Amazon Still Lags Behind Apple, Google in Greenpeace Renewable Energy Report (greenpeace.org) 84
Amazon's cloud-computing unit says that one day it will rely solely on renewable power. But Greenpeace reports that a ramp-up in data-center construction in Virginia, where electricity comes mostly from coal and nuclear plants, makes that goal elusive. From the report: Apple, Google, Facebook, and newcomer Switch are taking some of the greatest strides towards 100% renewable energy, while companies such as Netflix, Amazon Web Services, and Samsung are lagging. The findings in Greenpeace USA's report outlines the energy footprints of large data center operators and nearly 70 of the most popular websites and applications. "Amazon continues to talk a good game on renewables but is keeping its customers in the dark on its energy decisions. This is concerning, particularly as Amazon expands into markets served by dirty energy," said Greenpeace USA Senior IT Analyst, Gary Cook. "Like Apple, Facebook, and Google, Netflix is one of the biggest drivers of the online world and has a critical say in how it is powered. Netflix must embrace the responsibility to make sure its growth is powered by renewables, not fossil fuels and it must show its leadership here," continued Cook.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies care about making money
That's correct for big public companies contolled by multiple small shareholders, but companies that have very few big shareholders like amazon or google can do whatever they want as long as it can be sort of justified. Its simple: companies ruled by multiple small shareholders are ruled by the greed of the shareholders, because usually the shareholders want to make more money e.g. because they are pension funds or the shareholders want to sell off their shares at a higher price. But companies ruled by sing
Denouncing the little guy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Oligarchy *is* better than Democracy, if your goal is to do something that fits the needs of a small number of people (specifically, the oligarchs).
Re: (Score:2)
If the democracy means a collection of shareholders meet up and demand from a person to be more greedy and the oligarchy gives people with visions for the future the means to bring real progress, then yes oligarchy is better.
Obviously, if oligarchy means oppression of different opinions and if you try to fight someone your life ends in some basement strapped to a chair, and democracy means individual freedom and high social mobility, then democracy is better.
These terms are overloaded.
Re: (Score:3)
Its simple: companies ruled by multiple small shareholders are ruled by the greed of the shareholders, because usually the shareholders want to make more money e.g. because they are pension funds or the shareholders want to sell off their shares at a higher price.
Worrying about your pension is greed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the post I responded to?
Re: (Score:2)
You think you have a say in how your pension is invested?
If you're only talking about traditional pension(s), then no. But with my 401k, I have many options
Re: (Score:2)
Most (pension) funds only care about profits, and nothing else. This fulfills the definition of greed. Doesn't mean that I don't understand you or I would do it differently.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly don't....I can't image there is a large majority that do, nor make buying decisions based upon a company's green-ness.
Re: (Score:2)
a small majority, or even a minority, is more then sufficient to effect change.
If you believe change requires a majority, then you are no student of history.
I hope not, because this change would be bad. I want inexpensive products - that's my standard of living. "Renewable" is for hippies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, while I don't mind if companies and people do things to try to prevent global warming, be green, etc....I don'
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Greenpeace founders? (Score:2)
That's why the original leader/founder [greenpeace.org] left.
Are you talking about Bob Hunter? He left when died of prostate cancer in 2005. Possibly you mean David McTaggart? He left when he died in 2001 of a car accident. Dorothy and Irving Stowe are also both dead and supported Greenpeace until their dying days. Or do you mean this guy [youtube.com]?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why does anyone care what Greenpeace thinks?
Scrolled toooooooo far for this.
Greenpeace was a cause to support. Donating time and/or money to Greenpeace was The Right Thing To Do for a very long time.
Until I figured out that Greenpeace only follows the rules when it's convenient for them. They don't care about trespassing, destroying property or even intimidation. They expect corporations to follow court orders when they win another frivolous lawsuit when they release the nearly extinct blue-white bearded three-legged rabbit somewhere on a constru
Re: (Score:3)
Gary realized this and hopes that these stories will cause enough negative PR that they will be forced to go green.
I'm not sure outside the greens echo chamber that many people or companies care about this - at least to the point where they want to spend more money or lose reliability. For example, I don't know many people or businesses that will read this story and say "well fuck you Amazon, I am moving to Google or Switch (whoever they are) for all my cloud needs."
Or how many will say "now that I read th
Re: (Score:2)
Every generation cares about hippie nonsense when they're young. Then they get a job, get a house, start a family, and discover what's actually important in life. This is an ongoing process called "maturity".
Re: (Score:2)
It directly affects some business decisions. For example, in the industry I work in, water, there are government mandates for the water companies to be environmentally responsible. Because of that they factor sustainability into their bidding processes, so if you want to sell them products it helps if you can say your cloud servers are using 70% renewable energy and your office reduced its paper use by 8% last year.
Since Amazon's data centers apparently suck at using renewable energy and not polluting the e
Re: (Score:2)
The primary point by which cloud services are evaluated by government agencies is "does the security meet auditing requirements". That, followed by cost, are important; the rest is negotiable. Amazon is good at that. [theatlantic.com]
Also, since renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy, they should really be covering every square metre of rooftop they own with solar and throwing up some wind turbines anyway.
So you claim. Amazon's obsessed with reducing operational expenses (and goes crazy with capital expenses), so I'm sure they're doing whatever is actually cheaper.
Green can save money (Score:2)
Companies care about making money, and they only care about being green if the PR and money saved on penalties outweighs the money lost being green.
You are presuming that being green and saving money are mutually exclusive. This is untrue as a general proposition. In actual fact using renewable energy sources and eliminating waste streams actually can save considerable sums of money. Companies locate data centers in places where hydro power is cheap and plentiful. Putting solar panels on the roof can save substantial sums by leveling energy costs for cooling a data center. Using green sources of energy can save money on pollution mitigation. And
Re: (Score:2)
And geothermal, where possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure Amazon is allowed to build their own nuclear power plants ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I can almost see it now at next year's re:Invent...
And that's why we're proud to present Amazon's new product offering, Amazon CloudIsotope
Energy positive sources (Score:5, Informative)
Look, a solar panel never makes in it's usable life the amount of energy it takes to produce
That hasn't been true for several years now [popsci.com]. By 2020 it's estimated that solar panels will pay back all the energy they've ever taken to manufacture all of them.
the same with wind power.
Wrong again [theguardian.com]. Did you actually bother to research any of this? 20 Seconds on Google would have corrected your false assertions.
A coal plant returns the power it took to build with all parts in less than a month.
At the cost of dumping massive amounts of pollutants (including CO2) into the atmosphere for decades. When coal actually has to pay for the full energy (and financial) cost of mitigating the pollution it costs then you might have a fair comparison.
Re: (Score:1)
CO2 is -not- a pollutant.
Pollutants (Score:2)
CO2 is -not- a pollutant.
CO2 most certainly is a pollutant in the quantities we are releasing it into the atmosphere. Anything can be a pollutant when it is in a place that screws up an ecosystem and CO2 is no exception. We are taking billions of tons of carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years and releasing it very rapidly into an ecosystem that has not evolved to handle it. That is a pollutant by any reasonable definition of the term.
That said, even if we pretend (wrongly) that C02 isn't a pollutant, there is ple
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I suppose the fact I'm an EE in the energy business means nothing to your crap links.
BY 2020, PROJECTED, WOW YOU TOLD ME! SOMEONE PROJECTS BREAK EVEN IN 3 YEARS. STOP THE PRESSES, so does BREAK EVEN energy work? NO, you're wrong you shill.
I understand your a paid shill or an evangelist, either way. WRONG WRONG WRONG, read your own crap links. You proved me right, but you lack the comprehension to understand that.
The internet disagrees with you (Score:4, Informative)
Look, a solar panel never makes in it's usable life the amount of energy it takes to produce, the same with wind power. Do the math with cost of production and construction. It NEVER works.
The internet disagrees with you [networx.com]. On both points [quora.com].
Do you have links or other supporting information you can cite?
If not, consider changing your position.
Spreading these sorts of lies will only hurt our efforts to avoid a real and imminent crisis.
So? (Score:2)
What I care about is whether their service is efficient and affordable. Why again do I care about where they get their energy from?
Re: (Score:2)
because coal causes worse pollution than CO2 which leads to health problems. using renewable keeps the pollution in china at the point of mining and manufacture
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the same Slashdot where Global Warming is a perpetual myth? Just checking.
Re: (Score:2)
before the religion of global warming took off the USA had real pollution like Nitrous Oxides, sulfur and lots of other chemicals that caused cancer, acid rain that killed trees and animals, asthma and lots of other real health problems.
some of us are old enough to remember the old days when the USA was like China is now with a pall of smog above our cities
Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)
You must be living in an alternate universe and just collided with ours. Because "global warming as a perpetual myth" doesn't exist here, there are just more people critically not accepting it as a blanket truth. There's your difference, if you can figure it out.
Because it is a good idea (Score:2)
hat I care about is whether their service is efficient and affordable. Why again do I care about where they get their energy from?
Presumably because you don't like the negative effects of living in a place with polluted air and water. Have you ever been in a city with serious smog problems? I have. It's not pleasant. I won't speak for you but personally I prefer to breathe clean air. Furthermore by sourcing their energy smartly they can actually save money thus making their service more efficient and affordable.
Re: (Score:2)
What I care about is whether their service is efficient and affordable. Why again do I care about where they get their energy from?
Well most people have at least some standards for the methodology a company uses to service you. For example, I can't imagine too many people would order from a company--no matter how efficient and affordable--if their service required them to execute a puppy for every packaged shipped.
So the questions becomes, "where is the line between where the means and ends matter for customers?" Judging by the fact that we still eat mangrove-destroying shrimp by the truckload, and buy diamonds that fuel genocidal wars
Re: (Score:2)
So, you don't care if the energy comes from your own body as a battery like in The Matrix series? :P
Greenpeace? Who cares? (Score:2, Informative)
Greenpeace has lost all credibility. They are out for their own aggrandizement, and their primary goal is to perpetuate themselves. If they actually have any positive effect on environmental or conservation causes, it is entirely by accident [theverge.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Greenpeace hasn't had credibility since the 1980's. It's all about filling someones pocket at the expense of fear mongering, it's also the same reason why people are being more critical of environmental groups. There's a reason why in Canada people who live outside of Toronto label it a watermelon organization. That's communist and anti-industrialist on the inside, environmentalist on the outside before some braindead nut starts screaming "racism." Their absolute insane brand of environmentalism also gi
Re:Greenpeace? Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Greenpeace do a lot of good work. Their policy papers on renewable energy are quite influential with governments, at least in Europe. There is a lot of good science and research that goes into them.
That's partly why people try to smear them so much. That and the strange myth that environmentalism is trying to make Americans poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Greenpeace do a lot of good work.
Such as? No, I can't google it myself because I'm asking for your opinion on what their good work is. I can't google for your opinion.
Their policy papers on renewable energy are quite influential with governments, at least in Europe.
1. The fact that some governments listen to what Greenpeace has to say doesn't prove anything to me one way or the other.
2. Can you provide some links to these policy papers you mentioned?
There is a lot of good science and research that goes into them.
Please provide links to these policy papers you mentioned so that I can evaluate for myself whether there's a lot of good science and research in them.
That's partly why people try to smear them so much.
Can you please provide links so that I
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Greenpeace, (Score:2)
Nobody cares.
Signed,
The sane people of the world
Greenpeace, really !? (Score:2)
Who the hell cares what greenpeace says ? I do care about nature but i certainly pay no attention to what greenpeace says. And hippies in general.
They aren't a scientific institution, they are a lobby group for simpletons who cannot abide by the conclusions of scientists when they differ from their religious preconceptions. They are rather anti-science. They fish arguments from fringe individuals and see most scientists or engineers or physicians as suspects and in collusion with some vague plot from the in
Greenpeace? (Score:2, Insightful)
I trust Amazon more this way (Score:2)
By all means, cover the datacenter roof with solar panels to buy down the cost of power in the daytime. But keep it connected to the grid for the baseload reliability a dense cube of servers needs.
Green is as green does. (Score:2)
Amazon lags in green tech! Save the Amazon rainforests!
Make up your fucking mind.
Greenpeace are fucking morons. (Score:2, Insightful)
While Apple, Google and Amazon all have electronic services delivery, Amazon is, by far, the largest in terms of physical plant for their vast goods-shipping network.
While yes, Apple and Google do ship, they simply don't have the sheer scope of what Amazon is dealing in.
So yeah, Amazon's going to come in behind those two.
Re: (Score:2)
While Apple, Google and Amazon all have electronic services delivery, Amazon is, by far, the largest in terms of physical plant for their vast goods-shipping network.
While yes, Apple and Google do ship, they simply don't have the sheer scope of what Amazon is dealing in.
So yeah, Amazon's going to come in behind those two.
This report is only about data centers, not all operations. So it's excluding goods shipment infrastructure.
This is fake and greenwashing (Score:2)
This is fake and greenwashing. Google claims it's carbon-free only because they bought enough carbon credits to do so. That's not what being green really means and it's disappointing these companies feel the need to defraud the public.
If Amazon was REALLY serious... (Score:2)
If Amazon was serious about their centralized transaction and distribution model, their commitment to moving products from manufacture to seller over ever increasing distances, their commitment to deep processing power, with its necessity for an energy-rich future...
They would get behind Thorium and LFTR.
And let other silly, deluded corporate hobbyists fund the low-yield weather-intermittent countless points of failure crap.
__
"DID SOMEONE SAY THORIUM?" TIME ONCE AGAIN FOR
CONFESSIONS OF A SLASHDOT ENERGY AN