Greenpeace

Greenpeace demands a cleaner iCloud at Apple's corporate campus.

Since April, the environmental organization Greenpeace has had a bull’s-eye on Apple in its campaign to clean up the Internet “Cloud” that stores our music, apps, and photos. It’s accused Apple of using high-carbon “dirty fuels” like coal to power its new data center in North Carolina and has used dramatic pranks and slick videos to get consumers involved.

Last week, members of Greenpeace barricaded themselves in a giant iPod at Apple’s Cupertino headquarters and dressed as giant iPhones to demand a cleaner iCloud. Two days later, in a rare demonstration of transparency, Apple released a detailed statement explaining how its new data center would be 100% green. The whole drama made me curious to learn how the Cloud’s power source and growth could impact the environment.

So I paid a visit to Dennis Symanski at the Electric Power Research Institute (or EPRI) in Palo Alto. He’s an expert in energy efficiency and power delivery. He described the Cloud as a giant system of servers in remote data centers that store your electronic data, and estimates the Cloud uses between 2-3% of electric power consumed in the United States.

That may not sound like much but Symanski says that “small” percentage amounts to about 92 Billion kilowatt-hours per year – enough to power 7.6 million homes, double that of sprawling L.A. County.

He says it’s impossible to say exactly what the Cloud’s carbon footprint is, but some experts say that consolidating data in vast data centers can result in greater efficiencies and a smaller footprint than traditional computing.

Alison van Diggelen

EPRI's Dennis Symanski shows how fans work hard to keep the servers and the chips inside from overheating inside a data center.

Symanski invited me to visit a small data center he oversees at EPRI and I saw what energy hogs these “server farms” can be. Fans run 24/7 to keep the pizza box shaped servers, and the chips inside them, from overheating. There are so many fans in this 187 kilowatt data center, even Symanski doesn’t have an accurate count.

This one is a tiny fraction of the 20 megawatt data center Apple recently built in North Carolina to house its iCloud.

But it’s more than the energy guzzling that concerns Greenpeace. It accuses Apple of relying too much on “dirty” energy like coal from local utility Duke Energy and says Apple is misleading the public about its future iCloud power demands. The campaign is a lesson in effective social media and includes upbeat Apple-inspired videos featuring trendy young people doing cool things with their Macs and iPhones and then getting showered with coal dust.

I spoke with Greenpeace senior IT analyst, Gary Cook who explained the rationale of its “Clean our Cloud” campaign.

“If Apple, along with other IT companies, went to Duke (Energy) and said what you’re selling isn’t good enough…we don’t want to be buying coal from mountaintop removal, we want clean energy,” he says. “Duke would have to listen and that would actually drive green power on the grid for everyone.”

But not everyone is thrilled about the Greenpeace campaign and publicity stunts. Some Apple fans have accused Greenpeace of “doing a Mike Daisey” on Apple. Daisey is the commentator who invented stories to highlight dangerous working conditions at Apple’s Chinese factories.

Some say Greenpeace is asking too much of the world’s most valuable company.

“Before you know it we’ll be asking them to feed the hungry also,” says Sandeep Grag, a Silicon Valley engineer.

Gary Cook says Greenpeace has no interest in misrepresenting the facts. “We’re just trying to shine a light on who’s doing well and who needs to do better as they grow their cloud,” he says.

Alison van Diggelen

Just a few of the fans that help cool the pizza box shaped servers at EPRI's data center in Palo Alto. Photo: Alison van Diggelen

And the cloud is growing rapidly. The more we share online, the faster the cloud must expand. According to research by Cisco Systems, by the end of 2011, 20 households created as much Internet traffic as the entire Internet in 2008. IT energy experts say the cloud will double in the next 3 to 7 years.

That’s one of the reasons Greenpeace is targeting companies that rely on the cloud. Its “Unfriend Coal” Campaign against Facebook led the social network to commit to clean energy for its future data centers. The environmental group also praises Google’s clean energy leadership for investing millions in solar and wind power. In recent weeks, Greenpeace has also targeted Microsoft and Amazon, demanding they use renewable energy to power their Clouds.

Yet despite Apple’s announcement last week, Greenpeace says the smartphone maker can still do more to ensure the cloud gets cleaner as it grows and wants to see a data center siting policy that prioritizes clean energy.

“They have been transformational in almost every other sector they’ve touched and now we need them to accept that challenge …and drive transformation in the energy sector,” says Cook.

On May 17, Apple explained how its new data center will be 100% clean powered by the end of 2012. It will produce 60% from onsite Sunpower solar arrays and Bloom Energy fuel cells, said to be the largest private installations of their kind in the U.S. The remainder will come from local renewable energy purchases. It promises: no more coal.

In a section entitled “Accountability and Transparency” Apple even invites the public to follow its clean energy production at the North Carolina Renewable Energy Tracking System.

It would be naive to conclude that the Greenpeace campaign forced Apple to be greener overnight. These clean energy plans have obviously been in development for many months. But it does look like the campaign helped nudge Apple towards greater transparency in its environmental leadership. That’s something that should please all environmentalists.

An Apple spokeswoman points to the company’s new LEED Platinum data center in North Carolina which she says will be the greenest in the world. Or as Steve Jobs might have said, “insanely green.”

Hear the entire radio story, airing May 23 on The California Report.

Shell, US

Shell has partnered with MIT to explore carbon sequestration.

Royal Dutch Shell CEO, Peter Voser affirmed his company’s commitment to AB 32, California’s climate change legislation, and also explained why a carbon trading system is crucial to the development of alternative energy sources.

“We are clearly in favor of cap and trade systems,” he said to an audience of Silicon Valley business people and climate experts Wednesday in Burlingame. “We’d like to have it globally, to level the playing field.”

This statement from Shell, the global oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and one of the world’s largest companies, is notable when you consider the strong opposition to AB 32 from the oil industry at large. In 2010, Proposition 23 attempted to derail the imposition of AB 32 provisions and was largely bankrolled by Tesoro and Valero, two Texas oil companies.

High producers of carbon dioxide, especially oil refineries, will be hard hit when AB 32 goes into force. So what’s the rationale of Shell’s apparent “green” attitude?

Voser explained that the company is not waiting for cap and trade to be commonplace. Several years ago, he said Shell started taking into account a charge for CO2 of $40 per ton to reflect the future price of CO2 in its internal accounting. What he didn’t say is that in Europe, where Shell is headquartered, an emissions trading scheme is already in existence and the implementation of AB 32 would arguably make Shell more globally competitive.

“We are emitting quite a bit of CO2,” Voser acknowledged in his clipped Swiss accent. And he highlighted the company’s investment in carbon sequestration projects, one of which begins construction in Canada shortly.

Shell, US

The Gulf of Mexico accounts for approximately 55% of Shell’s oil and gas production in the USA.

He also drew attention to the GameChanger program at Shell, which invites people to pitch innovative ideas for potential sponsorship from the company. But almost in the same breath, he accepted that the energy industry is resistant to change, citing the innovator’s dilemma.

According to Voser, global energy demand will double between now and 2050, half of which will come from growth in China.  So how can we grow without burning up the planet?

The Shell chief executive says alternative energy, energy efficiency and demand management are all parts of the solution, and he anticipates that Silicon Valley’s greatest contribution will be on the demand side.

He pointed out that shortening the delivery time for innovative technologies is key. Historically, it takes 15- 30 years for new energy technologies to be scaled and delivered. This needs to be cut in half, according to Voser, and he says he views energy policy as an important component to spur innovation and adoption.

“If we really want to have the right technologies developed, not having a CO2 price will mean there is uncertainty and therefore you will not get certain energy efficiency or innovation projects that you need implemented,” he added.

This green talk by Voser is all very well, but Shell’s environmental record, particularly in Africa, is hardly emerald green. One example that’s drawn recent criticism is the company’s legal action against environmental groups that are seeking to block drilling in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska’s North Slope.

Voser’s explanation of the legal action on Wednesday was not convincing. He described the company’s move as “a tactic to bring all parties to the table early,” and begin an open dialogue. The environmental groups argue that the drilling project will adversely affect native communities and that the company’s oil spill contingency plans are grossly inadequate. But Shell has spent over $4 billion on the project to date, and has vowed to spend even more, setting up a David and Goliath battle: deep-pocketed oil company versus feisty but meagerly funded nonprofits.

Note: Voser spoke at a Churchill Club event at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Burlingame on Wednesday March 21^st. The audience included a who’s who of the Bay Area’s climate and clean tech experts, including Facebook’s new green czar Bill Weihl; venture capitalist Ira Ehrenpreis and Dan Geiger of the US Green Building Council.

Gretchen Weber

Gov. Jerry Brown with Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire and Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas.

In his keynote address at this week’s National Clean Energy Summit, Vice President Joe Biden said America is at a crossroads when it comes to energy, and that the choice is clear.

“If we shrink from deciding that we’re going to lead in the area of alternative energy, renewable energy, then we will be making the biggest mistake this nation has made in its entire history,” he said.

The Vice President was joined by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, California Governor Jerry Brown, and other political and industry leaders at the summit, which is in its fourth year and is sponsored by several entities, including the Center for American Progress and Nevada Senator Harry Reid.

“If we don’t lead in this new energy technology, we’re going to follow, and I’d hate like hell to be trading the importation of oil, for the importation of new technologies,” said Biden. “Neither is very acceptable.”

Biden said that the last two years, the United States has fallen behind China and Germany in domestic clean energy investments.

In his address, Energy Secretary Steven Chu laid out a road map for the United States, saying that if the nation wants to lead, it needs to invest in research and education. He also recommended creating a clean energy development agency and a federal clean energy standard in order to spur private investments.

In an interview after his speech, Chu said that California’s renewal portfolio standard of 33% by 2020 does just that.

“Manufacturers of wind and solar can actually make this — they know they have a market, that utility companies will actually buy this, and that stimulates investments in those areas,” he said. “The government necessarily has to put money into research, but you also need a market draw, and that market draw is ultimately going to be driven by a price on carbon. But in the meantime, you need things like renewable or clean energy standards for that market draw.”

Governor Jerry Brown told summit-goers that the policy is working for California.

“California’s 33%-by-2020 goal has stimulated real investment, real money is coming in, by the billions, and they know that we’re committed, we’re going to make it happen. If the United States had a similar goal, it would be good.”

Brown said the state granted permits for 5,000 megawatts of new solar and wind power last year alone, with 15 times that amount currently in the permitting process.

California wrestles with its clean energy goals. (Photo: Lauren Sommer)

It came down to the final minutes before midnight last night for SB 722, the bill that would make law California’s 33% renewable energy goal by 2020. But as the bill’s author State Senator Joe Simitian says, “The clock just ran out. It’s as simple and painful as that.”

Last night marked the deadline for state legislators to pass any bills before the end of the two-year legislative session. In a flurry of activity, SB 722 cleared the assembly floor, but failed to make it to the senate before the clock struck twelve.

“We are extremely disappointed and a little perplexed about what happened,” says Laura Wisland is a clean energy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists. “We think not establishing a 33% renewable portfolio standard this year is a huge loss to California’s environment and economy.”

The 33% goal isn’t a new thing. Governor Schwarzenegger established it last year in an executive order that directed the Air Resources Board to begin setting up the renewable portfolio standard (RPS). But supporters fear that an executive order could be reversed by a future governor. And according to an analysis by the state’s non-partisan Legislative Analyst, he RPS is also vulnerable to Proposition 23, the state ballot initiative that would suspend AB 32 (California’s sweeping 2006 climate law) and related regulations. See Craig Miller’s recent post for more on Prop 23′s reach.

Wisland says converting the 33% goal into state law would send a strong signal to clean energy developers. “The market really needs the certainty of a law to be secure with making the investments we need to actually reach this goal,” said Wisland.

But SB 722 may yet have a future. The Governor has the power to call a special legislative session in which legislators could take up the bill again. He alluded to that in a press conference today: “I think anything that was not accomplished I would try to get them done before I leave office, yes. I think that we can do that while we do the budget negotiations,” Governor Schwarzenegger said.

Simitian says the special session is a possibility, since the RPS is key part of the Governor’s green legacy. “This is a goal that I think we share and whether it’s for environmental reasons or sound energy policy, or as an economic driver for the state, I think it’s something we should do sooner rather than later.”

Photo: Gretchen Weber

Energy Secretary Steven Chu returned to his old stomping grounds at Stanford University yesterday with a broad outline for jump-starting “a clean energy industrial revolution.”  Speaking to a packed auditorium of students and faculty, Chu advocated the passage of a comprehensive energy bill, saying that increased innovation and investment in “clean tech” is essential for American competitiveness, as well as for reducing dependence on foreign oil and mitigating climate change:

“We are right now in a state of paralysis. There are many businesses who say ‘No, no, we can’t do this, this country was founded on cheap energy, that’s what I want.’  That’s just holding off the inevitable.  So if we hold off the inevitable for another 5 or 10 years, I think we will lose.  Because the other countries are moving.  And then we play catch up.  And then we import their stuff.  That’s what’s at risk.  The future of the prosperity of the US is at risk.  Energy touches everything.”

Chu said the United States is “not doing so well” in terms of clean energy innovation and cited the drop in US market share in photovoltaics  from 44% in 1996 to less than 10% today.

“The US innovation machine is the best in the world,” he said, and then recited a dismal laundry list of fields in which the US is no longer leading the way, including auto fuel efficiency, hybrid car batteries, energy transmission, energy transmission equipment, and nuclear technology.

When asked by an audience member why the US doesn’t commit to a Manhattan Project-style endeavor to solve the energy issue, Chu explained that a project at that scale would have an annual cost in the tens of billions.  In comparison, the current base budget of the DOE is $3 billion per year.

“I agree.  We should do that,” he said. “Tell people in Congress how important it is.”

Key to America’s success, he said is an energy bill that sends signals to the private sector that clean energy is a profitable venture, through incentives and tax breaks.  He said that the federal government plays a role in grants and loan guarantees, but to scale technologies from the idea stage to the factory floor, private investors must play a role.

“America has an opportunity to seize the day and to lead in what has to be a new industrial revolution,” said Chu.  “It’s our choice. Do we want to be leaders or followers?”

As if on cue, it looks like Los Angeles is about to crush one plan that might have helped put southern California at the forefront of clean energy generation and transmission. The Riverside Press-Enterprise reports today that Los Angeles officials will likely announce tomorrow that they’re pulling the plug on the contentious project known as Green Path North.   The project would have installed 80 miles of high-voltage lines and towers to carry geothermal, wind and solar energy from Imperial County to Los Angeles and some Inland cities.  The plans have met with opposition from environmental groups and communities along the proposed corridors.

The project was featured last year in a radio series for Climate Watch by KQED’s Rob Schmitz, on plans to get clean energy from southern California’s deserts to its cities.

They’re being egged on by the President-elect, who offered this nugget in a recent pre-election interview with Time magazine:

“…we are just going to completely revamp how we use energy in a way that deals with climate change, deals with national security and drives our economy, that’s going to be my number one priority when I get into office, assuming, obviously, that we have done enough to just stabilize the immediate economic situation.”

That’s a whopping assumption. Nevertheless the advocacy group Environment California has released its own vision, asserting that clean energy is “the foundation of America’s economic future.” The group’s Blueprint for Economic Recovery and Environmental Protection Through Clean Energy Solutions is not groundbreaking but rather an aggregation of ideas and studies that have been put forth already, leading to the same general conclusion.

The report attempts to bundle the potential of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal, coupled with aggressive conservation measures, which it says could alone cut the nation’s electric use by a quarter.

For example, Environment California suggests that we might set aside 9% of Nevada (that’s about 10,000 square miles–imagine Massachusetts covered border-to-border with solar panels) for solar-thermal installations or harness the wind potential of five interior states (the Dakotas, Kansas, Montana and Texas), either one could cover the nation’s entire electric bill. Of course, either of these approaches would require massive, intrusive distribution networks to get the power where it’s needed, so I these ideas may be intended as inspirational, not literal.

Another idea, which requires very little distribution infrastructure, is carpeting the nation’s rooftops with photovoltaic solar panels. The group says that would provide about 70% of our energy needs.

The report also advocates for cutting our oil consumption in half, though it does not specify by when.

How does all this translate to economic redemption? By creating “millions of jobs.” According to the report:

“…repowering America will plant the seeds of economic growth and revitalization across the country. And by creating the world’s largest market for renewable energy and energy efficient technology, we will give American companies a leg up in the most important economic competition of the 21st century – the race to supply environmentally sound technologies to the rest of the world.”

The report cites several studies to support this conclusion. Some were done several years ago and may contain assumptions that don’t quite hold up in today’s recessionary, capital-constrained environment. The more recent work includes a University of Tennessee study from 2006, which projected that converting a quarter of U.S. electric production and transportation fuels would, over about 20 years, yield more than five million jobs.

You are guaranteed to hear a great deal more on this theme, as a new administration takes charge with it’s “number one priority.” Still unanswered is who will provide the capital–and the incentives to steer capital–into the clean, green economy of our dreams.

Photo: Installing solar panels on the roof at KQED.