Whilst the rest of your analysis has some validity (particularly when one looks at total lifecycle manufacturing costs), I feel like this is pretty misleading, to put it mildly. You say “a lot”, and whilst that’s a subjective term, the percentage of businesses who are generating a meaningful amount of their power by their own renewable installations is absolutely tiny. In the vast majority of cases, it’s a complete fig-leaf, that’s there largely for PR purposes (including internal PR), so the business can say “Look we’re doing something!”. Counter-examples are rare - but they exist - Nestle for example installed nine wind turbines which provide them a lot of power for one factory. Much more commonly though, the “generation” is a few solar panels on top of a building which, when considered as part of the entire energy footprint of the entire organisation (even ignoring the vast amounts of energy expended by their delivery vehicles and so on), is going to be providing well under 1%. So I feel like this is not a great thing for people to believe without specific examples from specific businesses.
Further, Google are not really among the businesses doing this. Instead they purchase electricity generated renewable energy, just like any other consumer can (in the UK and many parts of the US, at least, not sure about France - I have a tariff with the exact same guarantee Google does, for example), which doesn’t necessarily mean they’re benefiting the planet at all (again, no more than a consumer doing so). Instead, purchasing electricity generated by renewable energy, at least for the moment, is merely pushing numbers around, because it means that people who do care, get renewable energy, but people who don’t, just get the non-renewable energy when it’s in the grid.
This does slowly and slightly help renewable power to grow, and will help more as more customers (individual and corporate) ask for this, but it’s not yet proven to be a major force.
Google are moderately honest about it - their page on it is only slightly disingenuous: https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/renewable/
But they’re no more renewable than any individual customer can be (in the UK/parts of the US for sure). And arguably less green than, say Nestle, who are actively investing in green energy. Google say things like:
But then you read the actual examples. And it’s very clear that Google are not investing any money at all in green energy. They’re not paying to have this stuff built. They’re not even giving out loans to have it built. They’re simply agreeing to buy power when other businesses decide to invest in and actually build renewable energy generation systems.
So let’s be clear - Google aren’t total scumbags here - but they aren’t particularly active good guys. Which is actually surprising because they could be really driving this stuff if they wanted to. But they are instead doing not much more than a consumer who picks a 100% renewable tariff.
Further, I think it’s questionable as to how efficiently their data centres do run, but neither of us has figures on that.
What we can say is that they aren’t the major problem with burning useless electricity on computing. Nor are consumers, actually. Neither is particularly bad. People generating crypto-currency are the problem, and they’re a problem that gets worse every second of every day.