Last time they ranked Amazon poorly for datacenter power, I checked some numbers and compared with other agencies rankings.
Amazon got about 27% of it's power from nuclear.
No CO2, but Greenpeace didn't credit anything for it.
Dell's datacenters had higher CO2 emissions, only ~7% nuclear, but a little more renewables.
The anti-nuclear geniuses at Greenpeace gave Dell a cleaner ranking than Amazon.
They only credit CO2 abatement, if they agree with the method.
Not only that, they don't even MENTION all CO2 abatements.
In fact, I found that Amazon's emissions were far better than average.
I think they had the 2nd lowest fossil generating share of about 10 US datacenter operators compared.
In addition, Amazon was investing heavily in PSU, rack density, and cooling improvements, and virtualization is a known resource saver across all components. Ever heard of virtualization at Amazon?
I doubt that anyone at Greenpeace understands any of this.
Any electrical engineers there? HVAC engineers? POWERPLANT engineers?
Greenpeace are dishonest, technically ignorant, and thoroughly foolhardy;
and will destroy your World if you let them.
TFA shouldn't have even been posted here.