soon. And that's not Apple's problem.
All the energy that they produce and put on the grid is energy that is not generated by fossil fuels or nuclear. Good enough.
Yes, the only way that intentionally purchasing renewable energy matters is once it goes over the amount that would be renewable anyways.
Like if NC is already 10% renewable and 90% coal, the energy company can sell 10% of it as renewable-only without changing a single thing. It just means the average consumer goes from 10% renewable to 0% renewable.
Electricity is fungible. The power company cannot possibly serve a customer renewable electrons from the grid. This whole thing is absurd and Apple should be ashamed for making the claim.
In that case is not deceptive. They are selling the culture, and you know. But if you wish them to sell (or focus) in something else, despite the fact they are selling the culture (in your words), is not their fault!
Deception is say something and do otherwise...
BTW, I don't think Apple is deceptive. Google? Yeah, but Apple is very upfront: They sell things at high-value, you get into the culture, things are they way -probably the better, if you agree-, their focus is design. Is not cristal clear that now?
I'm not sure what to say, my comment was on Apple's marketing and not the actual products, I don't think it's even related... It just reminded me the case with Macs made in USA, but it was more PR than actual fact...
Mac Minis are actually more upgradable than they used to be, and they are their "greenest" computer I think.
The software side is of course terrible. They could happily lock me out from the latest and greatest OS X - I don't care - just take my money and offer a support plan to keep 10.6 secure for the next ten years.
Their renewable projects produce a decent amount of electricity, but one of the most critical issues of the electrical grid is stability and solar, even with the fuel cells does not provide enough electricity on cloudy days or over night.
Solar, wind, biogas and other renewables rely on coal in places like North Carolina to keep the grid running. This marketing might make some people feel good, but it is deceptive.