Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

nationalobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 183 posts

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#161

Post by Ardon »

glenstein wrote: post #153
Ardon wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solar panels would overheat (and lose efficiency), since ~80% of the solar energy hitting it is absorbed as (mostly) heat. Generating solar energy in deserts is often done with a mirror based heating system for this reason.

Something like 98-99% installed solar capacity in the American southwest is traditional PV. Mirrors are there, and they're awesome, but PV dominates. PV are designed to account for heat and "less efficiency" means they risk performing at 17-18% instead of 20%. And it's actually generating more total energy at 18% because more total sunlight is hitting it, an advantage in desserts.

Yeah that's true.

I was thinking more long term though, deserts see much faster yearly degradation than places with more normal temps. (up to 2-3% compared to the standard 0.5-0.8%)

That's just an economic factor rather than a blocker. PVs are cheap as right now, and could be even cheaper if they weren't tariffed. I wouldn't be surprised if PVs in the desert is nonetheless the right approach right now, and not concentrators.

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#162

Post by _mlbt »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #147
_mlbt wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you achieve nation or world scale communism without totalitarianism? I am one of many people who know the history of communism’s failures and will never accept it willingly.

We already have communism to a certain degree in every democratic government. You already accept it willingly. It is just a matter of expanding more government programs on top of sectors being squatted by rent seekers looking to make money without actual contribution to the economy beyond rent seeking from those that do contribute to the economy. The only hard part is that rent seekers tend to have an outsized influe…

So you would like to have the government take over all the houses and become your landlord instead?

When they seize these properties, how should the government determine who gets to live where? Should it be based on your profession? Your family size? Your standing within the Party, Comrade? Perhaps your ability to bribe the government agent who is responsible for assigning housing? What if there’s not enough housing for everyone and the government is behind on building more? How many random strangers are you okay with sharing your apartment with?

Resources are fundamentally finite and unequally distributed, even under communism.

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#163

Post by [deleted] »

notatoad wrote: post #77
gjm11 wrote: post #19

I think there's less to this than meets the eye. Previously, on https://sustainability.google/operating-sustainably/ : "We've set a goal to achieve net-zero emissions across all of our operations and value chain by 2030." and, in a table later, "Reduce 50% of our combined Scope 1, 2 (market-based), and 3 absolute emissions by 2030. Invest in nature-based and technology-based carbon removal solutions to neutralize our…

carbon-free energy on every grid where they operate also sounds like a significantly more ambitious goal than net-zero across the company, because it means actual reduction in emissions, rather than relying on offsets. if it's a serious committment to being carbon-free, i think this sounds like a positive change. if it's a moonshot that they have no real intention of actually meeting, then it's a lot less impressive.…

[deleted]

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#164

Post by kulahan »

yndoendo wrote: post #158
kulahan wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no dog in this fight, but this is so impressive it sounds wrong. I don’t think it is wrong, I’m just really blown away

"Taming the Sun: Innovations to Harness Solar Energy and Power the Planet" by Varun Sivaram [0] is a good source on ways to improve renewable energy from infrastructure design changes. He talks about the HVDC longitude runs that would improve transfer of electricity to areas that may be cloudy where it is sunny during peak. My point of view with Tesla vs Edison is that they were both right and wrong under select circ…

Thanks, I’m looking forward to digging into this!

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#165

Post by nsoonhui »

mullingitover wrote: post #7

Meanwhile China is on track to install as much solar power in the past year as the US has in its entire history . The US has maintained steep tariffs on solar panels. Clean energy isn't even some virtuous thing, it's just no-brainer smart energy policy. The only reason for Google to be backpedaling on its pledge is political. It's in a backsliding petrostate and it has to play the political game.

>> The only reason for Google to be backpedaling on its pledge is political. It's in a backsliding petrostate and it has to play the political game.

What evidence you have to justify your accusation?

From another poster here

  Now, in their 2025 Environmental Report at https://sustainability.google/reports/google-2025-environmen...:

  "We aim to run on 24/7 carbon-free energy on every grid where we operate by 2030." and "We aim to reduce absolute, combined scope 1, 2 (market-based), and 3 emissions by 50% from a 2019 base year by 2030." (They also restate the thing about "to neutralize our remaining emissions" a bit later in the document.)
So I would say you need to backup your claim _really_ well instead of just interpreting things in the worst way possible according to your imagination.

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#166

Post by colechristensen »

p1mrx wrote: post #154
colechristensen wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to happen anyway for at least a large portion of every day simply because it's cheaper. Electricity is a sizable chunk of the cost to operate a datacenter and at least while the sun is up, solar is significantly cheaper than any other energy source. Grid scale battery overnights is cheaper but less so obviously. You don't need climate pledges when the thing you're pledging to do saves you substantial amoun…

> It's going to happen anyway for at least a large portion of every day simply because it's cheaper. That's precisely why a 24/7 goal matters. Energy is already cheap and clean for a large portion of the day, but covering the rest of the day will require significant investment.

The reason electricity is cheap at night is that non-variable sources have fixed cost and the capacity is going wasted when unused. Solar having the daily peak is going to invert this so nighttime electricity is going to get considerably more expensive. Solar maximum is going to be the cheapest electricity of the day.

There are a few residential utilities in Australia which give users free electricity for 3 hours a day to encourage users to divert their usage to that period.

Widespread solar deployment significantly changes the electricity market. Further deployment is going to push fossil plants to charge higher rates when they're needed to the point where supply outstrips demand and it becomes cheaper to shut down a plant which will further increase overnight prices.

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#167

Post by mullingitover »

nsoonhui wrote: post #165
mullingitover wrote: post #7

Meanwhile China is on track to install as much solar power in the past year as the US has in its entire history . The US has maintained steep tariffs on solar panels. Clean energy isn't even some virtuous thing, it's just no-brainer smart energy policy. The only reason for Google to be backpedaling on its pledge is political. It's in a backsliding petrostate and it has to play the political game.

>> The only reason for Google to be backpedaling on its pledge is political. It's in a backsliding petrostate and it has to play the political game. What evidence you have to justify your accusation? From another poster here Now, in their 2025 Environmental Report at https://sustainability.google/reports/google-2025-environmen...: "We aim to run on 24/7 carbon-free energy on every grid where we operate by 2030." and…

Yes, we all read the article and nobody's disputing that Google hasn't removed the pledge, just made it less visible. I'm just giving my interpretation.

We also all saw Sundar being paraded around like a prisoner of war at the inauguration (to be generous, another interpretation being that he is an enthusiastic collaborator in a despotic regime). He's clearly involved politically in this regime, and they have made their stance on clean energy clear. To be willfully blind to that reality is simply a choice I'm not making.

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#168

Post by kjkjadksj »

_mlbt wrote: post #162
kjkjadksj wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have communism to a certain degree in every democratic government. You already accept it willingly. It is just a matter of expanding more government programs on top of sectors being squatted by rent seekers looking to make money without actual contribution to the economy beyond rent seeking from those that do contribute to the economy. The only hard part is that rent seekers tend to have an outsized influe…

So you would like to have the government take over all the houses and become your landlord instead? When they seize these properties, how should the government determine who gets to live where? Should it be based on your profession? Your family size? Your standing within the Party, Comrade? Perhaps your ability to bribe the government agent who is responsible for assigning housing? What if there’s not enough housing…

Same way it works today. Only rather than a portion of my salary going toward rent and supporting the lifestyle of my landlord, it goes to maintenance and development, and my landlord has to find something socially productive to do to get a meal and their bmw. Let me rent an apartment from my city for a fair market rate that does not factor in the landlord living off my back. Lets go a step further. Let me buy a home without paying a banker interest. I’m a worker in the system, I am a fungible unit of labor. My home should basically be accounted for already, I should be able to move in the day I sign my job offer with no money down.

Another example of communism that isn’t some impoverished corrupt nation economically isolated from global trade through US led embargo: on base housing at your local military base.

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#170

Post by dotnet00 »

yieldcrv wrote: post #143
dotnet00 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just saying that the US should be doing it domestically and companies aren't interested isn't useful. It's kind of like saying "young people just don't want to work hard anymore!".

okay. I thought it was insightful enough. I've worked in many economic unions where that mismatch existed and needed further investigation to steer organizations towards the desired outcome. pointing out that the current efforts don't do that is all that needed to be said. your criticism of that comment, to me, proved that you understood the comment enough that one needs to look further into the motivations.

I've noticed that a lot of the "die-hard MAGA" discourse around tariffs has been "we need to do this within the US and if we can't, we simply don't need to do it at all".

I'm not suggesting that you're one of those types, but it reminded me of that ludicrous line of reasoning.

Understanding that the mismatch exists, why it exists and what can be done to steer things in the desired direction is something I can get behind though!

Post reply on HN