Earlier this year facebook announced that they would be building a new data center in Prineville, Oregon to accommodate for the fast growing company. They decided to build a new facility as the enterprise was growing quickly and they needed new more efficient infrastructure to keep up with the fast growing population. Facebook announced that they chose Oregon to build the new facility, as it would provide them with a “suitable climate for environmental cooling, renewable power resources, etc”. Based on these statements and the fact that Google currently has a facility in Oregon powered by hydropower organizations assumed facebook would also use clean energy to power the facility.
Though, upon a more careful inspection of facebook’s facility it was discovered that PacifiCorp a power plant that primarily uses coal to operate would power the new building.
Upon this announcement many organizations have reacted against facebook and started lobbying to get facebook to switch away from coal power. Greenpeace has posted about the situation and declared “the dirtiest source of energy and biggest contributor to global warming — will be burned in ever greater amounts with each photo shared and status update posted” and has begun to urge everyone to petition for facebook to stop using coal. Greenpeace urges facebook users to join the facebook page to stop the use of coal, stating, “If your Facebook page is being powered by coal, then it's contributing to climate change. How do you like that?”
When asked to respond to the use of coal the spokesperson Lee Weinstein simply stated that most electricity “comes from a variety of sources” and that their choice in using PacifiCorp to supply the energy is economically beneficial to them. Furthermore even using coal this facility will be “one of the most energy efficient in the world, featuring an innovative cooling system” and it will be built to “LEED Gold standards”
Though even with this new innovative cooling system doesn’t change the fact that the electricity is primarily coming form coal power. Even though it will be one of the most energy efficient buildings in the world it is still contributing to climate change in one of the worst ways possible and using one of the dirtiest energies out there.
There is nothing wrong in using a Coal fired power plant to power the new building for Facebook. There are many clean burning coal plants around the country and coal is not always bad. Renewable power plants also effect the environment as well as coal fired power plants. Hydropower plants cause a dramatic effect on the environment. They change ecosytems both up stream by damming and creating large reserviors and downstream by limiting the water flow of the natural water flow. In Oregon the dam has a major effect on the Salmon migration. Also the use of windpower has dramatic changes as well. They need very large areas to be put up, which can effect bird and bat migrations. The scenery is changed also by having the massive windmills in the horizon. While Coal has its drawbacks coal power plants can be run clean. Renewable energy is a good thing but they are not impervious to their environmental impacts.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is generally accepted that the idea of clean coal is an oxymoron. By its very nature coal accumulates toxins and hazardous materials (Mercury, Arsenic, Sulfur to name a few). When coal is used as a power source these materials all have to somewhere. If it isn't into the air its buried or places in dams which create the potential for environmental catastrophes (See Kingston, TN and the slurry spill). The environmentally conscious way of dealing with this waste would be to use it in the production of concrete, but this is not often the case.
ReplyDeleteDamming water clearly has its problems as well, but sources like wind energy and solar PV could be used with negligible environmental impacts especially compared to using hydroelectric dams and coal powered electricity.
Coal is the worst energy source that could be chosen given the clean,sustainable alternatives.
I think when people refer to clean coal, it is meant cleaner than it has been. Compared to 20 years ago it is definitely clean coal. Toxins do build up in coal that is released when it is burned. Now due to regulations power plants are required to test the coal to make sure toxins like sulfur are not above certain levels. If the coal does not pass the coal plants will generally not even accept the coal off the train. Then once it is burned technologies, such as scrubbers, remove even more sulfur. New processes to use the ash as building materials are being developed. Considering the amount of pollution cement plants produce, I think this is something that should be seriously considered. Coal I know is one of the biggest polluters when it comes to energy, but I think many people go about getting alternative implemented the wrong way. Instead of attacking coal that is one of the cheapest energy sources, and provides a lot of jobs, push for alternative energies. You can push for alternatives without attacking the coal industry. I think in many ways they have gotten a bad rap, and many of the pollution reducing processes these plants do implement are being overlooked by critics. Also, by concentrating so much on coal, other polluting industries I think are getting overlooked. Facebook chose coal because it was more economical; I say don’t blame Facebook, blame the market that made coal the best choice. What I would like to know is how many anti-coal advocates actually shut down their Facebook accounts after reading this.
ReplyDelete