Utility Company Expects Apple’s New Data Center to Guzzle Plenty of Dirty Energy

Apple says its giant new data center will be a low-power consumer, but a now-hidden report from a coal and nuclear plant-powered utility company tells a different story.

Apple's data facility in Maiden, North Carolina.Photo: Garrett Fisher/Wired


This story was produced by Wired as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Earlier this month, Climate Desk staffers James West and Tim McDonnell traveled to Maiden, North Carolina for a close-up view of Apple’s giant new data center.

The utility company that supplies power to Apple’s Maiden, North Carolina, data center has pulled a paper from its website that bragged about Apple’s energy-guzzling ways.

The paper was a puff piece talking about the reasons that Apple chose to hook its iCloud data center up to Duke Energy’s power grid. It lays out the backstory of an Apple lobbying effort, dating back to 2006, that ultimately landed a 500,000-square-foot data center—code-named Project Dolphin—in the wilderness of North Carolina.

“This was the best-kept secret in the data center world,” said Duke Energy Director of Business Development Stu Heishman, according to a copy of the report, which had formerly been located on a website run by Duke’s business development group.

The report also talks about Apple’s power consumption, a subject that has suddenly become controversial as Apple has come under fire for using too much energy from non-renewable sources at the Maiden data center. We don’t know why or when the report was pulled— reached Wednesday, Heishman said he didn’t remember the report—but some of the statements in the report seem to be at odds with Apple’s image of Maiden as low-power consumer.

“We fully expect Apple to be one of our top ten customers in the Carolinas,” Heishman said in the report.

Data center operators such as Apple are “the type of customer where the meter spins and spins at an exponential pace,” said Clark Gillespy, a Duke vice president of economic development, according to the report. “It may be the most ideal customer we could have.” Their top concerns include “power cost and reliability,” Gillespy said. “We were able to convince Apple that we were capable of providing the low cost and reliability they needed for their operations.”

That isn’t 100 percent on-message with Apple, who says Maiden will be “the greenest data center ever built,” gaining 60 percent of its power from on-site renewable sources.

Duke’s business development team has had a lot of success in North Carolina. It’s also attracted Google and Facebook to its cheap, reliable power grid.

Duke’s grid, which gets 98 percent of its energy from nuclear and coal plants, has also attracted the attention of Greenpeace, which calls this energy mix “one of the dirtiest in the country.” Last year, Greenpeace singled out Duke Energy, in its 2011 report saying that three companies with data-center projects in the area—Apple, Google, and Facebook—made up a “dirty data triangle.”

In fact, Greenpeace cherry picked Gillespy’s quote and highlighted it in its 2011 report. That may have upset some of Duke’s customers, says Gary Cook, an IT analyst with Greenpeace. “I could imagine why some companies wouldn’t want that to be out there so boldly,” he says.

Greenpeace slammed Apple again this year for going with Duke, but this time Apple fought back, saying that Greenpeace’s data consumption estimates were way off. On Tuesday, Greenpeace launched protests at Apple stores in San Francisco, New York, and Toronto.

But according to Cook, the real issue question is what will Apple do as it expands its Maiden facility. It has spent $500 million of a planned $1 billion on Maiden, which is home to Apple’s fast-growing iCloud backup service. If Apple expands the Maiden data center, will it continue to get 60 percent of its energy from renewable sources? Or will it simply go for the cheap coal-and-nuclear power from Duke?

Cook would like to see Apple commit to using renewable energy even as Maiden and its other data centers grow. That’s something that’s not going to happen overnight, but it’s possible, he says. After all, two of the other data center operators highlighted in Greenpeace’s 2011 report promised to use renewable sources for their future energy needs. “Both Google and Facebook have a real commitment to powering their platforms with renewable energy,” Cook says.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate