Slashdot Mirror
Google Says It Is About To Reach 100 Percent Renewable Energy (blog.google)
Google said today it will power 100 percent of its sprawling data centers and offices with renewable energy starting next year. The company said today it has bought enough wind and solar power to account for all the electricity it uses globally each year. In comparison, 44 percent of Google's power supplies came from renewables last year. From a blogpost: To reach this goal we'll be directly buying enough wind and solar electricity annually to account for every unit of electricity our operations consume, globally. And we're focusing on creating new energy from renewable sources, so we only buy from projects that are funded by our purchases. Over the last six years, the cost of wind and solar came down 60 percent and 80 percent, respectively, proving that renewables are increasingly becoming the lowest cost option. Electricity costs are one of the largest components of our operating expenses at our data centers, and having a long-term stable cost of renewable power provides protection against price swings in energy.
This would never have been possible if crooked Killary and her cronies had been elected.
Make Amurika GREAT again!
Stealing people personal data and providing it to advertisers to better target Ads. No amount of Greenwashing is going to help with that. I dont trust any company which at its very beginning has such a megalomaniacal view of itself that it makes its logo "Do no Evil" . if I was starting a search company the potential for Evil would not even popup in my mind but even at that early stage Google founders were aware of how much abusable power they had in their hands. Google has too much power. Time for the FTC to Break Google up into multiple companies and separate the Search and Ads so that Google Search can be used with Bing Ads and Bing search can be used with Google Ads
**Life is too short to be serious**
Which tells you that no government incentives or actions are needed: if this is a reasonable accounting of costs, companies will switch to renewables all by themselves.
So does Google actually use any of this renewable energy or are they just investing in it to offset their own usage of carbon-based energy? If they aren't using it then why not? I mean I can't just donate to Feed the Children while keeping starving kids chained up in my dungeon and claim that I am combating childhood hunger, can I?
And we're focusing on creating new energy from renewable sources, so we only buy from projects that are funded by our purchases.
What exactly does that mean? Buying green power isn't really all that green: the renewable power you are consuming is power that is not going to be consumed by someone else. To be really green you need to work towards significantly increasing green energy [\production, not consumption. True, what they do does increase demand which may help drive investments in renewables. But I'd be more impressed if they would actually generate most of the power they need themselves. At the scale they use it, that should be economically feasible too.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Until the Washington Post and the New York Times says it's true, it's "fake".
Bow down to your media masters! They WILL control the "narrative"!
It's OK, this is about a Democrat-friendly company virtue signaling by buying green-energy indulgences. By default, these sorts of stories are to be considered goodthink/rightthink.
So they aren't necessarily using renewable energy, they are buying it? This sounds more like they're paying money to companies who have renewable energy credits to sell. They may also be taking part in that travel scam where you don't have to change how much your people fly and waste jet fuel at all... you just swap credits with other non-flying people and say you're being "green".
Someone in an earlier comment used the term "indulgences" - and it really is a lot like the medieval practice where rich people would pay the Vatican basically for pre-approved forgiveness of whatever unethical / immoral thing they were planning to do.
#DeleteChrome
I'm sure that this is all net usage. In the middle of a windless night Google is still relying on the grid for operations and that power mostly comes from burning carbon based fuels.
I'm sure that what they mean is that the net usage is 100 percent renewable. Over a year they expect to generate enough from renewables to completely offset their usage.
"There's a giant coal plant outside our offices providing power....but we purchased electricity credits in some far off land to offset this"
My local power corp allows me to purchase Green Energy too -- all through the same wires. I get to pay more for the same electricity coming to my house - but am lead to believe it really came from a solar panel somewhere on a mountain.
So much for "green" power. I'm all for it, really, but let us not be deceived that "green" means at no cost. There is a real cost to everything. Tens of millions of birds (and bats) are killed the world over annually the world over. The Altamont wind farm in California alone has killed 2,900 Golden Eagles since it opened, not to mention other bird species. Be informed. Here's one of many links to information: http://savetheeaglesinternatio...
So, am I about to reach 100% veganism if:
"I eat meat all day long, but I pay someone else to eat only vegetables too, so that's alright, isn't it?"
Sure, just follow senior advisor to Trump General Flynn on twitter for all your real news.
Dude is full on fucking conspiracy nut crazy. Like need to see a psychiatrist crazy. Institutionalized crazy. Electroshock therapy crazy.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Honestly, this is just getting embarrassing for you green fanatics. You don't seen to understand at all how the grid works AT ALL.
The fact that you can just buy your power from a so called renewable resource power company doesn't mean that you're not still pulling power from the same coal fire power plants that are the BACK BONE of the US power infrastructure. They're not 'bottling up' that electrics and shipping it to the Google. You're just buying more expensive power so you can feel like you're doing something.
Sure, just follow senior advisor to Trump General Flynn on twitter for all your real news.
Dude is full on fucking conspiracy nut crazy. Like need to see a psychiatrist crazy. Institutionalized crazy. Electroshock therapy crazy.
So, for you it's "either/or"? With no critical thinking at all on your part?
Or is that a jackass-level lame strawman?
PS - that's probably an insult to jackasses.
Maybe all he wants is a Pepsi.
Who are you talking to?
Who are these mythical environmentalists who think that "green" energy comes at absolutely no cost to the environment?
Anyone worth debating on this issue is painfully aware that all of our energy solutions come with some form of cost. We always have to weigh pros and cons. We're not asking whether wind power is perfect; we're asking if it's better than burning coal.
It's like the driverless car arguments. Yes, we're all aware that the computers navigating the cars aren't going to be perfect. The question is whether or not they'll be safer on average than the average human driver, and whether the safety/productivity gains offset the investment costs.
Google Says It Is About To Reach an accounting method by which it can claim 100 Percent Renewable Energy
FTFY.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Which tells you that no government incentives or actions are needed: if this is a reasonable accounting of costs, companies will switch to renewables all by themselves.
I'm afraid not. First off the competing fossil fuels receive substantial subsidies from the government. Worse, fossil fuels do not have to pay for a large portion of the pollution (including carbon) that they create so their prices are artificially low. Second, while renewables are becoming cheaper they aren't the lowest cost option just yet outside of some corner cases. Getting them to be the lowest cost option likely will require some amount of financial and/or regulatory support for a while longer. Not forever but just until cost parity is approximately reached.
Once the economic incentives are in place the switch will take place like osmosis but I don't think we are quite there yet. Only rich companies like Google can do it today and they do it as a marketing expense more than anything else.
The article does not mention the bird kill per kilowatt rate.
Wikipedia says 4700 annually, 70 of which are eagles. It also says that it's due to the turbines being very small turbines that spin way, way faster than the modern large turbines, which spin a lot slower.
So your argument is
1) wrong on the numbers
2) not applicable to modern wind farms with slower spinning turbines
3) not applicable to this wind farm, which is replacing the turbines with safer ones
moox. for a new generation.
1. It's a good start for what could be considered to be a chicken-and-egg problem.
2. It tells any local would-be renewable energy company that chooses to step in that there is local demand for your product.
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
So much for "green" power. I'm all for it, really, but let us not be deceived that "green" means at no cost. There is a real cost to everything. Tens of millions of birds (and bats) are killed the world over annually the world over.
The number of birds killed by windmills is several orders of magnitude smaller than the number killed by domestic cats. Heck FAR more birds are killed in collisions with cell phone towers than by windmills - roughly an order of magnitude more.. Bird deaths are a very minor issue especially compared with the number of deaths that will occur if we don't do anything about climate change. You're focusing on the little problem when it is the big one you should be worrying about.
Look, you'd have to be insane to be buying inefficient fossil fuel power nowadays. It's way too expensive, has fire and insurance risks, and it's too expensive.
Plus, non-renewables cost too much.
Did I mention the cold hard business fact that efficient modern energy supplies from renewables are cheaper?
Put that in your e-cig and blaze it
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Great! Google is now the first ever green, all-natural, free-range, fair-trade, eco-friendly advertising firm.
Stealing people personal data and providing it to advertisers to better target Ads.
It's not stealing when people give it up willingly. You can argue that isn't a good deal for users of Google products but it isn't theft.
Domestic cats don't kill eagles and other typical endangered species of bird.
Domestic cats most certainly do kill endangered species of birds. They may not kill eagles but the certainly kill other threatened species in substantial numbers. Cats are an invasive species and a poorly controlled one at that.
Let us not also forget about bats,
Same deal as with birds. Windmills are simply not a significant threat to their populations.
and the fact that renewable provide a tiny amount of energy today.
You think 10% of US energy consumption is a tiny number? I think you don't understand the definition of the word "tiny".
The fact that you can just buy your power from a so called renewable resource power company doesn't mean that you're not still pulling power from the same coal fire power plants that are the BACK BONE of the US power infrastructure. They're not 'bottling up' that electrics and shipping it to the Google.
Calm down. We all know that. You don't seem to grasp that it doesn't matter on a net basis whether Google consumes the power themselves or not. Google needs X joules of power and they pay for X joules to be generated from renewable sources. Whether they use it themselves or not has EXACTLY the same effect on the ecosystem overall.
You're just buying more expensive power so you can feel like you're doing something.
They are doing something. They are subsidizing the development of renewable energy. Early adopters always pay more. It's a good thing that they are doing and with the amount of power they use it makes a measurable difference.
Yeah, because he doesn't throw out conspiracy theories like Trump throws out idiotic tweets.
Hey buddy, pizzagate isn't a real thing.
But glad you shared.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Interesting tidbit from the NY Times coverage of this announcement: Last year Google used as much energy as the city of San Francisco.
Article
(Clear your cookies if you're maxed out on NY Times articles)
My accountant has just made a fantastic discovery.
I OWE NO TAXES BECAUSE I HAVE NO INCOME!
Capisci?
What about CNN and HuffPo?
Not only is this a phony thing (like carbon offsets) that equates to rich people centuries ago buying indulgences from the Roman Catholic Church (which allowed them to sin like crazy, but be declared "good" because they'd purchased "indulgences") but it's even more deceptive.
As with Carbon Offsets, Google is gonna go right on using fossil fuel. They're gonna keep consuming their energy right from the grid, which means they're gonna keep indirectly burning coal. They just want everybody to *think* they are clean-and-green because they are paying somebody else to supposedly inject some energy onto the grid from "renewables".... but they know perfectly well that by being on the grid they are getting the benefits of the grid, which include the overnight, calm air, and surge capacity of the nuclear and fossil fuels part of the grid. If Google truly went for wind and solar, they'd have problems at night and when the wind does not blow enough. By pretending they are not totally dependent upon the fossil and nuclear elements of the grid to work at night, when there's insufficient wind, and when there are surges in demand, they help delude all their fanboys into thinking that "renewables" are adequate to replace fossil and nuke. This is a dangerous level of dishonesty and deceit that enables propaganda and delusion.
People forget that "carbon offsets" were a scam created by Enron to enable firms like Enron to get super-wealthy trading in imaginary things. When you trade in REAL assets, if things collapse and you the investor get left "holding the bag" there's usually SOME physical thing of value attached that can be liquidated to recover SOME value. With "Carbon Offsets" the "asset" is a purely imaginary thing that only had imaginary value because government limited how many "offsets" everybody imagined. When such a market ends, the people holding certificates get NOTHING for them because they represent NOTHING. People like Al Gore have become fabulously wealthy pushing this garbage, but it's a scam and it's not REAL.
Why should companies even pay for Solar/Alternative Energy?
Band together and have the Government saturate the country with Solar and Wind Power for FREE cost to Electricity.
With FREE Solar government doesn't have to collect nickels and dimes anymore. They can collect $5 to $15.99 for month Tax which is way more than monies they are getting now from tax collections.
this is a message is clealy saying "we will try finding a new smuggler in brazil to bring exotic animals and drugsa to US and australia until next year"
Ah yes, because the Wikipedia is the AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE FOR EVERYTHING. I forgot why everyone quit using this site. See you again in a few years...NOT.
Renewable energy is a buzzword from the 90's
Modern fossil fuel harvest methods mean that there is no real shortage and we will have fossil fuels to burn indefinitely.
Ethanol and bio-diesel renewable even though there less carbon effecent than fossil fuels.
If Google ran there data centers on burning baby kittens, that would be renewable.
The new hotness is carbon neutral and I guarantee that Google's data centers are not.
My BS meter just twitched.
You need to take it into the shop to have it fixed. It's clearly malfunctioning.
Wind, at about 2% of the total energy market is tiny.
Even 2% of US generating capacity (not the actual number) is an enormous amount of power and the amount of wind power generating capacity is growing fast. Wind accounted for about 4.4% of US energy production in 2014. Some countries generate double digit percentages of their electricity from wind with Denmark topping the list at 39%! The US accounts for a (disproportionate) 18% of world energy consumption despite being just 5% of the population. If other countries (particularly India and China) follow our lead that is not sustainable without huge increases in the use of renewable energy.
This hostility from the government towards nuclear power is one big reason why I have trouble believing in the global warming hysteria.
The hostility towards nuclear power does not come from the government. It comes from citizens who are nervous about nuclear power and the consequences of what can happen when things go wrong. (see Chernobyl and Fukishima) There also is the as yet unsolved problem of nuclear waste disposal. Granted some (not all) of their concerns are more perception than reality but perception is what drives policy regardless of whether it is true. It also comes from financiers who look at a LONG track record of cost overruns and cost uncertainty in building nuclear plants.
This hostility towards nuclear power on costs is also something that bothers me. The reason it costs so much is because we've forgotten how to build them.
No we haven't. Nuclear power plants are being built routinely and have advanced significantly. Just not in the USA. I'm an accountant. The reason nuclear power plants cost so much is twofold. 1) They are very complicated and have to be engineered to very high standards with careful attention to safety culture to avoid disasters. This level of engineering and safety is very expensive and prone to cost overruns. Nuclear plants are (comparatively) cheap to operate but very expensive to build. Worse, there is considerable cost uncertainty surrounding their construction. When this happens financing costs for construction rise considerably. Private financing is very difficult to come by as a result. Public financing is substantially more expensive and harder to get. 2) Nuclear power plants are considered so risky by insurance and financing companies that they cannot be built without government guarantees. The risk profile is one where the odds of a disaster are (generally) low but the consequences are very high and challenging to quantify. That makes insuring and indemnifying them very expensive.
I'm not impressed with wind power. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is a much better solution.
You can waste your time being "not impressed" with wind power but it's an important and fast growing and affordable and clean source of energy. It's not going to solve all our energy needs. No one form of energy (not even nuclear) is going to do that. Stop thinking in terms of either/or and start thinking in terms of balanced portfolio. Nuclear fission will be an important part of the energy portfolio for the foreseeable future and it has almost none of the climate change issues we get from fossil fuels. The goal is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used to a level lower than what the Earth's ecosystem can handle. This number isn't zero but it's far lower than where we are now. To do this with existing technology will require some combination of wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, and hydro. Battery and energy storage technology will matter greatly. I think distributed power (solar panels on roofs) are going to matter a lot as well.
While there are technically few subsidies in our accounting books for fossil fuel energies, please don't ignore the many expenses that are externalized and pushed onto taxpayers, consumers, and the government.
1. How about the Iraq war and other "oil wars" in the Middle East? I think we should count the financial cost of those when we calculate the extra cost of fossil fuels. Not even to mention the loss of life incurred as a result of fighting over oil, which has reached millions.
2. How about environmental damage such as oil spills that never really get cleaned up, pollution in the air, greenhouse gasses, etc? I think we should include the social and environmental costs that we indirectly pay for through damage to our natural resources like the oceans, soil, and atmosphere. The damage caused by fossil fuel harvesting and use directly impacts people's quality of life, health, and pocketbooks.
3. How about the future cost of climate change? We don't know how climate change will affect global GDP in the long run, but most predictions suggest that all but far North and far South will experience changes that are detrimental on the whole.
In short, if you think that the price we pay at the pump or on our utility bill represents the full cost of our exploitation of fossil fuel resources, I believe that you are mistaken.
Actually, parent specifically said "global fossil fuel subsidies," not "US fossil fuel subsidies." Your comment and danbert8's comment applies only to the US. Lucas123 is correct.
The grandparent danbert8's comment (modded +5 insightful, I suspect the mods are either biased or sleeping) states some facts but completely ignores the bigger picture. The social, economic, and environmental cost of fossil fuel use is not accurately depicted when you look at just government subsidies. I won't copy/paste my reply to his comment, but please read it if you want to discuss further.