The social networking website Facebook announced in January that it is building a new data center in Oregon. According Jonathan Heiliger, Facebook’s vice president of technical operations, this move will help Facebook “meet the needs of the growing number of people using Facebook and to deliver richer and more innovative services.” Sounds great, right? Not so fast. If Facebook builds its new data center as planned, your Wall posts, status updates, photo uploads and other activities on the site will most likely be fueled by coal power.
While Facebook’s announcement details energy-efficient features in the data center’s design, it neglects to mention its energy sources. The new data center’s electricity supplier, Pacific Power does get some of its energy from hydropower, a clean energy source. Pacific Power’s main source of electricity, however, is burning coal, which does produce carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions into the atmosphere.
Facebook does deserve some credit for its energy efficient design plans. Its presence could also mean additional jobs for the residents of Prineville, Oregon, a desert town that has an unemployment rate of 17 percent. But the examples of Google and Microsoft show that Facebook doesn’t have to settle for coal power. Both companies have server farms in the Pacific Northwest as well, and they use hydropower. Outside of the Pacific Northwest, another internet company, Yahoo, built a data center in Buffalo, New York that is fueled by hydroelectric power.
The motivating factor behind Facebook’s decision to rely on coal seems to be an issue of cost. Google and Microsoft moved to Oregon and Washington, respectively, when hydropower rates were relatively inexpensive and the companies signed contracts that locked them in at those low rates. The price of hydropower is increasing, however, and as a newcomer to the area, Facebook would have to pay higher rates for hydropower than its corporate counterparts. Coal, unfortunately, is a cheaper option.
But with a projected revenue of $310 million, does Facebook really have to settle for the cheaper energy source, when this option has damaging effects on our environment? And I don’t know about you, but when I think “coal,” I think 19th century. Doesn’t Facebook want to keep up with the green innovations other companies are making?
The best way to show your disapproval for this move by Facebook is to speak up as a Facebook user. Greenpeace has started a Facebook group, “We want facebook to use 100% renewable energy” to pressure the company to reconsider its coal usage. You can also sign Change.org’s petition asking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to keep the website off of coal. Speak up, and speak green!
Source: BecauseAction.com
