51–60 of 273 posts
This is great progress and congratulations to Google. But Google and every other tech company is effectively still running on non-renewable energy by virtue of importing most of their hardware from places where manufacturing is done mostly with fossil fuels. All of us are outsourcing our pollution and CO2 production.
Google is ahead of the game here. Other tech companies also are moving to renewables but they're not at 100% yet (IIRC). The key point is that as cloud computing becomes commoditized and people build tools to quickly transfer from one cloud provider to another, the profit margin will become smaller and smaller until energy costs dominate the cost to provide a service. It is already the case that a machine will use mo…
One of the reasons the UAE pitches itself as a data centre site.
One of the more interesting things I learned while working for Google was the intricate way in which the "grid" is managed by a separate but co-operating set of entities. Google disrupted that happy bunch by creating a wholly owned subsidiary that was a licensed power company[1]. That gave it standing to buy from and sell energy to the grid and it completely short circuited a lot of crazy negotiations that were going on between Google and various regional power companies. Now instead of having the substation outside the data center owned by the local power company it could be owned by "Google Energy Inc." And Google Energy could buy energy from any vendor connected to that grid.
Most people are familiar with the 'last mile' problem where the connection to the Internet from your house has to go through the local monopoly utility. The same is true when buying power, and this move on Google's part completely side stepped it.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/google-energy-subsidiary-considers...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hardware for green energy production included, like solar panels... Since they don't last for ever and need lots of energy to be produced, I wonder how long it takes to just get even.
For Solar it obviously depends on a lot of factors (where you put them, which technology, where it is produced), but it's in the range of 0-4 years, depending on which study you look at. Common lifetime is ~20-30 years. See e.g. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/downloads/pdf-files/aktuell... http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/kev/index.php
Do we have more data now? Because I think solar panels will easily do 50 years with >50% of original output.
This is great progress and congratulations to Google. But Google and every other tech company is effectively still running on non-renewable energy by virtue of importing most of their hardware from places where manufacturing is done mostly with fossil fuels. All of us are outsourcing our pollution and CO2 production.
Hmm... how is HN going to shit on this one? Wait, 'great progress' in the first comment! 'but' :/
The title is misleading. They will not run entirely on renewable energy. Instead, they are buying at least as much renewable energy as they are consuming in total. So Google might pay for 1 megawatt of solar power going into the grid, but actually pull 1 megawatt of fossil fuel power. This is more than a nitpicking point. The reason why renewable energy isn't a totally viable energy source is because of problems with…
That's true in general, but not if you can choose where you are using the electricity. If your datacentres are in Iceland (geothermal), the Middle East (reliable solar), certain parts of Canada, or Norway (hydroelectric), you could actually run the systems entirely off renewables. I agree though that buying 1 unit of renewable power for each unit that you use is a much less meaningful action. Not to be sniffed at, but not what is being implied.
Unlike carbon-based power, Mr. Kava said, wind supply prices do not fluctuate, enabling Google to plan better. Can someone explain this? It seems like wind energy prices should fluctuate based on weather patterns (more wind == lower prices).
From a long-term point of view, the cost of the wind energy is just the depreciation of the turbines plus the maintenance costs on the farm. Those two dollar inputs will create a fairly predictable number of kilowatt hours output. The problem of getting those kwh when you want/need them is one of selling into the grid when you have them and buying out when you need them, but I guess from the point of view of Google,…
A minor detail, but don't forget the cost of transmission. My understanding is that the US has massive wind energy potential (http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/30m_US_Wind.jpg and http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/80m_wind/USwind300dpe4-11.jpg) but it's not necessarily near the most densly populated regions. Building and maintaining these transmission corridors is not an insubstantial cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For Solar it obviously depends on a lot of factors (where you put them, which technology, where it is produced), but it's in the range of 0-4 years, depending on which study you look at. Common lifetime is ~20-30 years. See e.g. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/downloads/pdf-files/aktuell... http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/kev/index.php
Feels like I've been quoted a 20-30 years lifetime for solar panels for 10 years straight now. They degrade, but they don't break. Do we have more data now? Because I think solar panels will easily do 50 years with >50% of original output.
