
Apple says it’s now powered by renewable energy worldwide - iamspoilt
https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2018/04/apple-now-globally-powered-by-100-percent-renewable-energy/
======
tomhoward
As this article [1] explains, Apple does not (and cannot) actually run on 100%
renewable energy globally, as any of its stores/premises/facilities that are
connected to local municipal power grids will use whatever power generation
method is used on that grid, and that is still likely to be fossil fuel in
most locations.

But they purchase Renewable Energy Certificates to offset their use of non-
renewable energy, so they can make the claim that their net consumption of
non-renewable electricity is negative.

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/9/17216656/apple-
renewable-e...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/9/17216656/apple-renewable-
energy-worldwide-climate-change)

~~~
mehrdadn
This is weird. So if I run a wind farm that generates 1 MW(...h? why is this
an energy unit and not power? but whatever...) and I use all of that
electricity myself, I can also sell 1 REC to someone else so that they claim
they run on green electricity. Which means that now either (a) I have to
legally claim I run on dirty electricity (which is a lie on its face and make
no sense???) or (b) we _both_ claim we run on green power, double-dipping and
screwing up the accounting of greenness.

Am I misunderstanding something? How does this work?

~~~
dx034
No that's how it works. That's also the reason why Norway, despite only using
hydro, has only 40-50% renewable energy in some statistics. They sell green
energy certificates to consumers abroad (e.g. in Germany). Officially,
Norwegians then use coal power whereas in reality it's all hydro power. There
isn't even enough transmission capacity to the south to get that kind of
exchange physically.

~~~
mehrdadn
Wow! And I just realized there seems to be another loophole: that means (say)
a company like Apple could start a separate power company in Norway based on
hydro power, have that company completely _waste_ 100% of the energy it
produce there, and yet "buy" the equivalent REC in another jurisdiction where
they run on coal and suddenly get to 100% "green" power... potentially even
making more money in tax credits, if there are any, all while consuming more
and more dirty power without actually helping anybody shift to renewable
energy. Right?

~~~
GeekyBear
I think it comes down to giving them credit for funding the construction of
massive clean energy projects, even if they don't exclusively use the
electricity from that project themselves.

Look at Microsoft. They just funded a deal to build out an absolutely massive
solar farm in Virginia.

[https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/03/21/new-
sol...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/03/21/new-solar-deal-
moves-us-ahead-of-schedule-in-creating-a-cleaner-cloud/)

They do have facilities in state that will only need a fraction of that power
to be 100% green, and the excess will be pumped into the local Virginia power
grid and used by consumers there.

Basically, Microsoft is saying that they funded the project to generate excess
green energy in one place to offset the dirty energy they consume in areas
where there is no local green power option available.

~~~
ksec
Exactly. It is not a loophole assuming we have stable and steady use of
electricity. I.e before bitcoin.

Apple funded or has lots of JV across the world, producing renewable energy.
It is only a matter of time before they force /help their supplier in doing so
as well.

My guess is in five years time Apple product will be net zero non-renewable
electricity from transport to manufacturing.

~~~
GeekyBear
The effort to convince the companies in it's supply chain to follow suit has
already begun.

>Though the 100% figure covers only Apple’s own operations–not those of of the
suppliers and contract manufacturers which do much of the work of bringing its
ideas to life–it’s also convinced 23 companies in its supply chain to sign a
pledge to get to 100% renewable energy for the portion of their business
relating to Apple products.

[https://www.fastcompany.com/40554151/how-apple-got-
to-100-re...](https://www.fastcompany.com/40554151/how-apple-got-
to-100-renewable-energy-the-right-way)

------
aeleos
As much as people like to hate on Apple and all the other stuff they do wrong,
this is how its going to have to continue if we still want to be living on
earth in 50 years. Companies like Apple have massive global influence, and if
what they want is some free marketing and press in return for investing in
renewables, that is a price I will gladly pay. Governments and companies are
the only real force large enough to enact the kind of change that needs to
happen, and if what they want in return is good press than that is fine by me.

~~~
hudon
I share your respect for corporations that help make the world a better place
but I want to pick at the tone of your comment. It implies that businesses
can’t do good for good’s sake, that there has to be some greedy motive behind
every action. What if the leaders at Apple are actually good people and
they’re honest when they say they want te leave the Earth a better place?

~~~
leonroy
> What if the leaders at Apple are actually good people and they’re honest
> when they say they want te leave the Earth a better place?

There's a concept called first mover disadvantage where for example a well
intentioned CEO can push for a positive action by the company like reducing
pollution, improving worker welfare. These nearly always incur a cost and push
down shareholder value in the short term.

Furthermore if your competitors aren't making the same moves they're gaining
in the short term over you.

A CEO like that is not going to last very long and most CEOs don't have the
kind of power to tell shareholders to settle down.

That's what makes Apple's approach here pretty unique. Now if they'd only
refresh their Mac lineup a little more often that'd be something...

~~~
reaperducer
> There's a concept called first mover disadvantage

A failed concept that has been proven wrong again and again. At this point
it's a cliché coming out of people who got MBA's from bad schools.

>if your competitors aren't making the same moves they're gaining in the short
term over you

This assumes your target market doesn't differentiate between your product and
competitor's products on anything other than price. Apple, and others, have
repeatedly proven this wrong.

> most CEOs don't have the kind of power to tell shareholders to settle down

Tim Cook is already on record saying that Apple is committed to doing what it
sees as the right thing, and the investors can pound sand if they're not on
board.

There are a number of other very large companies that are also run this way.
The notion of a corporate board that only listens to its shareholders is a
gross oversimplification and not based in a thorough study of modern business.

------
pluma
As expected, the "100%" claim breaks down when it comes to the manufacturing,
which mostly relies on suppliers. They say they have "commitments" from 23
suppliers but I'm sure there's more than that and the ones they do mention
mostly seem to be the ones manufacturing raw materials (leather, plastics,
etc) rather than parts (looking at you, Foxconn).

EDIT: Of course it's still quite an accomplishment but it should be clear that
this does not translate to "Apple products are environmentally friendly" in
any way (not even energy-wise).

~~~
sametmax
Besides it means they don't have a culture for it at all, they just pay for
it. That's a very different way to do it, with vastly different consequences.

One of them is how it influence internal decisions now and in the future.
Another one is how it influence employees and their social circle.

But the most important thing is the total removal of the feeling of
responsibility: it becomes an economic metrics. One of the things it means is
the total lack of incentive to actually have results as long as it looks like
you do have results, and so no checks will be ever done that the "commited"
suppliers will actually do things correctly, and not just fake it.

I agree with your edit: it's a good start, and a good thing. At the very least
it makes the promotion of a good value. But it's not the end of the effort as
they promote it. It's barely the beginning.

~~~
pluma
I mostly added the edit because I think this is (at least in part) a marketing
move designed to make consumers feel good about buying Apple products because
they're "green" \-- which they're decidedly not.

~~~
bonesss
This isn't Apples problem, it's industrial, but: "green" and "battery" are
almost as hard to reconcile as "green" and "massive global shipping
logistics".

Props to Apple for making movement here, but real-world and feel-good are
often far removed from one another...

------
beloch
That's great. Next, focus on making products that can be repaired and upgraded
by end-users for an extended period of time. Electronics manufacturing is
resource intensive (beyond just energy) and a significant source of pollution
(beyond CO_2 emissions). Recycling electronics is also resource intensive and
does produce waste. If Apple tried to extend the average useful life of its
products by just a couple years it would make a _big_ difference.

~~~
askafriend
Apple products have the most thriving second hand market out of perhaps any
electronics manufacturer today. Their product resale value and reliability
alone make them a far better option with regard to the environment than almost
anything else.

The products have extremely long usage cycles relative to the industry
standard. It's such that they've integrated the environmental impact deep into
their product design and business.

You can argue that this is simply a byproduct, but they've talked a lot about
it over the years that it's pretty deliberate.

~~~
wor3q
Wasn't Apple the one who created the trend for non user replaceable batteries?

Or non upgradeable pcs?

Or making you dispose your perfectly good screen, when your iMac gets old?

Resale value is high due too really good marketing and brand recognition
combined with high prices.

People will often buy a 3 year old iPhone instead of technically superior new
Android phone for some price, just to have this brand.

~~~
newscracker
> People will often buy a 3 year old iPhone instead of technically superior
> new Android phone for some price, just to have this brand.

Not necessarily. Using one specific data point, I can also claim to make this
argument invalid. The three year old iPhone will certainly, and surely, run
the latest iOS, whereas the new Android phone (priced the same as a three year
old used iPhone) is highly likely to have an OS that's already a year or two
older and will never get updates in the future, putting the user at a much
higher risk. So which is better?

~~~
wor3q
Compare iPhone 6 to Xiaomi mi A1 or HTC U11 life.

Both new are priced in the range of used 6.

Both run latest Android and will have updates for 3-4 years, since they both
have non vendor modified Android.

------
jacksmith21006
Appears they are leveraging having moved their cloud to Google.

[https://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/assets/content/cache/ma...](https://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/assets/content/cache/made/content/images/articles/Cumulative_Corporate_Renewable_Energy_Purchases_2017_2800_1375_80.jpg)

Before moving to Google they had a lot less. Here is 2016.

[https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/articl...](https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/article-100percent-inline-1-1x.jpg)

So went from #14 to #4 and would guess that was because of Google?

BTW, Apple is really much better at PR then Google.

~~~
virtuallynathan
Apple is also building plenty of their own datacenters[1], and they also use
AWS, Azure, and GCP: [https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/26/17053496/apple-
google-clo...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/26/17053496/apple-google-cloud-
platform-icloud-confirmation)

1: [http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-center-faqs/apple-
da...](http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-center-faqs/apple-data-center-
faq)

~~~
jacksmith21006
Stopped using Azure.

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/26/17053496/apple-google-
clo...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/26/17053496/apple-google-cloud-
platform-icloud-confirmation) Apple confirms it now uses Google Cloud for
iCloud services - The ...

But the key is Google uses a lot more renewables then MS or Amazon . Just
Google does not market like Apple.

[https://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/assets/content/cache/ma...](https://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/assets/content/cache/made/content/images/articles/Cumulative_Corporate_Renewable_Energy_Purchases_2017_2800_1375_80.jpg)

------
grzm
Actual title: "Apple now globally powered by 100 percent renewable energy"

------
perilunar
> "Apple currently has 25 operational renewable energy projects around the
> world, totalling 626 megawatts of generation capacity"

Damn impressive.

Also, it's nice to see an article about renewables that uses megawatts almost
exclusively, instead of ridiculous 'megawatt-hours per year'. They slipped up
twice at the end, but mostly good.

------
jacksmith21006
This is really good to see and has really improved the last couple of years.
Here is 2016.

[https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/articl...](https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/article-100percent-inline-1-1x.jpg)

Then now

[https://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/assets/content/cache/ma...](https://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/assets/content/cache/made/content/images/articles/Cumulative_Corporate_Renewable_Energy_Purchases_2017_2800_1375_80.jpg)

So went from about #14 or to #4.

------
Double_a_92
Does this include their part at foxconn?

------
patrickg_zill
Do they include the Three Gorges Dam as being a source of "renewable" energy?

~~~
PeterStuer
Here in Europe, strip-clearing forests and turning it into wood-pellets and
burning those counts as 'renewable energy'. Our own shortsighted minister for
the environment acknowledged that this is absurd, but he continuous to allow
it (actually, the government does it itself by strip-clearing all trees from
roadsides) to meet EU committed 'renewable energy targets' and avoid an EU
fine.

------
source99
What percentage of energy that is used to create Apple products is renewable?

I’m glad they are running their facilities with renewables but I’m guessing
that is only a few percent of the total energy used to create and transport
all Apple products.

------
apsec112
Apple put its big new headquarters in Cupertino, which doesn't have any
housing available for all the people working there. Therefore, the majority
will be forced to drive long distances to work, in dirty, CO2-heavy
automobiles. Apple could have used its financial leverage - a third of
Cupertino's tax revenue - to force the city to stop blocking all new housing
construction, reducing commute distances. Alternatively, it could have placed
its headquarters somewhere else - somewhere with either more housing, or
enough density to support public transit, or a city council that isn't
obsessed with enriching homeowners by making a housing shortage as bad as
possible (or all three). Apple chose not to do either of those things, so all
of those CO2 emissions are its responsibility.

~~~
joshio
Come on, what kind of utopia are you living in?

Apple's core business is not environment protection, it's development of
technology and applications for that tech.

That they're using the vehicle that is Apple to push for green energy is
remarkable, putting pressure on the other giants. But this kind of
expectation, that they should move away from the Mecka of tech devs. in order
to push the envelope further would only lessen the net impact on their
environmental work..

~~~
ghfbjdhhv
It would help if they just moved near a Caltrain station.

See: what Google is doing in SJ.

~~~
rgovostes
There are or were offices at Sunnyvale Caltrain station. They also have
shuttles that regularly service Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Diridon
stations; the ride should only be 10-15 minutes. However, I do not think
Caltrain has the capacity for tens of thousands of new commuters.

------
devmunchies
> ECCO Leather, the first soft goods supplier to commit to 100 percent clean
> energy for its Apple production

Animal product and clean energy? That’s an oxymoron. Animal agriculture is one
of the most inefficient systems there is and a major contributor to climate
change.

I’d hope the next step is to make a statement by doing without leather, if
Apple is indeed trying to set forward thinking and progressive trends.

~~~
camillomiller
Yeah, that completely destroys anything good Apple has done to get to this
result. Nothing matters if they have one supplier of a product that might not
be that green. /s

It’s sad that the most upvoted comment has to be as always the contrarian
picking the tiniest detail to diminish a laudable achievement.

~~~
devmunchies
1) you are making assumptions. I never indicated that it diminished their
(impressive) achievement. Only that they have more to do to actually be 100%
renewable.

2) I i was only at the top because my comment was brand new when you opened
the thread.

3) it’s not a tiny detail. Animal agriculture is worse than the entire
transportation industry combined.

4) even if I am being a contrarian, it is better than sarcasm and logical
fallacies.

~~~
24gttghh
>3) it’s not a tiny detail. Animal agriculture is worse than the entire
transportation industry combined.

Let's base arguments on facts please.

US Greenhouse Emissions (specifically CO2) sources:

Agriculture: 9% of emissions.[0][1] (4.2% according to UCDavis[2])

Transportation: 27% of emissions.[0][1][2]

[0][https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-
emis...](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions)

[1][http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-fact-
shee...](http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-fact-sheet-
greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-animal-agriculture.pdf)

[2][http://www.caes.ucdavis.edu/news/articles/2016/04/livestock-...](http://www.caes.ucdavis.edu/news/articles/2016/04/livestock-
and-climate-change-facts-and-fiction)

And here is a report from the UN's FAO; it's not a comparison to other GHG
sources, but it's good data nonetheless:
[http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3671e/i3671e.pdf](http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3671e/i3671e.pdf)

~~~
devmunchies
strange. this source is also from the epa and conflicts with your source
[https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-
emiss...](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-
data)

it says agriculture is 24% and transportation is 14%

confusing.

And UC Davis is one of the top agriculture schools in the world (I grew up
near there) so its in their interest to support the ag industry since that is
where a lot of funding comes from, so I'd take that with a grain of salt.

~~~
24gttghh
Like most things, it is not always black and white:

Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (24% of 2010 global greenhouse gas
emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from
agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This
estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere
by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which
offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector.[2]

Note these are Global stats, while my link is US only, and was focused on CO2.

edit: and it doesn't seem that any of these statistics contradict each other,
but it all depends on if we are talking about global stats, US only stats,
_all_ GHG emissions, or just CO2.

------
loxs
In other news, iPhone is so overpriced and we are all so dumb to buy it, that
they are now wondering what to do with the money. Also, the other phone
companies are so pathetic/evil that they can't compete even with this... Full
disclosure, I am also using an iPhone

Edit: To the people who will downvote me because I "hate" the environment, go
read this comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16799199](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16799199)

