New Law Lets Data Centers Hide Power Usage

1sockchuck writes "Just days after Google announced that it may build a huge data center in the state, Oklahoma's governor has signed a bill into law that will effectively exempt the largest customers of municipal power companies from public disclosure of how much power they are using. Officials of the state's power industry say the measure is not a 'Google Law' but was sought 'on behalf of large-volume electric users that might be considering a move to Oklahoma.' Others acknowledge that data center operators were among those seeking the law, apparently arguing that the details of their enormous power usage are a trade secret. Google recently acquired 800 acres in Pryor, Oklahoma for possible development as a data center, and is reportedly seeking up to 15 megawatts of power for the facility."

Comments

New Corporate Motto

[MarkPNeyer]

Effective Immediately: Do some Evil. Just, you know, not too much.

Re:New Corporate Motto

[Guanix]

Reminds me of a story of a Supreme Court oral argument once, where a Justice made a reference to the First Amendment. The lawyer arguing the case replied, "Your Honor, you know, and I know, that when it says, 'Congress shall make no law,' it actually means, 'Congress may make some law.' "

Re:New Corporate Motto

[mandelbr0t]

A Troll? I don't think so. At least an insightful troll anyway.

There's plenty of evil that can be done once you don't have to record your resource consumption. OK, I doubt Google is going to become the largest marijuana grow-op in the United States, but anything that leaves accounting to the imagination will inevitably end up considering evil since there's no fear of being caught.

Re:New Corporate Motto

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a law, its a memorandum of understanding, got it?

Re:New Corporate Motto

[russotto]

OK, I doubt Google is going to become the largest marijuana grow-op in the United States

And a damn shame that is.

Re:New Corporate Motto

[theshowmecanuck]

Reminds me of a giant grow up that got busted in Barrie Ontario a few years ago. They set up shop in a Labbatt's brewery that had just been made redundant and shut down. The power company didn't put two and two together and realize that the circuit the place was on shouldn't still be drawing the huge amount of power that it was. Someone finally figured it out and they investigated. All the plants were being grown in the stainless steel aging tanks.

Re:New Corporate Motto

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has a strong self-interest to keep power usage at a minimum, and has been active in efforts to minimize power consumption by computers. If anything, it's more likely that they don't want competitors to know how little power they are able to use per computer.

(Although personally I don't see this as a particularly useful advantage.)

And?

[BobMcD]

There's got to be a point in here somewhere. I wasn't aware that A) you could check on how much power someone else was using or that B) it was any of your business or that C) you could do diddely-squat about it.

Someone care to enlighten me?

Re:And?

[Stanistani]

Psst. The real secret here is that Al Gore is planning to open a huge data center.

Re:And?

[SydShamino]

My guess is:

Later, the power company comes back and says "Hey, public, we're running out of power, and we need to build three more coal-fired power plants near your town, and by the way, we want to avoid regulations that require us to clean our exhaust because that would hurt our bottom line."

The public says "No way, I don't want your pollution clogging my air, worsening my asthma, and causing my city to become subject to EPA regulations. I resent you trying to avoid cleaning up your own mess. By the way, who's driving this demand for power? Is it big business or folks like me, because I know I try to conserve my power use by turning off lights and even switching to CFLs? I don't want to pay (in terms of taxes or pollution) for power generated to serve some big out-of-state business, especially one that doesn't generate many local jobs."

Then, the power company says "-snicker- We can't tell you who is using the power. Just give us the plants or we'll do rolling blackouts on your homes and schools."

Re:And?

[profplump]

The public says "No way, I don't want your pollution clogging my air, worsening my asthma, and causing my city to become subject to EPA regulations. I resent you trying to avoid cleaning up your own mess. By the way, who's driving this demand for power? Is it big business or folks like me, because I know I try to conserve my power use by turning off lights and even switching to CFLs? I don't want to pay (in terms of taxes or pollution) for power generated to serve some big out-of-state business, especially one that doesn't generate many local jobs." Right. Because big business is evil and always wastes power and individuals are always good and save power. And businesses don't hire anyone locally, not even to run their new power plants. And local people wouldn't want new "out-of-state" businesses in their town even if they did. And air pollution in some other state is better than air pollution here.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Without all those perfectly valid lines of thought I might have suspected your were just trolling.

Re:And?

[FudRucker]

thanks for the insight, i will remember Google's data center in Pryor (northern part of the state) if power consumption becomes an issue...

Re:And?

[hondo77]

Without all those perfectly valid lines of thought I might have suspected your were just trolling.

Pot, meet kettle...

Re:And?

[vonhammer]

Now, now - play nice. His point (I'm sure) was that this information is being deliberatly hidden from view. Some businesses absolutely contribute to the local economy and some don't. Without knowing the truth about how much power they consume, you and I cannot make a value judgment on whether or not it is worth letting them build the infrastructure they want to support the business.

I for one would want to know the bottom line.

Re:And?

[dhasenan]

I'm just waiting for Google to start building power plants. Though I'm not sure how they'd send advertisements via electricity...

Re:And?

[TinyManCan]

Maybe they will just start collecting stats on your power usage. If they did so, they could tell if you were a likely consumer of electronic goods, discern the times of day when you are most active, have a reason to pull full credit information on every subscriber to their power utility, etc. Google could apply brainpower to something basic like electrical supply and leverage that to add to their data models on you, thus making ads served in other venues (web, tv, radio) more closely matched.

Just one train of thought on why Google may possibly make more money off running an electricity company that a standard Utility would.

Re:And?

[billcopc]

Quite the seasoned troll you are. Air pollution in some other state is, yes, better than air pollution in one's own. That's why you live here and not there. Sure, overall it's bad but it's not like people are taking green issues seriously (yet). Not until we have a big dramatic holocaust-grade disaster will people start to conserve resources. That's why some people drive Priuses (which aren't that green to begin with), and others drive Hummers.

Energy costs a ton of money. I'm not too sure why because it certainly isn't worth anything, but companies were created to put dollar signs at the end of that nothingness. We can't undo this capitalism screwup so we have to deal with it. I live in a rather big city, seeing as it's the nation's capital, and we tend to be a rather progressive society that is pro-green to some extent. That doesn't stop massive buildings from being lit up 24/7 even though they're staffed for only 10 hours a day. It's so bright that my window shades glow at night from the skyscrapers a half-mile away. "It's for security" they say. Well then what's more important ? Energy conservation or the physical security of a bunch of government cubicles full of bullshit that nobody wants to read, not even the people who write it. We watch the cost of electricity go up every year, primarily because we sell too much of it to the Americans, and through some messed up contract we have to buy it back at a higher price. Luckily we don't have brownouts more than once every couple of years, but that will probably change as time goes by and the electricity market takes a turn for the absurd just like oil did. What happens when nobody can afford the electricity anymore ?

Re:And?

[billcopc]

They'd partner up with X-10 Inc.

Now THAT'S a scary thought.

Re:And?

[kindbud]

Dennis Miller > You

Re:And?

[Red Mage 13]

Will he keep his tax records inside of a lockbox?

Re:And?

[ReddyRd5]

I thought those "coal plants" were in Texas?? Unless there is more than I thought which won't surprise me. I know there is some windmills being add in west Texas(my brotherin-law drives a truck & is transprorting the blades - well one blade at a time since that is all that will fit on an over oversized load - they usually run in groups - too bad the picture I had of one is on the computer that crashed) Where is Google located now?? if they are in CA then moving them out might be a great idea since getting any type power plant is a pain. I agree with the treehuggers on the no coal but you do have to balance keeping people from dying with that.

Re:And?

[spurdy]

Most states, I believe Oklahoma is one, have deregulated generation, so power companies don't need no stinking permission to build a power plant. They just do it--if they can afford the interconnection costs and get transmission service from the RTO at a reasonable cost. As to who's driving the increase in demand--it's everybody, stupid. Ask yourself if you have more or fewer electric appliances since you moved into your house. I have two more TVs, two more computers, a new microwave, a cable box, DVD player, and several more always-on electronic clocks than I had 5 years ago. And I'm the only person who lives here! I've forecasted load growth for my company, and the industrials generally remain static. It's the residentials that continually increase year after year.

Re:And?

[pcmanjon]

Datacenters don't create many jobs. I've worked at a datacenter with over 5,000 servers and only about 6 employees were required. This is with support calls daily from clueless customers. I imagine a Google datacenter requiring even less employees.

Re:And?

[Yartrebo]

A good pair of binoculars will get your the power consumption of most residents. They're in public view on the power meters.

In my opinion, it should be public info, especially the consumption of politicians (particularly ones claiming to be green) and companies. After all, electricity hogs have a knack for triggering blackouts and raising utility rates to pay for new infrastructure.

Re:And?

[SydShamino]

Yes, the plants are in Texas, and the rolling blackouts were in CA. I was pulling together bits of real-world events to illustrate a scenario.

My post was meant purely as an example, to show one reason why the power company would want to hide the identities of its largest customers.

Do No Evil

[malkir]

I belive I belive Don't fail me, Google!

Re:Do No Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

do you believe in spell check?

Total usage of power

[davidmillions.com]

Do total usage of power really matter that much? Isn't it more efficient if Google needs 100 servers that uses 100W of power than me needing 10W of power to run 1 server?

Re:Total usage of power

[labradore]

No. Go check your math.

Re:Total usage of power

[mikael]

Do total usage of power really matter that much?

Google's shareholders might care - if their CTO is buying racks and racks of expensive power-guzzling boxes simply because he likes the the flashing activity lights and the noise the cooling fans make when they can get a single server to do the same job, then all that extra power consumption on hardware air-conditioning is lost shareholder dividends.

Re:Total usage of power

[dorianh49]

1.21 jigawatts should be enough for anyone.

Perfect for pot growers

[Anonymous Coward]

All one need do is incorporate and claim to start a large server farm. Then grow grow grow your way to PROFIT!!!

Trade Secret?

[brennanw]

How exactly is power consumption a "trade secret?" That makes no sense...

Re:Trade Secret?

[The-Ixian]

I am trying to puzzle this out as well.
 
I suppose that you could reverse engineer a ballpark figure of how many servers are active based on the power usage or maybe figure out that they are running some kind of high power consumption experiments, but what good does that do anybody?

Re:Trade Secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it gives a whiff of a clue to competitors as to how many computers they use? If so, bfd.

Re:Trade Secret?

[nharmon]

Indeed. Does Google give public tours of its datacenters? I mean, if some joe taking a tour can count up how many Dell servers have their lights blinking, then the whole idea of "trade secret" goes out the window.

Re:Trade Secret?

[MyDixieWrecked]

Data centres use power to cool and power the computers in their facilities. Methods vary from centre to centre and one might have a much more efficient way of doing things.

By not disclosing their power usage, they can protect themselves from people (spies) who may want to discover their methods. Although they may want people to know "Hey! we use 1/3 the power of everyone else and have twice the computational power and storage capacity!" they don't want to draw attention to themselves.

Re:Trade Secret?

[dadioflex]

It isn't. And that's the real problem. We have a situation where a high profile (as opposed to Big) company is looking to settle in. That can create quite a stir in a small to medium sized town. But now we have local laws getting passed which look to exclusively affect the newly arrived company. That's the real problem. ie It looks like Google has landed and the local Government is trying to make life as easy as possible for the newly landed cash cow. Now obvioulsy I have no knowledge that this is the case but that's how it looks (this is the Smart Troll defense - say what you want about anybody but don't leave yourself open for a lawsuit...) though of course this would be unlikely because it makes Google look like a 2 bit crook if it was true.

Re:Trade Secret?

[geekoid]

In order for that information to be of use, you have to know a lot of internal information anyways.

Trade secret is not a logical reason, the only logical reason for this is so they can play power shell games. No other reasons at all. And since they exists soley because the government says so, we are entitled to all that information.

The governer just did a big diservice to the people who voted for him.

Re:Trade Secret?

[hrieke]

Well,

Back in the days, when the Japanese where trying to break into the American automotive market, they used to send groups over to measure the rust on the rail tracks.
Why?
Because it would then be simple to know how often the trains where running, how much wear on the tracks (thus how big and heavy the trains are), and a whole host of other tidbits which would be useful in competition.

So now, you know that Google's newest complex needs X amount of power, and using some IP tools, you can see what traffic is going on in and out of the data center- thus a measurement can be made of the power usage per user, and from that you can determine if the data center is being efficient, and how well it scales.

I'm sure smarter people than me can go on even more...

Re:Trade Secret?

[bigwave111]

Yeah, but given the amount of resources Google provides for its employees, it's safe to say that 50% of all power will go to catered meals, jacuzzis, and vibrating beds for nap breaks on those difficult 6 and a half hour work days.

Re:Trade Secret?

[fishbowl]

>Yeah, but given the amount of resources Google provides for its employees, it's safe to say that 50% of all power will go to catered meals,
>jacuzzis, and vibrating beds for nap breaks on those difficult 6 and a half hour work days.

I think all those things are illegal in Oklahoma.

Please put me out of my misery if I ever become desperate enough, or greedy enough, to live in a place like Oklahoma.

It even makes working for Google seem a little less of a good thing, because there is always the chance you might get relocated to Oklahoma.

I wonder if people are aware that Oklahoma still practices strict alcohol prohibition?

Re:Trade Secret?

[jcgf]

Back in the days, when the Japanese where trying to break into the American automotive market, they used to send groups over to measure the rust on the rail tracks.
Why?
Because it would then be simple to know how often the trains where running, how much wear on the tracks (thus how big and heavy the trains are), and a whole host of other tidbits which would be useful in competition.

I must be missing something here. How does knowing when and where trains traveled somehow give insights into the American automotive market? I suppose doing it near a factory would maybe help you discover how much weight the trains were carrying and work out how many cars were sold but there are many easier ways of obtaining that info.

Re:Trade Secret?

[rts008]

"I wonder if people are aware that Oklahoma still practices strict alcohol prohibition?"

Huh?? *takes another shot of chilled vodka* WTF?...You smokin' plumber's crack or something?

We may have some strange zoning laws, and stupid laws restricting alcohal sales after certain times on Sunday (local laws and ordinances-YMMV depending on town/county), but I've never been to anyplace in Oklahoma that prohibited alcohal.

And yes, I live in OK...Stillwater, and we have 5 liqour stores that I'm aware of, and all the convience and grocery stores sell beer (anything over 3.2% alcohal have to get from the liqour store).

Re:Trade Secret?

[fishbowl]

>(anything over 3.2% alcohal have to get from the liqour store).

And if you bring it with you from Texas you go to jail. Strict prohibition. BTDT. Never again.

Re:Trade Secret?

[Paradigm_Complex]

Yes, because giving the people who voted for him more jobs and bringing money into the area is awful. Look, I'm very much for openness, but its not as though this is due to corruption or some such. Sometimes the need for money and food outweighs ideas.

Re:Trade Secret?

[natedubbya]

Sounds like a troll angry at his own mistakes. Transporting alcohol across state borders is a common felony everywhere. Feel free to try New York to Pennsylvania...let me know how it goes. -t

Re:Trade Secret?

[Al Dimond]

Lack of openness leaves you open to corruption. If there's any evidence that competitors could glean useful information from datacenter power bills then sure, let them be hidden. If surrounding states are considering similar laws and businesses are making clear that it's important to them, then consider it. Otherwise, if it's just about hiding information from the public, it's hogwash. Yes, states want to attract business. The public generally wants business to come to the state also. If the public won't accept the presence of a business given all the facts, and the solution is to hide the facts, then you are doing the public a disservice. You're taking away the tools they use to form their own opinions, and saying that Daddy Legislator Knows Best.

Re:Trade Secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simple, you assume they're using 2-600 watt psu's in each of their servers and divide that by the number of megawatts the power company is reporting. Then you have a rough machine count - something Google tends to keep VERY VERY secret so other companies have hard time estimating the size/scope of their operation.

Re:Trade Secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Google give public tours of its datacenters?

HAaahaahahahahhaaha!!! No.

Re:Trade Secret?

[curlynoodle]

For a company like Google, every aspect of their operations is trade secret. Why, because they are successful and competitors will want to steal that success.

Re:Trade Secret?

[JrOldPhart]

Google builds their own servers, and runs custom operating systems.

Don't Tread on Oklahoma

[Anonymous Coward]

Anon here! I live in Oklahoma, and we will do anything we can to get businesses to migrate here. I don't really see this as an issue with Oklahoma itself, but the fact that we have a crumbling economy with more jails than schools. Can you really blame us?

Of course, no one ever talks about the good things coming out of Oklahoma law making bodies...

http://www.normantranscript.com/localnews/local_st ory_098012317/

Re:Don't Tread on Oklahoma

[FudRucker]

wow, a whopping 3%, i think the alternator in my pickup can do that, i will just hook it up to a bicycle...

Re:Don't Tread on Oklahoma

[loucura!]

I don't really see this as an issue with Oklahoma itself, but the fact that we have a crumbling economy with more jails than schools.

When I am elected President, I will personally ensure that Oklahoma has fewer prisons than schools... by turning the state into a Federal Penitentiary.

Re:Don't Tread on Oklahoma

[geekoid]

"Can you really blame us?"

Yes.
When the power company starts saying they need to build more plants or rolling blank out will start. and you can not find out how much companies are getting discounted you will only have youself to blame.

Also, when companies staart paying directly to the shareholders, and you energy bill goes up, and your taxes go up, you will only have yourself to blame.

This will not help OK for any reasonable amount of time.

Maybe people should figure out why so many are in jail. Maybe someone should allow non violent offenders out on parol so they can get a job and start paying taxes instead of just sucking them away?

Maybe someone should get all the eduqactional finance records opened up so people can see where the money is going?

No, don't do that, just use it as an excuse to be lazy and become someones bitch.

Re:Don't Tread on Oklahoma

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we really can blame you. Stop locking up kids who smoke dope to deal with the boredom that is Oklahoma and the dealers that sell to them, and that prison population will fall to a much more manageable number. Then find out where all the oil and gas tax money is going and demand that it be used for schools instead pointless crap like building turnpikes to the middle of nowhere and buying the Atoka county swat team new .50 calibre sniper rifles.

Having a state government that's as corrupt as a New Orleans levee board AND as mind-bogglingly dumb as the Kansas board of education doesn't help matters either.

Signed: Anonymous former Oklahoma resident

Re:Don't Tread on Oklahoma

[hax4bux]

OK, so I was born and raised in Oklahoma. There, I admit it. Years of speech therapy and a computer science degree (earned in California) help mask my terrible secret.

A data center in Pryor? Pretty funny. How many Google employees can sing "Okie From Muskogee"?

The Oklahoma chamber of commerce routinely runs adverts in the Wall Street Journal begging companies to come exploit the state. Hiding power usage is small potatoes to all the usual toxic run off associated w/chemical and petro production.

Re:Don't Tread on Oklahoma

[fuego451]

I live fairly close to Pryor and this is news to me. I'm sure the state wanted to keep this quite as long as they could and I am not at all surprised that Google could work out a deal with the good ol' boy network ($$$). The Public Service Company of Oklahoma has a long and glorious history of screwing folks here.

I wonder if Google has bought much dark fiber here, if any.

Also, a poster below asked about nuclear power plants in Oklahoma. As far as I know there aren't any but there have been plenty of nuclear shenanigans (see the above link). All power plants here are coal or gas fired.

Re:Don't Tread on Oklahoma

[theshowmecanuck]

From what I have heard, Oklahoma is a good place to build a wind farm. Google should build a bunch of turbines there and draw off the grid only when they need to. It would be good publicity, probably economical in the end, and fit in with their do no harm or whatever it is.

Re:Don't Tread on Oklahoma

[Prune]

How is that good? It takes away resources from where they should be concentrated, nuclear power. You'd have to cover the planet in windmills and solar panels to sustain unabated progress (read: increasing energy use, while fossil sources run out). Nuclear energy is the only way to do that, especially when you consider that most of the world that's not industrial nations will, by becoming industrialized, increase many times energy use per capita. Progress is unsustainable with 'green' sources; it's part of the environmentalist scam. Currently, the ONLY very long term generation that will allow continued increase of energy use is breeder reactors (cannot just have non-breeder plants since mineable uranium is limited).

Re:Don't Tread on Oklahoma

[Anonymous Coward]

Down on your knees, bitch!

I am not an Economist, but...

[MarkPNeyer]

Power Companies are granted monopolies by the public. Part of the deal is that, because the power companies are granted a monopoly by the public, they have to publicize all transactions they undertake.

Why? Otherwise, you could have sweat-heart deals between the power companies and their customers. Instead of paying the power company (and thereby the people) for your power usage, you could pay the owners of the power company to give you a huge discount. The power copmany then can just raise rates on consumers who have no say in who gives them power. By forcing the company to keep the books open, you prevent the possibility of impropriety.

I would argue that such issues are a good reason to switch to more heavily privatized models. Ideally, the government would maintain the infrastructure, and anybody who wanted could add power to the grid. That'd be sweet.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[Stanistani]

>sweat-heart deals

If you use such new coinings on your blog, I have to read it!

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can detect that you were attempting to mock the gp, but I think you failed.

I, at least, am left unimpressed.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

We've had a privatized model in the UK for a while now and it works pretty well. People shop around for the best deal and there are tariff comparison sites on the internet that will help you find the best deal.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[acidrain]

So... Google is able to use it's purchasing power to force a state protected monopoly to give it an unfair deal compared to other customers of the utility. The politicians pass a law keeping this a secret, and in doing so they can claim to be giving their state an advantage, and at the same time avoid publicizing the embarrassingly large handout they are allowing.

Interesting. Hard cash sounds like a much more likely reason for Google chose one location over another. Although a little privacy never hurt.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[NickDngr]

I would argue that such issues are a good reason to switch to more heavily privatized models. Ideally, the government would maintain the infrastructure, and anybody who wanted could add power to the grid. That'd be sweet.

Yeah, because that worked so well in California.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[Breakfast Pants]

>Part of the deal is that, because the power companies are granted a monopoly by the public, they have to publicize all transactions they undertake.

Bullshit; I can't see my neighbor's power bill.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[spiffmastercow]

Oklahoma already has a privatized system, and it costs about $250/month to get electricity in a studio apartment during the summer. The prices soared after the privatized it, because the reigning power company has no viable local competitors, and thus gave OG&E an economically enforced (rather than government enforced) monopoly. Remember, corporations are out to ream you for whatever they can. A competitive market can mitigate, and a government monopoly can keep up minimum requirements. When you have neither, as is the case in Oklahoma, then you merely give the only power company in town free reign to charge whatever it feels like. And what are you going to do then, just not have electricity? Oklahoma is the whipping boy of corporate America. I should know, I lived there for 22 years.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[MindStalker]

Though given Data Centers in general are one of the few rate heavy power users who use as much or more power at night than the day can present a cost savings to the power company. Especially if this center installs solar/etc meaning it uses more energy at night than the day. Trust me Google is still paying millions for its energy, but this allows the Energy Companies to use those millions to expand their offerings when ultimatly Google is adding less than this cost to the peak usage figure.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

it costs about $250/month to get electricity in a studio apartment during the summer

If that's including hot water, that is outrageous. Obscene if it's not.

In Arizona, you could cool a 3800sqft home in the summer all day for a little over $500 during the hottest month.
Sure that's expensive but it's better than $250/month to cool a little 700sqft apartment.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[cheater512]

Pay to get a discount? Am I the only one who doesnt get that?

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Instead of paying the power company (and thereby the people) for your power usage, you could pay the owners of the power company to give you a huge discount. The power copmany then can just raise rates on consumers who have no say in who gives them power. Why am I reminded of the way insurance companies, the stock market, the .com bubble, and illegal Enron FBI domestic Patriot HP Martha Stewart DMCA wiretapping presidential elections when you say this?

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[HornWumpus]

The cops can and do check both your power bills. (In case you decide to run 10,000 W worth of lights and grow illegal crops in you basement.)

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[spottedkangaroo]

Hey, privatizing worked really well in california iirc. So it could work anywhere.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[Anonymous Cowpat]

electricity costs $1million. You pay the people who run the electricity company $100,000 (which is more than they would see from profit in their bonus/dividend/paypacket from you spending $1million on the electricity). You can now magically buy the electricity for $500,000. Total cost: $600,000; Total saving: $400,000. Everyone else collectively pays $500,000 between them to balance the books and keep the Christmas Bonus as fat as last year. Company board is up $100,000 in bribe money, you're up $400,000 in savings, everyone else is down $500,000 to make up for it.

You and the board are (hopefully) laughing all the way to the jail, er, bank.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[aetherworld]

Damn, that made me actually click the link of the gp.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[spurdy]

Power Companies are granted monopolies by the public. Part of the deal is that, because the power companies are granted a monopoly by the public, they have to publicize all transactions they undertake.

Um...no. I don't know where you got that idea. Power companies do NOT have to publicize all transactions they undertake. Power companies enter into special contracts with large users all the time. It's not illegal. Usually, there's some special consideration, like agreeing to interruption during periods when demand exceeds supply, in exchange for a discount. In most states, however, such tariffs have to be filed with the public utility commission which has to OK them, and they have to be applied to all customers meeting the requirements of the given tariff. What's evidently at issue here is not the contract, but rather the amount of consumption, which is probably reported to the PUC for large customers, and then becomes public information because of FOIA laws. This law evidently exempts them from making such information publicly available. Questionable? Yes. But does it have anything to do with the power company? No.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[zippthorne]

Do you live on top of, below, or beside someone who's using a lot of heat? Perhaps your apartment is not properly insulated? Do you leave the windows open? Are you running a server farm? Underpowered, leaky AC workin' overtime to ice up the heat-exchanger*? $250/month is awfully high for a studio. The power companies in many states are required to give you an efficiency check and recommendations, I don't know if OK has such a law, but you might want to check into it.

*I have actually had this problem in an apartment. After a few maintenance calls, they eventually found a huge hole in the condenser (covered by some grime or something. so they didn't notice it right away. Heck, I didn't notice it right away, frog boiling and so on.) Anyway, they replaced the unit and it got a lot colder and cheaper after that.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[bob frost]

I wish I could agree entirely with the previous post. I worked in and on the fringes of the power industry for a while, and I pride myself as an educated observer on these issues. Indeed, utilities have traditionally been publicly regulated as natural monopolies (the thinking here being that the cost of power industry infrastructure is high enough that it makes little sense to build duplicate systems--a logic which, when not applied to the US mobile phone industry gave us 4-5 lousy, incompatible, and overpriced systems). I worked for New York State as an energy analyst, next to a MacKenzie consultant at the time when MacKenzie led the charge for power deregulation, a move which has been pretty much a total disaster, not least of all because the public now has less transparency with the power industry, so we really cannot know what the deals are. (Ask Californians who paid billions in extortionate, manipulated tarriffs a few years back). Deregulation was intended to let the mysteries of the "free" market replace the in-the-open system of regulation. I would assume that Oklahoma, a state traditionally operated in large part by the energy industries, is not particularly transparent in these deals anyway.

But there's more... When I studied the French power company (EDF) in great depth a number of years ago, it became clear that implicit or hidden cross-subsidies (charging one group of consumers more than the cost of service in order to allow another group to pay less) were essentially a veiled sort of industrial policy. For example, the French state wanted to make French electro-metallurgical (read: aluminum) and electro-chemical industries globally advantaged, so they got cheap power as a result. Ironically, that apparently wasn't enough for the aluminum producers, as in the 1980s and 1990s they moved much of their processing to Canada, where Hydro-Quebec and Ontario Hydro were offered much lower rates, in part b/c (in Quebec, at least), they could flood huge expanses of Indian land with minimal compensation.

As a resident of Michigan, where the auto industry is in free-fall thanks to perhaps the world's most bone-headed corporate leadership, I've had the wonderful privilege of paying some of the highest residential power tarriffs in the US. Why? Because residential users are subsidizing the Big Three through the rate structure. (I should also mention that we have some of the worst roads in the US because our weight limits are twice those of our neighboring states, thereby encouraging the suppliers, etc, to stay within our boundaries; we therefore subsidize the auto industry through our gasoline and road-use taxes).

In the end, these subsidies might make sense--I don't think so personally, as it encourages a race among states to offer corporate welfare--but in a democracy we as citizens should have the right to know. EDF, the French power company, attacked me nastily when I made this argument; I've not pushed hard in Michigan, as politically, we are expected to be slobbering whores for GM, etc., political affiliations notwithstanding (yeah, my House Rep is John "Camaro" Dingell, a dim Dem).

Bottom line, governments can and probably should have it within their authority to advantage one group over another, but that should be fully out in the open. When Oklahoma explicitly creates a system for obscuring the process, citizens lose. The problem is less, really, than one of corruption and sweetheart deals (tho OK has a long and ugly history of crooked relations b/w politicians and Big Oil), but the more "virtuous" practice of industrial policy conducted in the shadows.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[treat]

You pay the people who run the electricity company $100,000 (which is more than they would see from profit in their bonus/dividend/paypacket from you spending $1million on the electricity). You can now magically buy the electricity for $500,000. Total cost: $600,000; Total saving: $400,000.

Kickbacks are post-tax cash. The $100,000 kickback costs $200,000. Total cost is $700,000, savings is $300,000.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[Breakfast Pants]

You mean tomatoes.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[dytin]

You know, California didn't actually deregulate the power market. Just because California claimed they were deregulating doesn't mean they were.

Part of the "deregualtion" law was that new owners of the divested power plants were forced to sell their juice to a state-managed "power pool." The price of that power was set by a daily spot market run by the state. (source, and more info here)

It isn't deregulation when private owners are forced to sell thier goods to the state, at a price decided by the state.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[Anonymous Cowpat]

it's a bribe - it'll be going straight to the Cayman Islands and won't be declared on tax - let's not complicate my example here.

Re:I am not an Economist, but...

[spiffmastercow]

No. The bills were just that high. My parents had a 2500 sq. ft house, and the electricity bills were about $700/month during the summer. Their house, and all of the appliances (including the air conditioner) were new.

Cheap not so green electricity ?

[ZoOnI]

If googles energy useage is hidden, the state can give them cheaper electricity than everyone else and the taxpayers pick up another corporate bill.

With the greener thinking of the world, Oklahoma's power may be from nuclear/coal plants, making Google a not so green business.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[xlv]

With the greener thinking of the world, Oklahoma's power may be from nuclear/coal plants, making Google a not so green business.

Please do not group coal and nuclear together. Nuclear is currently the "greenest" electricity production option for a large scale output whereas coal releases heaps of nasty stuff in the air, specially as electric co. are slow to use filters to clean the exhaust of their coal burning plants.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[WillAffleckUW]

Nuclear is currently the "greenest" electricity production option for a large scale output whereas coal releases heaps of nasty stuff in the air, specially as electric co. are slow to use filters to clean the exhaust of their coal burning plants.

I think the people of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island might disagree with you, as well as all the people suffering from Depleted Uranium and Plutonium poisonings.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[xlv]

I think the people of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island might disagree with you, as well as all the people suffering from Depleted Uranium and Plutonium poisonings.

There are now more than 100 cvilian nuclear plants operating in the US, 109 I think from a recent PBS segment. There was only one accident in the US in civilian nuclear plants, nobody was injured, no radiation released.

The Chernobyl accident was due to poor maintenance and not following the established rules, i.e. human error and/or incomptence.

In France there are about 60 generating 80% of their electricty and exporting to the neighboring countries. France has the lowest air pollution of all industrialized countries.

Depleted uranium is due to military use and has nothing to do with civilian nuclear use.

I just can't understand why people who claim to understand science or at least the scientific process cannot go past the "nuclear bad" mantra... and by the way, I consider myself to be an environmentalist...

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't they make a Gigantic Dysan Vaccuum with the vortex tunnels thing and clean the Coal plants' exhaust? You wouldn't even need to change the filter since there is no filter... :)

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the greener thinking of the world, Oklahoma's power may be from nuclear/coal plants, making Google a not so green business.

Huh? Whereas coal plants are hard to consider as green, nuclear plants are probably the most environmentally sounds power plants there are. Very low emission of NOx, SOx and CO2, meaning there won't be increased acid rain or global warming, wrt. nuclear power plants.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[geekoid]

Chernobyl can not happen with US designs. It is not possible. NOT POSSIBLE.

A)There pile was way too big, and the rods weren't gravity assisted. The structure design was shody.
B)The people running it were former Hydro managers and had no nuclear training.
C)They shut down all the safety and then intentional forced a shut down.
But remember , even if B and C happened in the US, there still would not be an 'Chernobyl event because of its design.

How much radiation escaped from 3 mile island?
why, here is a quote:
. "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."

How many people might get cancer from three mile island? 1. But as of yet thee possible '1' hasn't happened.

Military use of depleted uranium has nothing to do with this.

Now that we got that out of the way, you might want to check up an how many nuclear plants there are operating without a hitch.
Add to that the new plans that are out there and some of the cool self contained stuff.

If we want to clean the air, we must start building new nuclear plant and shutting down coal. I believe more cancer causing stuff was put in the air over the last 5 years then has every been released form nuclear power plants.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[itsthebin]

though if you are buying in bulk and can book your usage ahead of time you are normally entitled to some sort of discount. but if there was gas available maybe google should be told to acquire a couple of 15 Meg Gas Turbines and sell any excess back to the state grid.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[WillAffleckUW]

Until you solve groundwater pollution (Hanford), plutonium release during weapons storage lifetime, spent radioactive shell pollution, depleted uranium dust (a major health risk in the Middle East), and potential pollution over the many many thousands of years of lifespan of the nuclear waste, than you can't say they don't have pollution.

I didn't say they were less polluting, I said they were not non-polluting, and that any arguments being made for low pollution are based on current year pollution estimates at best and do not include future pollution effects from what we've already mined, processed, used, and (supposedly permanently, but not so unless buried in the earth's mantle or flown into the sun) disposed of.

Let's get real. Stop trying to make best case scenarios when such don't actually exist in the real world. Even fusion reactors have radioactive waste byproducts from the processing, shielding, and other such components (admittedly incredibly little).

Just in case you think I'm nuts, I've owned and do own shares in utilities and companies involved in coal, oil, nuclear, wind, and other energy source production and distribution. I even WORKED in mining.

Just be honest.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[AaronStJ]

There were no injuries whatsoever from the Three Mile Island incident. The highest dose of radiation anyone received was less than the average amount of background radiation any given US resident will receive in a year. The number of projected "excess fatal cancers" due to Three Mile Island is "approximately one." Much, much safer than your average radiation-spewing coal plant.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[Tim C]

Until you solve groundwater pollution (Hanford), plutonium release during weapons storage lifetime, spent radioactive shell pollution, depleted uranium dust (a major health risk in the Middle East), and potential pollution over the many many thousands of years of lifespan of the nuclear waste, than you can't say they don't have pollution.

Weapons storage and depleted uranium dust have nothing to do with power generation, and will be problems for any nuclear power whether they have commercial nuclear reactors or not.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[xlv]

Again, depleted uranium should not be part of the current discussion as we're discussing civilian nuclear technology for electricity production. One can support that use while still being strongly against the use of depleted uranium by the military or any nuclear based weapon for that matter.

I too didn't say nuclear wasn't polluting, just that it was the greenest tech available right now for large scale electricity generation. And we do have to get real: pollution is a real problem, oil is running out. There is an alternative to oil/coal use for electricity generation and until something better comes along, it should be pushed as the better option for the near future.

The problem with the nuclear waste in the US is that there's a ban on reprocessing. Again, I'll point you to France where there is no such ban and waste is recycled and thus only a smaller amount of waste needs to be taken care of for the longer term. I know that this also produces weapon grade plutonium so don't bother pointing that out...

For your other reply in this thread referencing "Flight 94" (I think you meant Flight 93), a lot of western countries have been dealing with terrorism in the last decades and you cannot use that as an excuse for everything. Besides, newer pebble bed designs are supposed to be safer and another Flight 93 is probably NOT going to happen again as passengers will rush the cockpit faster in such situation.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[mindstormpt]

It was under rare conditions, but in Spain there was a time last month in which wind generators power generated exceeded all the other sources, including nuclear. You can read about it here.

That being said, I do agree that at this exact moment nuclear might be "the greenest tech available right now for large scale electricity generation", but is it worth it investing in it with the alternatives available which most agree will be the future? It's like going to a store tomorrow and buying a DVD player for each TV in your house (now that I think of it, I bought 2 new DVD players in the last couple of months). It's the most useful technology now, as blueray and HD-DVD are yet too expensive, but is it a good investment for the near future?

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[WillAffleckUW]

Try telling that to Iran. Or many other countries. Just ask North Korea if they agree with your US-centric viewpoint, ignoring the military reactors we use in certain facilities.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[ZoOnI]

In Ontario Canada the nuclear plants were publicly owned and in the process of being privatized. This required inspections. After the inspections it was found that many of these did not meet minimal safety requirements. I suspect if most of the nuclear plants were inspected they too would fall into this category and its only when a crisis arises that we find their real condition.

As far as I am concerned the only clean electracal sources are hydro, wind, solar and any other source where the output is not extremly dangerous materials(radioactive etc).

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[flyingfsck]

...and Plutonium isn't particularly poisonous either. You can swallow a little piece with no ill effect - a big piece will present a physical problem, same as swallowing a big piece of iron. Plutonium is probably more inert than iron.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[LnxAddct]

One of the founders of Greenpeace spent 30 years preaching the same ignorance you just did. Then in 2006 came to his senses and wrote a nice article in the Washingpost about why nuclear energy may be the only thing that saves us. Read it here: Going Nuclear.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[spurdy]

That'd be right except that the state doesn't "give" electricity to anybody. The power company *sells* power for a *profit*. Oklahoma's power comes from nuclear, coal, gas, oil, hydro, and increasingly, wind, just like everybody else. Location doesn't make a company "green."

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

A good thing Jimmy Carter (a nuclear engineer) was president at the time and not the bumpkin knob gobbler that is there now.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[AJWM]

No, he's right. Say what you will about Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, the crap routinely spewed out by coal-fired plants is worse, as is the damage done in obtaining and transporting the fuel in the first place.

Probably more people have died just in coal-related transportation accidents (eg, coal-train hitting a car at a railroad crossing) than died at Chernobyl, and certainly more have died in coalmine accidents.

Heck, some people still live in the town of Chernobyl (they refused to be evacuated) and they're doing fine. Not that Chernobyl is at all relevant to power production anywhere else on the planet, it was a design that nobody else uses.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[AJWM]

None of those things have anything to do with power production, they're weapons related.

If you really had any knowledge of nuclear-related science, you'd know that anything with a "many many thouseands of years of lifespan" in terms of nuclear waste is very very mildly radioactive at all, and mostly harmless.

Just out of curiosity, how long does it take for the arsenic and mercury in coal ash to become non-toxic? Oh, right, it never does.

If you're so up on utilities, what's the standard for allowable radioactive emissions from a coal-fired power plant? Oh, right, there is no standard -- if they had to meet the standards for nuke plants, the coal plants would all be shut down (thorium, radon, etc in the smoke and flue gases.)

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

One reported incident is not the same as one incident. The entire regulatory system for nuclear power is designed to protect the reputation of the industry, not the safety of the public.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really had any knowledge of nuclear-related science, you'd know that anything with a "many many thouseands of years of lifespan" in terms of nuclear waste is very very mildly radioactive at all, and mostly harmless.

Apparently, some people who claim to know about "very very mildly radioactive at all, and mostly harmless" nuclear waste plan to spend 100 billion dollars to store to for a while.

Yucca Mountain: Stolen twice from the Native Americans, the second time to test nuclear weapons and securely store nuclear waste and RNC email servers. Brought to you by Bechtel and SAIC, two names you can trust for pork laden, incompetently managed, environmentally damaging, covert and spooky projects. You may remember Bechtel from such hits as The Big Dig (a joint venture with Parsons who helped exaserbate the decay of Iraq by taking 200 million and not building even one of the hospitals or clinics they were supposed to), stuff in Iraq, Papua New Guinea, Mexicali, Bolivia, Humboldt Bay, San Francisco and Iraq and India and other stuff in other places. I am not going to say anything else bad about SAIC because I am afraid of them... He, he, ahh - Just kidding!

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[asninn]

Maybe you should go to Germany and ask all the people in the Brockdorf area who're suffering from leukaemia whether nuclear power is safe. (The issue there is that there is a statistically significant increase in risk to develop leukaemia around the plants; the state consistently sides with the power companies running those plants and denies that there is any link, but I honestly can't see how a statistically significant increase in cancer rates around a nuclear power plant could reasonably be attributed to coincidence.)

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[Prune]

The truth is this is a scam by the greens. They want money to be shifted from going towards nuclear development to 'green' generation. Of course, the truth is that to sustain the increased energy demand of progress (and add to that that most of the world, now undeveloped and developing countries, will have it's usage per capita jump several times as it becomes industrialized), you'd have to cover the fucking planet in windmills and solar panels if you want to go 'green'. As fossil sources run out, only nuclear (and at that breeder reactor, due to limited mineable uranium) can sustain progress. And I suspect that for a lot of greens, this is the true agenda--they want to stop human progress. They're just Luddities, go-back-to-nature types, even if some haven't realized it yet and have this inclination still subconscious only. It's a philosophy that was extensively written about by none other than the Unabomber in his manifesto.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

spend 100 billion dollars to store it for a while

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[AJWM]

LOL. You cite as a reason that long-lived (ie mildly radioactive) radwaste must be harmful the fact that the company with the contract to store same is a major pork recipient? You don't think that they just might be being paid too much to do something that isn't really necessary?

The ability of crackpots to simultaneously hold two or more contradictory delusions never ceases to amaze me.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[ZoOnI]

Location makes a big factor in green power. A non mountainous land locked state has fewer options, wind being one of them. A ocean state with mountains has more options.

.

Here is a link to the goverment EPA website with green power links. Click on Oklahoma and notice the 3 wind options. Click on Washington state and notice the 15+ green power options (wind, PV, Hydro, landfill gas, Bio gas).
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/locator/index.htm.

The only way a company would locate a facility drawing lots of power in a state with less power options is cheaper cost.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chernobyl accident was due to poor maintenance and not following the established rules, i.e. human error and/or incomptence.

You forgot extremely poor design. The Chernobyl reactors (and many others across the former Soviet Union) are appallingly bad. No separation of moderator & coolant. Minimal containment & fail-safes. One of my engineering professors described the Chernobyl design as a seventh-grade science project... and it would have failed.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[WillAffleckUW]

One of the founders of Greenpeace spent 30 years preaching the same ignorance you just did.

Everyone knows he sold out for the big nuclear bucks.

Try dealing with reality. I did a TV show on energy in British Columbia in the 1970s, and it accurately covered the pros and cons of all forms of energy, including transmission impacts.

The problem with people pushing any specific energy source is that they all pretend their energy source is perfect and all the other ones are bad.

Same then.

Same now.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nice and all but in the 1970s, nobody had foreseen enhanced burnup rates in excess of 0.8 in light water reactors, nobody had anticipated the advances in PHWR online management, there were no practical demonstrations of 232Th fuel cycles, and at best people were looking forward to some nebulous Plutonium Economy in (dangerous) fast breeder reactor designs.

Moreover, all thermal power generation has simultaneously gained from advances in steam and gas turbine designs and in mitigations of generation losses, gaining more usable power from lower heat differentials. (This has reduced pollution from coal and gas generation plants, too, incidentally).

Finally, all generators of any type have gained from enormous efficiency improvements in long haul UHV transmission, and in much more efficient transformation.

So, even if you accurately captured the 1970s and the developments which were actually foreseeable in the 1970s, there have been efficiency gains of several percent in all power transmission, in all generation, in all generation driven by heat differentials, and in nuclear power generation, that were not -- and could not have been -- foreseen in the 1970s, since there are chemistries and processes which had not yet been discovered at that time. At best you could have played Rumsfeld and presented error bars based on known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

The problem with people pushing any specific energy source is that they all pretend their energy source is perfect and all the other ones are bad.

That is an unfair generalization.

15MW =~ 40000 Plasma TVs

[shankarunni]

So, who are we to go about chucking stones at the new Evil^H^H^H^HGood Empire when we rush out to buy Plasma TVs just in time for the Super Bowl / March Madness / ...? I'll betcha that around the Super Bowl, we added a few 100 MW of draw to our already overloaded power distribution system.

What's purple and hangs

[winkydink]

12 inches below Eric Schmidt's waist?

The governor of Oklahoma's tie.

Re:What's purple and hangs

[freedomlinux]

Oklahoma's tie has a governor?
yeah, yeah, I know...

Re:Cum on google make your own.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely they'll get power from GRDA, which is hydroelectric. So their "green" status should be okay.

Not all hidden

[Trailwalker]

Oklahoma's governor has signed a bill into law that will effectively exempt the largest customers of municipal power companies from public disclosure of how much power they are using.

This bill hides only their electric power usage.

Their power to manipulate the legislature is out in the open.

Re:Not all hidden

[marcello_dl]

Sadly they are only using well established standard evil corporate tactics.

15 Megawatts?

[tehwebguy]

That's nothing, I've seen a car that requires 1.21 Jiggawatts

Re:15 Megawatts?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's gigawatts, fool.

Re:15 Megawatts?

[wesley78]

I bet with that kind of energy, if you were to run it through a flux capacitor and approached a speed of about 87 mph, then time travel could be possible.

Re:15 Megawatts?

[Oktober Sunset]

In the BTTF script the spelled it 'jigawatt' tho, so everyone remembered to pronounce it the cool way, and not the lame way.

My first and last Star Trek joke on Slashdot

[MightyYar]

40000 plasma TVs? Maybe they're building a holo-deck?

Re:My first and last Star Trek joke on Slashdot

[yoyoq]

you should have quit at zero. (sorry, just bored at work)

Important safety tip

[HangingChad]

Locate your pot growing operation in Googles utility tunnels. No wonder all their employees are so loyal. :)

Hmm...

[kabocox]

I have no idea how much power that my family uses, or what the neighborhood average is, or how much is the city high, low, median for businesses. Now that I think about it, it would be awesome for anyone to find that information out. I'm into energy efficiency. I don't like the green/GW agenda, but I do think that knowing how much resources that you and your neighbors are using and attempting to use less is a good thing.

I can think evil thoughts when I want to. How would I be evil? I'd try to get a city/county/state law put into place that basically says that if your new residence/industry/government building uses more than the median usage than you get to pay for the extra power generation. ;) Make the data centers/industry build/run their own power plants.

Re:Hmm...

[jjacobs2]

The current system forces everyone to pay for what they use. I'm not sure how it works outside of Illinois but here electric isn't subsidized for business and I doubt the electric company shareholders would accept lower income so that a few higher ups could pocket some bribes like some earlier posts mentioned. A system similar to income taxes with a higher rate for big consumers might encourage less usage but it would hurt the businesses a lot too. I think letting the market find a good price will work the best in the long run. If companies use a lot then the rates will probably go up (although for everyone not just the big users).

Re:Hmm...

[jbengt]

"here electric isn't subsidized for business"

Here in Illinois, there are lots of different rate structures. Many of the charge a certain amount per kWh up to a threshold and less per kWh above that. This is not called a subsidy, but it is an advantage to large industrial/corporate users (i.e. a disadvantage to individual residential consumers.)

Due to deregulation, rate structures may be changing, but the incentive is still to lower the cost to your larger, more energy using customers in order to keep them your customers.

Every time they lie, the economic system fails

[WillAffleckUW]

False data leads to bad planning and bad economic decisions.

This, above all, is one reason that systems like Red Communism in place in Russia, China, and the White House in DC create slower growing economies, as they are not just inefficient, but usually run by incompetents promoted beyond their abilities.

Re:Every time they lie, the economic system fails

[PPH]

On the other hand, planned economies have a rather bad track record.

One of the principles of a free market is that information regarding the economics of production are communicated through prices. If someone comes up with a more energy efficient data center, they can undercut Google's prices. Or Google will contract with them to build data centers, rather then the outfit they use now.

What use would you or I have with Google's power consumption figures?

Re:Every time they lie, the economic system fails

[WillAffleckUW]

On the other hand, planned economies have a rather bad track record.

Exactly, this is why Cheney's planned economy for Iraq was such a disasterous Red Bushie failure.

Capitalism cares nothing about your politics or what you say - it is what you DO.

Very useful,

[tedshultz]

Here is Madison, WI I know that you can call up the local power company and ask for typical bills for any address. This is great because when you are thinking about renting or buying a home, it is very nice to know what a typical heating and cooling bill is. You can even specify apartments by the unit number.

When?

[bobcat7677]

When is Google going to start getting into the power business? Seems like it's a very key part of their operation. Maybe they should start devoting some R&D twards coming up with solutions to their power consuption problem. Could save the company millions and result in technology that makes them the end all ruler of everything.

Re:When?

[Anonymous Coward]

They already do. A friend of mine is an energy strategist for them. I still think they are evil though :)

Re:When?

[Spleen]

It's no more essential then wire, fiber, RAM, or Harddrives. They let someone else take care of producing these things for them. I'm sure there are some smart people in a think tank there at Google that could help with energy problems, but it's not what they do. Google has to be careful not to spread themselves too thin.

Re:When?

[Luckster7]

When is Google going to start getting into the power business?

The phrase "Google founders invest in Nanosolar." on the home page of Nanosolar may be of interest to you.

Re:When?

[rahvin112]

Google also had a new power supply developed for their servers that is an order of magnitude more efficient than your standard atx power supply. Supposedly deploying it in all their data centers cut their total power consumption by 10%.

Re:When?

[Gactaculon]

Maybe they will. There are even some in the company who would like to invest in nuclear fusion research.

Re:When?

[afternoon_nap]

When is Google getting into the Paper business?

After working in a paper mill for a number of years, 15MW is small potatos.

how many?

[eneville]

how many data centre operators does it take to change a bill?

Pork

[Harmonious Botch]

I am not making this up.
From TFA: "At a pork barbecue celebrating the announcement of the data center deal, Google held a question and answer session with local dignitaries..."

Re:Pork

[Fred Ferrigno]

And what's wrong with that? Politicians and businessmen frequently host events at restaurants. Does it surprise you that the food of choice in Oklahoma is pork BBQ?

Re:Pork

[MidnightBrewer]

You mock this because you've obviously never had Oklahoma pork barbeque. Truly, it will make your taste buds weep with joy.

Re:Pork

[mazarin5]

Pork Barrel

There is a simple solution to all this: Unplug.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a simple solution to all this: Unplug.

No, really.

I am reducing my consumption until I can afford to implement alternate energy. My average electric bill is down to $55. No natural gas and that includes Heat and Air conditioning. Eliminating the dryer and going to on demand hot water next which should bring the bill below $35.

Next month I address the Homeowner's association about amending the rules so I can install non-obtrusive solar panels.

If you aren't a customer you don't have to subsidize "The Google" and if you are, you have no right to complain about dirty power plants in your neighborhood. "Not in my backyard" is not a good argument.

Naive?!

[Anonymous Coward]

An average datacenter consumes ~15 Megawatts of power... are we really that naive to think that google only uses 15 Megawatts of power?! It's 800 acres! That's bound to be >200 Megawatts just for this piece of property. I don't even want to guess as to the total power consumption of google boxes all over the world :(

Data Center? Feh. It's for Google Fusion (beta)

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, it's obvious. Those lasers need lots of power to get going.

26,800 hp

[reedjjjr]

15 Megawatts is 26,800 horsepower, or about one jumbo jet. It's probably mostly for air conditioning the servers and personnel in the hot Oklahoma summer. Are you going to turn off every large business that has air conditioned facilities? Ground all the airlines? Just throw the switch on the internet, or at least ban all the porn. That ought to free up some power.

Re:26,800 hp

[flyingfsck]

Exactly - considering that a small power station generates 500MW and a big one 2000MW, the 15MW is drop in the ocean.

Re:26,800 hp

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, last time I looked 1 HP = 746 Watts, so 15MW = 20,107 HP ...

Re:26,800 hp

[Anne Thwacks]

ban all the porn

I can see the headlines now: Global warming is caused by porn

That should please a lot of people, and the rest will probably keep their mouths shut, opening the door to my new corporate strategy:

1) Create .sex domain

2) Unplug it

3) ???

4) Prophet ;-?

...Or maybe I need another coffee.

Re:26,800 hp

[Anonymous Coward]

> 15 Megawatts is 26,800 horsepower, or about one jumbo jet.

A Boeing 747 flying cruise speed at 11,000 meters is actually equivalent to some 77,000 horsepowers, which is three times as much as you specified. (Jet aircraft are measured in kilonewtons of thrust, which is hard to translate to horsepowers, because the ratio wildly changes with speed and altitude).

Anyhow, 15MW is a lot of electricity, a not so small village will manage on 800kW (that's about 1/20th)

I hear...

[Nom du Keyboard]

I hear Al Gore is looking for this law in Tennessee as well.

The Truth

[alphamugwump]

What, you think Google is using all that power for their "data center"? No, this is really part of a conspiracy. They've developed strong AI, and now they're trying to build a bopple generator.

Solar and Geothermal cooling

[WindBourne]

It would be good if Google can use some innovative ways to dissipate the heat and lower the costs in doing so.In particular, they could use geothermal to help cool the CPUs. This would be MUCH more useful than spending money on solar cells.

I am not a bill, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Power Companies are granted monopolies by the public. Part of the deal is that, because the power companies are granted a monopoly by the public, they have to publicize all transactions they undertake."

So were can I look at your electric bill?

"Why? Otherwise, you could have sweat-heart deals between the power companies and their customers. Instead of paying the power company (and thereby the people) for your power usage, you could pay the owners of the power company to give you a huge discount. The power copmany then can just raise rates on consumers who have no say in who gives them power. By forcing the company to keep the books open, you prevent the possibility of impropriety."

"Economics of scale" doesn't apply to "volume buyers"? Also "public utility" in no way implies that the public owns the electricity generated. Just the infrastructure. That's why I have to pay for my electricity the same as everyone else. And last that's why public utilities have oversight. If they want to raise rates (much like any company wanting to raise prices). They have to justify it, and no "we discounted too steeply" doesn't count.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ? (planes)

[WillAffleckUW]

I'm sure the pilots of Flight 94 thought so too. Know how close that was?

Waiting while you get out maps. ... (elevator music) ...

Now, how fast does a plane like that fly ... ... (elevator music) ...

Now, what happens when it crashes directly into the plant aimed precisely for where it needs to go ... ... (elevator music) ...

See?

(chuckling on my end)

Data centers vs Alternatives

[AusIV]

I may be wrong, and I can't cite any studies, but I've long suspected that despite seemingly high amounts of energy used by data centers, they save a lot of energy (as well as other resources) in the long run.

For example, I used to take the paper. This had to be printed, delivered, and recycled / disposed of. Now I have several news feeds on my home page that keep me up to date. Not only do I get more information, I'm pretty sure less money goes in to delivering news feeds than printing a paper.

Another example is shopping online. I do much of my christmas / birthday shopping online. Rather than driving all over town to shops that are each individually heated / cooled, I order gifts online and have them delivered. This may or may not save energy with regard to me driving to the store vs having something delivered to my house, but large warehouses delivering to customers are bound to be more efficient than large warehouses delivering to stores, and customers coming to stores to do their shopping.

The same goes for general research, entertainment, telecommuting, etc. - I keep hearing about the energy costs associated with web based facilities, but I can't help but feel they reduce energy consumption in the end. Admittedly, they may be able to improve on their energy usage, so I'm not sure I like this new legislation (and in the state of my current residence, no less), but I would like to see some data on the energy savings that stem from data centers.

Bottom Line

[labradore]

When it comes to government and other monopolies, less transparency is almost always bad. There has to be an extraordinary reason to reduce transparency. The potential reasons given so far are all mundane. None are critical. Many of us would like to have more privacy and freedom for a lot of non-critical reasons and some crucial reasons. However, government and big businesses trample over our wishes and our rights all the time without ever noticing. There is no reason why the biggest consumers should have any more legal privileges than the smallest ones.

I'm getting really tired of the might-makes-right order of things. I hope there's plenty of others out there who feel the same.

How far will they go before there's a major backlash? This power consumption disclosure law isn't anywhere near the worst offense, but it sure speaks volumes about what dishonorable, corrupt and stupid cretins we have running the show these days.

Evil

[k1e0x]

So it went like this.. "We will build a datacenter in Oklahoma and provide many jobs to your state if you make a law hiding out power consumption."

Who's at fault?
Well.. Google a little bit for asking but much more blame goes to the state for doing. If it wernt for the state Google would be have to _follow_ the laws and not buy them.

Re:Evil

[geekoid]

Google could jut as easily asked him not to sign the bill.

But, and this is lost on /., "Do no Evil" does not automatically mean "Do Good".

Re:Evil

[k1e0x]

True.. and when was it that google got to write laws in the US?

Oh yeah, it was when out government officials decided to let them.

People always think government bureaucrats in *other* countries like mexico and russia are so corrupt.. just any old bribe will do.. but *our* bureaucrats would *never* do such things.. no our bureaucrats here are just as pure as virgins fucking.

Re:Evil

[geekoid]

except ultimatly, the poiticians will do what the peopel want, it just takes the people to act.

10000 letters to the representitives would get this changes.

Re:Evil

[k1e0x]

except ultimatly, the poiticians will do what the peopel want lol, dude, where are you from? This government doesn't care what the people want. I live in Seattle.. here is how things work. The city or state starts a project, the populace demands a vote sometimes requiring 225k signatures to get on the ballot to even get the vote at all, the people deny the city or state their project, and the city does some backwards legal maneuvers and gets what they want anyhow. I call it being SafeCO Field'ed. I can give example after example.

The people don't want their officials taking bribes. Do you think there will be any recourse for this AT ALL?

Here, read this then tell me the government does what the people want.
Kelo vs New London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London

Re:Evil

[TubeSteak]

Google could jut as easily asked him not to sign the bill.

But, and this is lost on /., "Do no Evil" does not automatically mean "Do Good".

Anyone with a proper set of ethics would know that if you have the power to stop something... and you don't, then you have become complicit in the action.

Silence = acceptance
If you do not condemn it, you condone it.
Feel free to try and explain how there's a middle ground,
but smarter people than you and I have tried and failed.

As for Google asking the Governor not to sign the bill, I can't imagine that such legislation was not part of Google's conditions for bringing their business to Oklahoma. Google would be stupid not to demand such secrecy.

You are crazy

[tacokill]

You, sir, get the crazy post award of the day. At least on your power comments.....and the rest is a little suspect too.

First of all, we (we being Oklahoma) have PLENTY of power. To my knowledge we've NEVER had rolling blackouts or anything close to that. Do you even know where OK is? Do you know how many power plants are within 200 miles of Pryor? I do. They are my customers and there are a ton of them. Additionally, we aren't like California. Contrary to what you state, we are well prepared to provide power for the foreseeable future. You see, we have been scaling up over the last 20 years to keep up with demand. Unlike other places, we don't mind building new plants. The idea that 15MW, or hell even 1500MW, would make a dent is laughable. There is plenty of power here. (sidenote: our track record for clean air really isn't all that bad either)

Second, there are many types of power companies. Private (AEP, Duke, Reliant) and Public (Co-op, Municipals, etc) companies of all kinds provide power to "the system". You cries of monopolies ring hollow because the "monopoly" part you talk about is highly highly regulated. The rest (generation) isn't. And you may not realize this but -- we have plenty of land that is suitable for power plants. So does Texas and look how many plants they have (108 just from Dallas Northeast to Texarkana -- about 1/6 of the state).


Look, I know Okla has its share of real problems. All I am saying is that power ain't one of them (had to throw in an "aint")

Re:You are crazy

[gonzo67]

You are correct...but then again, CA population growth exceeds that of OK by many levels. And has the connected resources need that comes with the growth. Of course, OK has one thing going for it....it isn't TX, although it is close!

Sounds a Lot Like BushCo Hiding Their Methods

[NeverVotedBush]

Secrecy is a bad thing. Secrecy is how the unscroupulous commit crimes, fraud, manipulate the system to advantage, etc.

Who give a flying flip how many computers Google uses? The secret is in how they are run. A law that hides power use is a setup for the Oklahoma government to attract a big business to the state while having ratepayers subsidize Google. It's essentially a tax.

I guarantee the other half of this story is how big of a discount Google will get for electricity.

Re:Sounds a Lot Like BushCo Hiding Their Methods

[hax4bux]

Mod up. Damn right. I also believe this is all about concessions.

Re:Sounds a Lot Like BushCo Hiding Their Methods

[Anonymous Coward]

I guarantee the other half of this story is how big of a discount Google will get for electricity.

Damned right. When some big outfit uses more power, they get a discount. When I use more power, I get fucked.Example from my current PG&E (west coast power company) bill:

254.800 Kwh @ $0.11430 = $29.12

076.440 Kwh @ $0.12989 = $09.93

145.426 Kwh @ $0.22722 = $33.04

Total:$72.09

Fucking bastards.

Re:Sounds a Lot Like BushCo Hiding Their Methods

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a Time of Day meter or something?

you need to distinguish

[tacokill]

You need to distinguish between generation, transmission, and distribution. You can't just say power companies are granted monopolies. They are not and that is not an accurate way to describe them.

A power company is not just a power company. There are 3 distinct pieces and each one gets treated separately according to the law and society. Generation makes the power and is usually private (in Okla). Yes, there are muni's and co-ops but in general, Okla power generation is privately owned. Transmission is long haul transmission and it is regulated in Okla like it is in most (48) states. Distribution is step down and delivery to customers and it, too, is regulated (by the Public Utilities Commission). When you talk about deregulation of the power industry, you are usually talking about the distribution part. Generation, for the most part, has been unregulated for a long time.

Second, the situation you describe (subsidies from customers to large companies), is the very reason the PUC exists -- to keep everyone honest and protect consumers. And you'll just have to trust me on this one...no power company in their right mind wants to tangle with the PUC here in Okla.

Now, the article in question is talking about municipality owned generation so yes, it is still a concern. But please realize that it's not just the "power" company. There is much more to it than that and its important to understand all the pieces.

Re:you need to distinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, you took 3 paragraphs to say absolutely nothing at all.

dam + power line + your computer = you paying up the ass with no choice. understanding the different layers of people leeching our cash doesn't change the fact at all. what's more insulting is private companies stealing from us and then sending us a bill on top of it. anyone who defends this kind of behavior is just in the biz. can't blame u then but it doesn't make it right.

Re:you need to distinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

no power company in their right mind wants to tangle with the PUC here in Okla.

You're joking or you're a kool aid vendor.

The PUCs are gandy dancers maintaining the rails for the power company's money trains.

Ann E. Mouse

Ask anyone who pays a residential power bill, or anyone who has tried to do a large alternative energy grid intertie system or anyone in California after the PUC rubberstamped the industry's privatization plan which begat Enron's federally sanctioned raping of the California tax payers and the California economy - payback from Texas for being anti-bush.

If you still believe what you are selling and PUCs were actually keeping utilities "honest" then there would be no need for groups like TURN who have to fight tooth and nail to keep the PUCs being the utilities' bitch on every ruling.

Next you're going to tell us that FERC does a great job and that Polar Bears are starving themselves as publicity stunts.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ? (planes)

[geekoid]

I'm sorry, I don't see what an odd event happening in 1977 has to do with an event in 1979?
are you saying Flying Saucers cause Three MIle island?
Seriously, I have totally missed your point.

Nukes are best thing we have

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear anything bad except for some deep space probes; however, the best source of power we have right now is nuclear power. Alternative power can cut our need down and decentralize the power grid, making it more robust-- but it can't replace nuclear power.

How about more research funding on fusion, antimatter, solar, and geothermal?

Ah thats what he meant!

[geekoid]

I was confused and wondering why he was pointing me to a 1977 in flight incident.

gah.

Meh, It wuld be pretty easy to solve that problem. Just build them underground in a forified cavern.

Of course, the Japanese design for there unmanned reactor could also solve this, since they are small.

I hope that design gets passed the design stage.

Re:Ah thats what he meant!

[WillAffleckUW]

I believe you failed to watch the movie about the only downed plane on 9/11.

Re:Ah thats what he meant!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you failed to watch the movie about the only downed plane on 9/11

And I believe you failed to examine this rebuttal.

- T

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ? (planes)

[ZorbaTHut]

Now, what happens when it crashes directly into the plant aimed precisely for where it needs to go ... ... (elevator music) ...

The plane vaporizes, and the wall remains intact.

I don't think that's the answer you expected, but that is the truth.

the perfect cover operation?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a ganja growroom? Will the "No officer, I run a data center" excuse work?

Let me be the first to say...

[autophile]

"So Watt?"

--Rob

Yes, Enron did such a great job in California.....

[Snowtide]

Ok so that's not entirely fair, but not accounting for the hazards of private business taking a part in power generation seems naive or thoughtless. You think the backroom dealing is bad now?
I think this law is crap by the way, I hope it gets overturned unless a real benefit to the public reason can be found for it.

Who Would Have the Right to Know?

[MSTCrow5429]

Why should a company's power usage statistics be public knowledge? You can't know how much toilet paper I use, what phone numbers I call, etc. There's a reasonable expectation of privacy within private transactions.

Could this be....

[PPH]

...a grow operation? 15 MW for 800 acres is about what I'd expect for HID lighting.

Pryor?

[Atilla]

I bet their connectivity bill is gonna be good a chunk of change... Pryor is kind of a middle-of-nowhere town with barely an industrial park to justify its existence. They should've put it closer to Tulsa, which has more fiber than a train load of Metamucil.

I can't wait for them to settle in and start doing [no] evil just miles from my home!

freudian slip...

[plasmacutter]

did anyone else read that as "but was bought 'on behalf of large-volume electric users that might be considering a move to Oklahoma" ?

I can see my neighbor's power bill

[djtack]

Bullshit; I can't see my neighbor's power bill.

Have you ever tried? Where I live, the power company is required to disclose this to anyone who asks. It's a very common practice if you are buying a house (or even looking for an apartment to rent) to call the utility company and get the current occupant's bills, as a way to estimate what your own utility costs will be.

Don't believe me? Just ask Al Gore.

Re:I can see my neighbor's power bill

[toddestan]

I just checked my local power company's website. Here is what they have to say at http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-1_3 5439-1368-0_0_0-0,00.html:


What Information is Shared

Xcel Energy has a strong policy regarding the disclosure of customer information. In general Xcel Energy does not sell or share individual customer data. Xcel Energy will not sell, rent or give away your personal information to other companies for use in selling others products or services. When we contract with another company to market or advertise products for Xcel Energy, we ask that those companies also protect your information. We will share data in limited circumstances such as:

1. As required by any necessary laws, regulations or other governmental requests with customer authorization appropriate to the situation. This includes law enforcement personnel upon receipt of a court order or proof of an emergency situation.

2. Current or prospective customers and real estate agents requesting residential energy consumption averages for a specific real estate transaction.

3. At the express written authorization of a customer to share information with a third party. For example, sharing information concerning an elderly parents billing arrangement with an adult caregiver.

4. For the business purposes of Xcel Energy.

It doesn't look like they will tell anyone, but they will share it with prospective buyers of a property (my guess is that you could easily pretend to be a prospective buyer, and count on them not checking if said property is actually for sale). Of course, number 4 there is pretty wide open to different interpetations too.

Evil..

[sodas]

What's so bad about being evil? Evil has gotten a bad rep, that's all.

Alcohol

[sodas]

You Americans with your funny relationship with alcohol... ;)

Re:Alcohol

[Khaed]

Eh, states get picky about things crossing their borders that they could tax or sell. It isn't just alcohol. New York is really pissy about cigarettes being brought in, for example. They'd do it for everything else if they could justify it.

Re:Alcohol

[fishbowl]

>Eh, states get picky about things crossing their borders that they could tax or sell.

So why alcohol? Why not my laptop? Or the gas in my tank? Or the car itself for that matter?

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ? (planes)

[AJWM]

What are you babbling about? Flight 94 ... what?

If that has anything to do with nukes -- the containment vessels for nuclear power reactors are designed to withstand a crash by a fully fueled airliner. We're talking walls several meters thick of densified reinforced concrete. (Densified -- they use a rock (iron ore?) about twice as dense as ordinary rock in the aggregate.) Airliners -- even moving at 500 knots -- have little more structural integrity than an aluminum soda can.

I think you've been listening to too much elevator music.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ? (planes)

[GTMoogle]

Just for completeness, an unladen 747 is 180 tons, an F14 is 20 tons. However a 747's wingspan is over 5 times as large, and the overall cross section (and how many of those concrete blocks its impact would be distributed over) is probably at least 5 times as much considering the cabin size. So roughly speaking, a 747 could be expected to do twice as much damage as the F14.

Whether twice the damage done to the test block in that video matters is an exercise for the reader. :)

I love that video btw.

Power Requirements

[tanker333]

No no no. This sucker's electrical, but I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 jigawatts of electricity to power the flux capacitor!

Will this help marijuana growers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this establish an expectation of privacy that would prevent LE from trolling through power usage records without a warrant specifying particular residences?

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ? (solution)

[WillAffleckUW]

spend 100 billion dollars to store it for a while

Good point.

All investors in nuclear energy, plus the politicians who support it, should be required to keep the nuclear waste in their basements, handed down in perpetuity to their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchi ldren.

That will make it obvious what the cost is.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ? (planes)

[WillAffleckUW]

no, just think of a charter cargo plane.

I used to be in the Army.

The problem with 9/11 wasn't that they tried it, it was that they did what trained professionals would have done to achieve the military objective.

Never assume they aren't well trained.

Re:Cheap not so green electricity ? (planes)

[Anonymous Coward]

the containment vessels for nuclear power reactors are designed to withstand a crash by a fully fueled airliner

They're actually designed to withstand a full blown steam explosion or an explosive criticality excursion, depending on the overall reactor design. These are enormous explosive overpressures against the inner surface of the containment structures.

As a side effect, many containment structures can withstand enormous explosive overpressures against the outer surface of the containment structure, but this is not universally true. Some designs are fragile against attacks by outside solid projectiles or even failry small explosive warheads. In any event, even a mere scratch or fire is going to provoke an emergency shutdown of the relevant reactor by the operator.

This is not that big a deal, so in general it may be more disruptive to attack cooling towers, administrative and operational offices, transformer stations, wire runs, and so forth, than to attack the containment building. The press will still decide it's an attack on a nuclear power plant, and a means of attack which likely would not really compromise one of the (usually several) reactors' containment structures might well render the entire plant incapable of meeting power demand.