Intel Leads Green Power Ranking Again; Google Not So Much
The three constants in this listing are the fact that (1) Intel is leading the list once again, (2) Whole Foods remains the only organization that covers all of its energy usage with green power since the initiation of the ranking and (3) organizations continue to purchase more green power at a fast pace overall.
Intel is inching closer toward the goal of covering 100 percent of its corporate power use and buys nearly twice the green power than the next biggest purchaser Kohl's - 2.80 billion kWh versus 1.53 billion kWh per year. However, Kohl's buys 101 percent of its power needs from green sources (such as biogas, biomass, solar and wind) and Intel only 89 percent. Microsoft has broken into the list as an apparently new member of the Green Power Partnership and lists at #3 with 1.12 billion kWh and 46 percent coverage.
The top 5 is completed by Wal-Mart (872 million kWh, 28 percent) and Whole Foods (28 percent). Surprising members on the list - on a positive note - may be McDonald's (#13, 306 million kWh, 30 percent), and Best Buy (#40, 118 million kWh, 11 percent). Also somewhat surprising may be the fact that Google is not quite as green as the perception may indicate. All those solar panels on Google's roof and wind turbines hardly shows any impact: Google acquires only 103 million kWh per year - which is about 5 percent of its total consumption. Also noteworthy is that an long time leader of the earlier versions of the list, the U.S. Air Force, is slipping. The Air Force buys 262 million kWh per year, which is not only below the 2004 mark of 1.04 billion kWh, but its coverage has also dropped from 11 percent to just 3 percent.
However, the larger picture shows that purchases of 54 million kWh were enough to rank #25 on the list in 2004, while 176 million kWh in 2012 - based on the numbers in published list, which adds and drops a few members in every new release.
Massive amounts of land have to be used (habitat destroyed) to produce the stuff compared to crude oil. Large amounts of fuel get used to fertilize, till, maintain, harvest and process the plants into fuel. I've seen estimates that range from eight gallons of gasoline are needed to produce nine gallons of ethanol to it taking many times more gas get used in producing ethanol than is reaped. Then there is the fresh water usage. We simply do not have enough to sustain production. Already we are using groundwater faster than it is being replenished.
Once all is said and done you are still pumping CO2 gases into the atmosphere. Except now it is a crap load more as you have all the gas used in production then the ethanol consumed by the end user.
I'm not against better power sources (specifically solar, nuclear, and fuel cell tech), but wind, bio-gas, and biomass all have some weird drawbacks and consequences which need to be considered if it is really to be labeled as a truly 'green' tech.
... If we could just find the magic key to make better batteries (which is steadily improving, but has not really 'arrived' yet) then we could all move to solar and reserve fossil fuels for air travel and military use. Solar is already available at 22% (which is enough to power even some power hungry homes when available roof space is considered), and has a pay-off of under 10 years, which means that it is almost a viable tech for home-owners like myself. Once they get the payoff to under 7 years (preferably under 5) then you will begin to see mass adoption of the tech.
It is made from the stuff we eat, which is why when ethanol was pushed a few years back it caused corn prices to sky-rocket around the world, which made for a very crappy 2-3 years for the truly poor in the world who eat mostly corn based products. We got cheaper gas, and people literally starved to death, Ethanol is generally a bad idea for mass production; but like jamessneed mentioned, it makes perfect sense for farms where you can take damaged crops and reuse it as fuel, but just not on a mass scale.
Many biofuels also result in acid rain, and generally aren't as energy dense as other sources.
Interesting...tell me more...
I'm all for being environmentally friendly, but lists like these ('specially from the gubernment) are more for political convenience and muddy the issue.
Carbon based biofuels (Coal / Gas / Oil) are a bad idea for base load power, good option for swing / peak load but absolutely horrible for base. Leaves nukes as the best way forward, just got to rid of the bad taste left over from the older Generation I design's. MSR / LFTRs are the future for fission reactors, clean, passively safe and a huge advance in efficiency the older PWR / LWBRs.