Intel Crowned as Nation's Largest Green Energy Purchaser
According to the EPA, Intel acquired 2,502,052,000 kWh from solar and wind energy sources. The company said that those 2.5 billion kWh are the equivalent of equivalent environmental impact of taking more than 340,000 passenger cars off the road each year, or avoiding the amount of electricity needed to power more than 215,000 average American homes annually.
Following Intel in the ranking are Kohl's Department Stores (1,524,656,000 kWh), Walmart (872,382,088 kWh), Whole Foods Market (800,257,623 kWh), and Johnson & Johnson (553,565,521 kWh).
The tech sector has slipped in the ranking as Cisco is the second IT company only at rank #15 (268,644,637 kWh), Sprint at #26 (176,000,000 kWh), Dell at #43 (114,536,440 kWh) and Google at #47 (103,403,137 kWh). However, these numbers only tell half the story, as Intel's huge purchase covers only 88 percent of the company's energy use. while Kohl's covers 100% and Whole Foods even 106 percent, while Walmart is at just 28 percent.
Cisco's green energy coverage is 27 percent, Sprint is at 5 percent, Dell at 28 percent, and Google at 5 percent.
Intel has been ranked by the EPA as the largest green energy buyer since 2008, when the company reported purchases of 1,302,040,000 kWh and 46 percent coverage of its total energy use.
I bet Intel will disagree they are not a "has been". Seriously, though that's kinda what sounds like.
"Intel's huge purchase covers only 88 percent of the company's energy use."
those 22% left is higher then most small country total power consumption. intel it's not the way to go.
Whole Foods is.
Whole Foods is."
Really? 22 + 88 = 100??
Wow trolls are dumb.
I think that "7 out of 5 readers" will agree that your math is off just ever so much :-)
Any Moderator read this ???
We need a way to edit our posts !!!
Who cares about 'most small countries' Intel has more employees/contractors than most small countries. Intel has more money than most small countries, and most importantly Intel produces more than most small countries. Seriously, even if you take a stupidly utilitarian outlook at the situation you can easily say that Intel does more good for the world in the product they provide (much less the donations they provide) than most small countries, so I think they can be allowed to use a little bit of power here and there. Besides, when you consider the strip-mining and manufacturing processes behind most solar technology it quickly becomes apparent that solar is not doing the world any favors, not to mention what you do with all those batteries when you swap them out every few years. Solar is great, and I cannot wait until I can afford to get it for my house, but you do it to own/control your own power flow or to spout out factoids like this for PR, not to help the environment.
1. How much of that energy actually came from solar/wind power? Unless they built separate "green" facilities and ran the grid in separately then there is no way to know if that power actually came from solar, wind, coal, &c. It just becomes fluff like carbon credits.
2. What is the environmental impact of all that "green" energy? If it was half solar panels producing Intel's 88%. That would require 1,269 Acres of land made permanently useless by coverage of solar panels (not to mention all the land temporarily lost to mine those materials for the panels and energy used in processing and forming). That is assuming the most efficient solar plant I've read about which produces 225 kW/Acre and that it actually gets an average of 12hours of usable light per day 365 days a year, most plants are far less efficient requiring far more land use. Wind is much better for land use but there are only so many areas that you can build wind farms.
how?
If you buy off all Coke in the supermarket, no one will have Coke to buy and will eventually have to drink Sprite. Got it?
Not to mention that solar energy costs 8~9x more than hydro and 5x more than wind power, and such a cost is transferred straight to our pockets.
22% + 88% = 100 ... if you count the 10% "incentives"
Note: the extra 10 on this "sum" was underhanded under some mysterious table.
/sarcasm
LOL bunch of nimrods.
You want to see how Intel does it? There ya go.
We build our own solar farms on the rooftops of our manufacturing sites. Folsom has the largest solar farm as it's a 6 acre 2.5 megawatt facility.
Sorry, but that arguement makes so little sense... To argue that a company buying solar and wind energy would somehow force others to stick to coal is at the minimum a highly cynical viewpoint, at worst delusional. The entire basis of supply and demand is that once demand increases, suply increases to keep up. If stores are out of Coke today, chances are you just go back tomorrow when they get more supply. If Coca Cola can't even manage to keep its suppliers stocked on their most popular item, then that's a sign the company is not going to last much longer. The solar and wind energy industries are not in a position of lacking supply - they're lacking demand.
That’s a cost I’m willing to subsidize. I do believe in global warming. At the very least I take the perspective that it’s better to take action now and say “oops” later if we find out it’s not really a problem we can do anything about, than stall the issue, pass the tipping point, and then look back wishing we did something after it’s already too late.
No, They will buy more coke for the increased demand. Very, very simple economics.
Oil and natural gas can be considered to be relatively the same thing, as they are both found together. They make some unfriendly nations rich and America poorer. Nothing against Arabs as a race, but America doesn't want nations that are not friendly to us to have wealth to buy weapons. Its just business and a matter of security. Its a political game that ultimately threatens our lives. Most Americans want everyone in the world to be taken care of, but ultimately we all need resources, which is why I am big on education and not having too many kids. More people = less peace. Crime is more prevalent in cities. End of case.
Coal we have plenty of, but it wrecks natural habitat (which is usually semi-replaced by tree planting here in the USA). There is no "clean" way to burn coal for energy. It produces some nasty stuff, although the process has been vastly improved over the years.
I can't say for the rest of Intel's operations across the planet. However, in Portland, OR two thirds of our electricity come from hydro-electric with other renewable energy sources such as major wind farms down the Columbia gorge.