Their North Carolina datacenter isn't getting even a tiny fraction of its power from solar. So I'm not sure what they're calling renewable energy. It's basically a flat out lie.
What do they have onsite? 10MW of fuel-cell power and a 20MW solar plant. That means that even if the fuel cells are running non-stop at capacity, they're sourcing at least 10% from the first of their two solar sites (the second will be operational later this year).
At 2MW, that would have the solar cells operating at 10% capacity factor. Typical capacity factor for solar cell installations is 20% so the actual contribution from solar is likely closer to 15-20% of the data center's total power.
Actually, after rereading, Apple just says they generate X amount of solar, and that the datacenter is 100% renewable, leading dumb people like me to assume that the datacenter is 100% solar. But since they never say how much energy the datacenter needs, that's not supported by the facts... I assume they are actually supplementing the solar with purchased renewable energy.
He doesn't. The energy at the NC datacenter is a combination of solar, fuel cells driven by biogas†, and grid power offset with purchased clean energy credits‡.
␄
† This doesn't mean that the methane molecules entering the fuel cell came from the biogas facility. The biogas gets pumped into the natural gas system, and gas comes out at the Apple spigot, but no one tags and sorts the methane molecules in between. That would be silly.
‡ Which means they pay a premium to cause renewable energy to be produced. If tagging molecules was silly in the gas section, there isn't even a physical thing you could tag on the grid. The electrons only move back and forth a few inches in the wires, and joules aren't “real”. A lot of the joules going into that grid are cheap coal, a tiny bit of them are the more expensive renewables. Apple is paying to put enough renewables in to cover their use.
So there is a special thing called "renewable energy" which travels over the same grid as ordinary energy. It can be substituted for ordinary energy (but not vice-versa) and commands a premium price over ordinary energy.
Hydroelectric power is considered "renewable" for what seem like good reasons. Yet, if I lived next door to Hoover Dam I would not expect to be charged extra for the privilege of consuming its locally-grown renewability. In fact, I would expect to pay less because there would be less transport loss to offset.
I'm trying to figure out to what extent this amounts to Apple writing a check to someone to bless their electricity, much like the selling of indulgences.
There's a pool of generators that put energy onto the grid. Each one has a price per MW generated (or MW/$)
Generation is metered and consumption is metered.
So the consumer will say "bill me for the cheapest one" or "bill me for renewal one" (or better, contract a certain amount of power from 'FlowerPower Gen'), and the producer will have "I'll have to produce X MW to provide for contracted demand"
Producing renewable energy gives you credits which represent a cost difference between regular electricity and renewable.
The actual renewable electricity counts as regular energy, and anyone across the country can buy credits to say they subsidized renewable energy somewhere.
I'm wondering where's the ROI for a for-profit corporation in "buying credits to say they subsidized renewable energy somewhere" other than, say, Marketing?
When one sets out to write checks to charities the Hoover Dam isn't exactly the first to come to mind.
