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

Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 273 posts

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#201

Post by ghostly_s »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #188
matchagaucho wrote: post #171

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…

While I agree with your base argument, I would argue further that the (substantial) transmission losses at least in the consumed and perhaps in the generated energy also need to be factored in, so a simple x:(x+1) relationship is not quite sufficient for a robust claim of "100% renewables" which is based on offsets.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#202

Post by toomuchtodo »

downandout wrote: post #163
jartelt wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is value to signing a long term PPA that guarantees a set price of electricity for 10-20 years. For example, if Google powers a data center using wind power PPAs, they know exactly how much the electricity for the data center will cost over the life of those PPAs. If they power the data center with natural gas and coal-generated electricity bought through normal electricity markets, their electricity prices wil…

There's negative value to them if those PPA's are overpriced relative to conventional power. This article seems to reluctantly admit that they are indeed overpaying in most markets most of the time. "We saved money that one time in Chile" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the economics of renewables at the present time.

Wind power is very cheap, even in the US. Several utilities in Texas offer free power during nighttime hours because of it.

I assure you, these PPAs are not overpriced.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#203

Post by magicalist »

low_battery wrote: post #166
IBM wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple includes their suppliers, retail stores, offices, and customers' product use in their carbon footprint (in addition to data centers) [1]: When we measure our carbon footprint, we include hundreds of suppliers, millions of customers, and hundreds of millions of devices. And we’re always looking for ways to make the biggest difference in five major areas: manufacturing, product use, facilities, transportation, an…

Edit: Correction by 3 orders of magnitude because of multiplication error :) Then lets do a back of the envelope calculation for energy consumption for Apple's aluminum use. Very roughly Apple sells ~25 million macs and ~200 million iphones per year. Again lets assume that it needs 2kg of aluminum for macbooks and 100g for phones (not all iphones are aluminum and this might be lower), that makes ~70 thousand metric t…

> Google's datacenter energy consumption, is difficult to guess, if there are 1 million servers, and assuming each server consumes 10KWH per day, then it makes ~3.5 TWH per year

FWIW, the linked article mentions

> The 5.7 terawatt-hours of electricity Google consumed in 2015 “is equal to the output of two 500 megawatt coal plants,” said Jonathan Koomey

though they don't mention the source

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#204

Post by wicksell »

It's certainly a good thing they're doing, but really all they're doing is bidding higher than other companies on renewable energy, and since we don't have unlimited renewable energy (only as much as we have wind turbines and solar panel arrays &c), all they're really doing is shifting renewable energy usage from smaller companies to themselves. It's not like they're creating renewable energy or anything, they're just changing where it goes.

But at least they're going to create a greater demand to hopefully create a greater supply sometime soon, plus they're paying into the renewable energy economic machine.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#205

Post by PascLeRasc »

nostrademons wrote: post #153
tylercubell wrote: post #65

> “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…

Well, it is a PR gimmick. I, for one, am glad for this PR gimmick and wish more companies would adopt similar PR gimmicks.

I agree. I'm perfectly fine with a company "exploiting" their earth-friendliness for image. There are some things more important than the free market.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#206

Post by philipkglass »

wicksell wrote: post #204

It's certainly a good thing they're doing, but really all they're doing is bidding higher than other companies on renewable energy, and since we don't have unlimited renewable energy (only as much as we have wind turbines and solar panel arrays &c), all they're really doing is shifting renewable energy usage from smaller companies to themselves. It's not like they're creating renewable energy or anything, they're jus…

No, Google has been signing power purchase agreements with renewable energy developers. The signed agreements are what developers need to build new solar and wind projects. It's new renewable demand driving new supply.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#207

Post by paul_f »

greglindahl wrote: post #184
rocketraman wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, there is indeed a lot of truth to the statement that it is a PR gimmick. The problem with wind and solar is that they are intermittent. Therefore, Google's consumption at any particular moment in time cannot be supplied solely by these intermittent sources because their energy output never matches current demand (at least until some big honking batteries are built to level this out, for which the tech…

Paying to have more renewable energy generated is not a gimmick, it's progress. It's true that there's a storage problem to be solved. That doesn't mean that every single renewables project needs to solve it or become a gimmick.

The problem is that Google's claim is deceptive. What they are doing is great.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#208

Post by greglindahl »

paul_f wrote: post #207
greglindahl wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying to have more renewable energy generated is not a gimmick, it's progress. It's true that there's a storage problem to be solved. That doesn't mean that every single renewables project needs to solve it or become a gimmick.

The problem is that Google's claim is deceptive. What they are doing is great.

Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the NYT article look accurate to me. I have a hard time seeing how anyone who read the article would be deceived.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#209

Post by paul_f »

cestith wrote: post #189
problems wrote: post #173

Wondering if any residential provider in the world is offering a service where you can say "sell me only renewables". There'd probably be a cost associated with this, but I think I'd have to consider it if it were available locally.

In Houston, the "Oil and Gas Capital of the World", I buy 100% wind power from Green Mountain. They're not the only game in town for 100% renewables, either. Green Mountain themselves do have mixed plans, but mine's 100% wind. It's not the cheapest power in town (some retail electric providers go below $0.04 per kWh for the first year of your contract or such if you don't care) but with Texas by law having a competit…

I have a hard time believing this. What does Green Mountain use when the wind dies? Do they have a grid storage solution?

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#210

Post by M2Ys4U »

downandout wrote: post #62

>"It’s good for the economy, good for business and good for our shareholders ". Let's be honest...it is not good for their shareholders. They are buying power at a significant premium and costing their shareholders money. It is a direct hit to the bottom line. This might be good for the environment - at the very least they are helping renewable energy companies get bank financing through purchase guarantees, which wi…

I'd say helping to not wreck the global climate in which their shareholders (and customers!) live is good for shareholders.

Monetary transfers or asset appreciation aren't the only ways to provide value.

Post reply on HN