Slashdot Mirror
Google Applies To Become Energy Marketer
necro81 writes "Google consumes massive amounts of electrical energy to power its data centers across the country and world. Now it has created a subsidiary, Google Energy LLC, and applied (pdf) to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to become a utility-scale energy trader. Google's stated aim is to be able to purchase renewable energy directly from producers at bulk rates, pursuing its goal of becoming carbon neutral. It is likely that Google Energy would also permit Google's own renewable energy projects to sell their energy at more favorable rates. Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy broker, a la Enron."
Google also didn't have plans to make an operating system, a phone, a phone os, an instant messenger, a usenet application or a social network.
So yeah, this isn't Genron. Really.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
...about Google's "Smart Meter" for your home. It seems like Google wants to know everything about everybody. The only difference between them and other entities that what this much information is that Google's gradually arriving to that goal.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy broker, a la Enron."
I rather doubt anyone has plans to be "a la Enron"
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Google's stated aim is to be able to purchase renewable energy directly from producers at bulk rates, pursuing its goal of becoming carbon neutral.
Some quick observations about Iowa. Back in 2008, we covered Microsoft and Google opening up half billion dollar server farms in this state because energy was supposedly cheaper there and tax incentives. Now, if you look at the year end totals for Iowa's wind power capacity in MW you'll notice that through 2008 it jumped higher than any other year going from 1,273 to 2,791. It more than doubled. At the end of 2009 it was at 2,862 -- perhaps a result of the recession -- but also indicative of what's going on in the state. Put two and two together and I think it's obvious that wind power companies were looking to work with Google and were maybe even encouraged by Google.
You know, I was really glad to see this sort of thing happen. It was something that Google could spend money doing that would boost shareholder value while at the same time incentivizing companies to invest billions in wind power in Iowa with a lengthy ten year or more plan to gain that money back before they start to turn serious profits. If Google gets these wind power plants up and running, ten years from now we the consumers might be enjoying a price war between wind power fields generating electricity on equipment that has been paid for and now just needs maintenance fees. Think about it, a whole infrastructure springing up on Google's promises and investor's dimes being slowly amortized back up to very profitable and freaking awesome for ma and pa corn grower. The economy would go nuts if you could alleviate energy costs for everyone. In addition to the slow and welcomed change, the industries that will be negatively affected (coal, gas, etc) by these price wars will have the time to realize and change or better yet invest in their own wind farms. If this model is proven successful, tornado alley could in fifty years become the new middle east and we'll be fighting wind wars over South Dakota and Kansas.
Now, back to the story, this vertical integration strategy is awesome for the company but I don't like it for two reasons. 1) In my opinion it is a step down the path to a weak version of a monopoly and competition deterrent 2) If Google influences these companies too much or worse buys them out, we might never see a price war I mentioned above. These are distant fears and after the Ma Bell and Microsoft monopolies/anti-trusts/Sherman Act prosecutions, I trust the DoJ won't sit idly by if point one or two become uncomfortable truths.
Google reportedly does not have plans to actively become an energy broker, a la Enron.
That kind of reassures me.
Overly optimistic? Of course. A little unrealistic? Well, a man can dream, can't he? A man can dream.
My work here is dung.
Well, we can do a search to find out what they are up to.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Is a great way of increasing your control over society.
If you want to take over the world you need people who rely on you not only for internet search but more basic things like energy, food, communications (like all the fibre optic cables Google controls)
Right now if google went away I'd just go back to using yahoo for search, my life won't change much but if Google does all your computing for you in De Cloud via HTTP, supplies you with power and internet (Google TiSP), organises your transport via driverless pod then it becomes a bit harder to tell them to go f*** themselves with their privacy-invading ways.
if at Ballmers next team talk all the employees pulled out their Nexus Ones to photograph him.
I worked in the energy market, specifically in electricity (not as a trader). First, Enron pretty much invented the market for electricity ("power trading"), it was the (mis)management that sunk the company. The problem with renewables, and wind in particular, is the unpredictability. You can end up with a lot of power delivered to you and you may end up paying somebody to get rid of it, as you cannot consume it all. So if Google wants to buy wind power for its own consumption, it makes all the sense in the world to enter the market and trade as well.
If you type "google" into google it'll break the internet.
Yes, I know the "Do no evil" thing... and who really believes it's not actually "Do no evil [to our shareholders]"?
But Google is beginning to sprawl into some extremely creative areas and the amount of data it can collect on people is probably among the most detailed of any single entity out there. I actually don't know how close Google is to any given government or government agency or what its compliance history is with its decisions to comply with [morally] questionable requests made by government, but I seem to recall a recent story talking about Google and China.
For what it's worth, I am still using Google as my default search engine... I am not sure I am that scared of them yet.
The more I think about it, from a physicist POV, energy is always out there. It's waiting for us to tap it.
If Google want's to use it's resources to try and tap some of the energy that is out there, and in a way that is good for our planet/society, I say game on.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
It's the spread between the money Google collects up front from advertisers and the money it rarely pays out - how many people actually click on ads? I don't.
It's a great racket:
Hey advertisers! Get word sensitive ads placed next to topics that people are actually looking at! - They collect the money from the advertisers.
Now do the folks hosting the ads get the money? Not unless someone clicks on the ads, otherwise they get nothing from Google.
Brilliant move on Google's part.
It's even better than the extended warranty racket!
As a customer trying to get the best price for the energy it uses or produces, Google is much too small a player to distort the market. Datacenters use about 1-2% of the electricity produced in the US. Google is a large portion of that, but considering all the datacenters out there, I would be surprised if Google was even one half of the market. So, they are a customer for less than one percent of the total electricity generation in the US, spread out over all utility markets in the country. That's probably too little to distort the market.
On the other hand, within very small markets, like where they actually have datacenters, they may well be the largest local consumer. If utilities were still small fiefdoms, this could be a problem. But electricity flows across states and state lines, so it would be hard for Google to corner a market even in these small locales.
If Google were to become a major energy broker, like Enron was before its self-destruction, then we could have a problem. But we're not there yet, and that won't happen overnight, so there's no need for panic just yet.
Does this mean every time I turn on a lamp I'm going to get hit with half a dozen ads for matching coffee tables?
Or should I just flip the light switch marked "I'm feeling lucky?"
f u cn rd ths u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmng
Because Google is gonna leverage their "monopoly" in search to... uh... what, exactly? Buy energy?
By that same token, one would expect these governments to go after Walmart for forcing down prices on the supply-side of the chain. And yet they don't. Why? Because using your power to gain better business deals is perfectly legal.
Everywhere i read i see posts from astroturfers pretending to be very concerned about their privacy. Lambasting Google for all they are worth and trying to purport them as a very evil and vile company.
The thing is, Google hasnt got half of the information many other sources has like twitter, facebook etc. The problem isnt that Google has access to vast amount of data. To provide good search technology and ad placement they have to analyze things, just like every other ad network does, like Microsofts for eg.
The problem isnt Google or Microsoft Bing but rather that the governments can demand any and all information about you at a whim. Not just from Google but from your bank, healtcare, utilities, ISP, telephone companies, other sites etc etc. If the information about your searches etc isnt at google its somewhere else. The only way to avoid getting stuff logged is to get off the net.
This problem is so easy to understand that its blatantly clear that this is all part of a campaign to paint Google as an evil company. Instead you should put pressure on the politicians to stop snooping into your life and write strong privacy laws. A small number of people are so stupid they fall for the Microsoft astroturfing but one would think people on slashdot would understand perfectly whats going on.
HTTP/1.1 400
err, maybe not so obvious. Are you saying people are getting pissy because Google want's to buy power direct?
How is that a distortion?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't think you're counting the U.S. Military as a subsidy, but IIRC most of our road trips in the last century boiled down to preserving our control over the lands vital to our energy interests. Repatriating our energy supply would make our military mostly redundant, IMHO.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Man, I completely don't remember, now, where I saw this, but I remember seeing a clip at the beginning of a comedy movie from like the 1940 or 1950's or something, where one guy is sent out by his wife to sell pies, and he meets a friend, and they get to talking (while the 'friend' starts eating the pies that are supposed to be sold), and they start up a discussion where they talk about starting a pie company.
As the discussion goes along, the guy who was gonna start the pie company decides that, in order to keep his costs down, and to generate additional revenue streams, he's gonna buy steel mills (for the metal to make the pie tins from), flour mills, wheat farms and sugar cane plantations, a paper company, a printer (to print labels and advertising), railroads (cheaper shipping around the country), telephone companies, banks - basically, the guy decides he needs to buy the whole economy so that he can get the best price on every product and service which is even peripherally associated with making and selling pies.
Google Energy, LLC just brought that to mind. Not saying it's a bad idea, but by the time they're done, Google is either going to be broke, or buy everything.
You poor deluded man. Grenada. Haiti. Somalia. Serbia. Afghanistan, WWII, WWI. I'll give you Vietnam and Korea for free.