251–260 of 273 posts
I was simply shocked to read that Google as a whole consumes as much as a whole metropolis. The fact that they're going green, is awesome on their part..!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Over the long haul, yes, but in real-time - no. And electricity prices to fluctuate a lot over days, weeks etc.. You'd deal with this the same way you deal with it in every other commodity market, futures contracts.
Yes, of course, but a futures contract definitely adds cost, is my point. Google is in effect doing the same thing as 'buying a future' and it's unreasonable for him to make the argument that this is 'inherently a better thing about green'. I could buy a futures contract for Oil today and would it be fair for me to say 'Oil is has more stability in prices'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have billions but aren't sponsoring scholarships for graduate physics degrees like Boeing or any "corporate" company does. If they want to see their 10xs breakthroughs (which they sure talk a lot about) they should be throwing money at condensed matter physics research and just support in general for physics. Its easy to get a 10x in software but energy is a whole different game. That way the smartest people won…
high paying code writing or going into physics/engineering. Engineering is much different than software architecture. One requires hard sciences competency, whereas one you can go into for years with none, and be successful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is leading edge and admirable. I applaud the effort but question the headline. A Google datacenter near the Columbia River may derive 100% of it's energy from hydro. Google pioneered that practice and many others followed. But their overall real estate footprint relies heavily on local energy suppliers, which may be coal. Any company making a claim of being 100% renewable, is basically just using offsets. And…
Ok, I can see your argument, let me repeat it back to see if I got it right. You argue that by being physically near the Columbia river, a hydro electric plant can be constructed which generates power and sends it directly to a Google data center. But their other properties, some of which are nearer power plants which generate power using fossil fuels can not be considered to be using renewable energy. Is that about…
1. Net usage after selling off excess energy 2. Net usage assuming there is no demand for excess when you have it (maybe everyone on the grid has solar panels)
Achieving 100% in #1 is great and I applaud Google for it. If everyone did this we could drastically reduce overall usage of fossil fuels, but I believe the fear is that people won't know the distinction and will assume "if everyone does what Google does we will all be 100% renewable" and that isn't true.
http://www.oati.com/about/microgrid-technology-center
The main difference between the OATI Microgrid Technology Center and other commercial office buildings is that OATI will generate its own electricity as the primary source of power. The building is powered by:
- Natural Gas turbines: 600kW Capstone C600 natural gas burning microturbine. Paired with absorption chiller and heat exchanger for CCHP
- Solar: 150kw rooftop solar array, with additional expansion array planned
- Wind: 24kW of vertical axis wind turbines
- Electricity storage: 231kWh, at 125kW Ensync battery rated power and energy
- Generator: 1500kW of diesel backup generator
- Utility connection: Connected to local utility Xcel Energy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I can see your argument, let me repeat it back to see if I got it right. You argue that by being physically near the Columbia river, a hydro electric plant can be constructed which generates power and sends it directly to a Google data center. But their other properties, some of which are nearer power plants which generate power using fossil fuels can not be considered to be using renewable energy. Is that about…
There are basically two numbers here: 1. Net usage after selling off excess energy 2. Net usage assuming there is no demand for excess when you have it (maybe everyone on the grid has solar panels) Achieving 100% in #1 is great and I applaud Google for it. If everyone did this we could drastically reduce overall usage of fossil fuels, but I believe the fear is that people won't know the distinction and will assume "i…
That is the definition of 100% renewable energy use is it not? You can't push power into a grid if nobody is using it, they don't work that way. So if the world is using 12.3 TW and 12.3TW is being generated by renewable sources, your done.
Big no thanks, google. Your business is censorship and spying only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, of course, but a futures contract definitely adds cost, is my point. Google is in effect doing the same thing as 'buying a future' and it's unreasonable for him to make the argument that this is 'inherently a better thing about green'. I could buy a futures contract for Oil today and would it be fair for me to say 'Oil is has more stability in prices'?
The difference is you know the supply of wind. It fluctuates with the weather, but on average you know if you have X windmills you'll have Y joules, the risk in future contracts is a lot smaller, and priced accordingly. The oil supply is a lot more complicated, and the risk priced into future contracts is priced accordingly.
But Oil shouldn't fluctuate too-too far between $50 and $120 a barrel. And that's just the raw costs. With all other components, which costs will be more fixed, the actual end price of fuel should not change more than 40% in either direction, max.
I'd argue that the greatly varying costs of wind installations, aggregate availability, huge one: supply and demand for electricity overall, specifically for renewable electricity - regulator changes, improvements in technology - definitely create a situation wherein the 'end cost' of renewable electricity is somewhere in the range of the variability for fuel produced by other means.
> “In my mind it’s a P.R. gimmick,” said Chris Warren, vice president of communications at the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank in Washington supported largely by donations from individuals and companies in the fossil fuel industry. “If they think they can actually support themselves with wind and solar panels, they should connect them directly to their data centers.” I love how the author throws in a disc…
It's such a ridiculous statement, too. With his logic this guy would have to buy the cow that makes the milk he drinks in his coffee...
Nobody forces you to buy a cow to put milk on your cofee, but if you go around offering "organic capuccinos" for sale, your customers could normally expect you to either milk the grass fed cow yourself or, more likely, purchase your milk from a certified provider that does so. They certainly don't expect you to claim that since you make a donation to some Amish charity in the other side of the country, you are entitled to slap a "organic" label to the same brand of industrial milk your competition next door uses and offers at half the price.
I don't see how this should be any different with Google.