Comments on: Greenpeace Unveils Who’s Behind the Internet’s Dirty Power

By: Ellie K

Ellie K — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:23:54 +0000

Greenpeace SHOULD be concerned about it! Even though such operations account for 1% or possibly a little less of U.S. domestic energy consumption (rather than 3% like data centers), the fact that many of those growers use

off-grid power production that is far less efficient… and produce more greenhouse-gas emissions

increase their negative impact. Also, such growing operations are generally illegal and concealed (not always, but often), cannot be included in optimal load factor planning for power generation, with further negative impact.

That quote came from the excellent URL you gave in your comment. The URL also contained a link to an official U.S. government document focused exclusively on power consumption and environmental impact of corporate as well as government DATA CENTERS, 2007 edition, with 233 pages of narrative, charts and forecasts! I didn’t confirm, but the report was yearly through 2007. GreenPeace could have used that as a primary, or at least supplemental source of annual data center energy usage. The government report is available free of charge!

Thank you, Darrell Pratt, for providing such a useful link in your comment.

By: Robert Steinhaus

Robert Steinhaus — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:53:44 +0000

The Greenpeace Cloud Power Report Card does not use quantitative and objective standards. The report does injury to the reputations of many fine firms that have worked hard to assist the nation in facing energy sufficiency and clean energy generation issues.

By: Bob GreenPeace

Bob GreenPeace — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:16:18 +0000

*sigh* you actually posted a link to a GreenPeace report? Must be a slow news day.

I’m a crunchy liberal type, but will never give them another dime (I made that mistake when I was in college). There are so many other groups that are worthwhile and effectively use the donations and don’t waste them. A shockingly small percentage of GreenPeaces’s money goes towards environmental protection anymore, its fat cat dinners in Washington DC, etc.

By: Darrell Pratt

Darrell Pratt — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:47:19 +0000

And indoor pot growing operations consume 1% of US domestic energy. Is Greenpeace concerned about that one?

http://evan-mills.com/energy-associates/Indoor.html

By: frishack

frishack — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:40:51 +0000

Man-Made Global Warning isn’t real. We don’t care about BS like this.

By: eideard

eideard — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:34:55 +0000

So, when we buy an electric car, we can look forward to Greenpeace telling us to go back to my old Dodge pickup because it doesn’t burn coal?

Greenpeace isn’t even worth considering as part of my compost heap.

By: The Higher ED CIO

The Higher ED CIO — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:39:55 +0000

I really like the idea and structure behind the report card. I would like to see it applied more broadly since Green Data Centers are one of my passions.

By: KJ

KJ — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:32:05 +0000

It’s Greenpeace. They have a history of giving misleading failing grades in order to generate publicity. How anyone could trust what they say, much less find it worth reporting on, is beyond me.

By: Prof. Peabody

Prof. Peabody — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:20:43 +0000

I just don’t trust anything Greenpeace says anymore. Greenpeace is primarily a PR outfit now and has a very small staff. All of their recent “research” is suspect and much of it tends to be proven wrong a few weeks after they release it.

They have a very specific agenda and use the research to further that agenda, and they don’t seem to be above “massaging” the data to make it fit either.