A new Facebook group set up by Greenpeace is calling for Facebook to use 100 percent renewable energy within their data centers. This is a reinvigorated movement from the initial backlash against Facebook’s environmental policies at the beginning of February. The latest group has over 150,000 members, far more than any previous group that has attempted to get Facebook to change their environmental policies.
Is Facebook Hiding Something?
The Greenpeace group calls Facebook’s use of coal powered plants, Facebook’s “dirty little secret” but honestly, there’s nothing secretive about it. As a Facebook spokesperson explained back in early February:
…Our new data center will be receiving our power through PacifiCorp, which like most utilities has a diverse generation portfolio including hyrdo, geothermal, wind and coal… When it comes online in early 2011, the new Facebook data center will also be one of the most energy efficient in the world, featuring an innovative cooling system created for the unique climate characteristics in Prineville, Oregon.”
In other words, it’s up to PacifiCorp as to what energy resources are used. Unfortunately it’s extremely easy to criticize a company for a poor energy policy because the majority of this country is still run on coal. Is it possible for Facebook to run off completely renewable resources? Possibly, but it doesn’t make financial sense right now.
Businesses As Leaders
To suggest that Facebook didn’t consider energy efficiency when planning their data center would be pretty ridiculous. The reality is that there isn’t enough pressure from consumers for businesses to act in an energy efficient way. In many cases it also doesn’t make financial sense. However some companies are being extremely proactive by testing out new energy models (as Google, eBay, and a number of others are doing with the Bloom Box) despite it not being the most cost effective.
Google also funds a foundation which invests in new forms of energy. While holding Facebook to high standards is not an outrageous concept, there needs to be a greater awareness of the environmental impact of our own behavior. When you search Google or log in to Facebook, there’s no way of knowing what the impact is on the environment. While I believe we are heading in the direction of more transparency when it comes to our consumption habits, the trend may not be happening fast enough as Bill Gates suggests in the following video:
While it would be awesome if Facebook could announce “We are 100% powered by renewable energy sources”, it probably makes more sense to go after those companies who have greater cash reserves to fund new energy projects. While I’m personally a fan of using renewable energy sources, I also think Greenpeace should go after larger companies. Then again, Facebook is a buzz worthy company, so perhaps their strategy isn’t a poor one.
Do you think Facebook should be 100 percent powered by renewable energy sources despite the cost inefficiencies? Do you think it’s even possible?
Hello Nick,
I work for Greenpeace on our campaign for a greener IT sector.
We never said having an energy efficient data center for Facebook was not important - here’s the original relevant text from our webstory
“Meanwhile Facebook says that the new building and all the technology within it will be state of the art, energy efficient stuff. Saving energy makes good business sense, and it’s good for the environment too. But data centres still consume massive amounts of energy to run computers, backup power, and related cooling equipment. If Facebook’s data centre runs on fossil fuels, then it’s contributing to climate change.”
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/facebook-dump-coal190210
Facebook could have chosen a cleaner source of power like Yahoo did for its most recent data center in Lockport, NY. If Yahoo can do it so can Facebook.
http://ycorpblog.com/2009/06/30/serving-up-greener-data-centers/
But you are exactly right that there’s not enough pressure on companies to make the right choice when it comes to power sourcing. That’s exactly why we are highlighting the need for Facebook, a site we use daily; to respond the over 233,000 members who are asking Facebook to chose renewables over coal.
Greenpeace is not just asking Facebook to change for the better but is challenging the biggest names in the technology industry to step up and provide the real climate solutions we need, advocate for better climate regulation and more renewable energy and cut their own emissions in our Cool IT Challenge. This includes Google, IBM, Fujitsu, HP and many others.
http://www.greenpeace.org/coolit
The growing carbon footprint of the IT industry is a challenge for all the leading names who have the opportunity to show that they can grow sustainably while promoting the massive increase in renewable energy capacity we need in the US and globally.
Facebook can still set a powerful example by committing to chose renewables over coal now. The more large, high profile companies who do this now, the faster more renewable energy will be available. The more we, the users and customers of these companies, pressure for change the quicker it will happen.
Tom Dowdall
Greenpeace International
Great questions, Nick. In a word I’d answer “yes” to both! However the Greenpeace campaign has a few quite specific asks — see http://www.greenpeace.org/coalfacebook — which any truly responsible company should be able to agree to.
Absolutely on both questions. Facebook is an incredibly successful company, Mark Zuckerberg alone is worth over a billion dollars. Clearly they can afford to invest in their own wind turbines or some other clean energy source to power their announced data center. Even if they can’t afford to do it all at once and start with only one turbine and pledge to buy more in the future, that would be fine.
As you said in the article, there needs to be more consumer pressure, which is what we are trying to provide.
more than being strategic, it’s what is right. Like many people, I use Facebook more that any other website and if I want my computing to be green, Facebook needs to power its infrastucture with 100% clean, renewable energy. And because the community of users generates all the content on Facebook, thus giving it its value, we have the write to demand that that content be green.
Once again, as someone who manages a DataCenter I wish more focus would be placed upon what Facebook (and other companies) are doing to reduce the amount of power required!!
The pressure for clean power needs to be placed upon the utility companies, not the consumers of power.
The goal is to reduce the environmental footprint right? Financially its unlikely a company such as Facebook could implement both a green DC and insure their power is 100% green. The easiest route (not necessarily the cheapest) is to go with the Green DC. Since no method of power generation has 0 environmental impact, wouldn’t it make sense to insure power consumption is at its absolute low no matter what the source of power is?
Just my 2 cents.
Is any company really on 100% renewable energy?
This is a great opportunity for Facebook! If facebook is leading on communications, why not to do it as well in taking care of the climate.
In Germany many companies are on 100% renewable energy, even some communities and cities. Also countries like Norway or New zealand use nearly 100% renewable electricity nation-wide!