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

231–240 of 273 posts

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

#231

Post by CptJamesCook »

evanws wrote: post #107
kevinchen wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is definitely leading the industry here. It's fantastic that Google plans to switch to renewables since they are one of the biggest players. Definitely an exaggeration to say that they are leading the charge. Apple was among the first to make renewables an issue and achieved 100% in data centers back in 2013, with little fanfare. http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/content-tracks/design-buil... And creating a…

Just to be clear, 7% of Apple's global power is still dirty and they have not made any public commitment to bring that down any further. Google is a much much larger energy consumer, has been carbon neutral since 2007, and is going to use 100% renewables globally within the next year. Also, Google made its energy company play back in 2010. Apple made theirs in 2016.

Too bad Google's founders fly all over the world on private jets, doing far more damage than these measures prevent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviati...

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

#232

Post by dredmorbius »

low_battery wrote: post #178
CPLX wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is a much much larger energy consumer That seems implausible. The electrical requirements of Aluminum production are extreme. Obviously there's a lot of issues about where one draws the line between the company and its subcontractors and so on, but it seems hard to believe Apple's global energy footprint is not higher than Google's

Why? Aluminum production needs a lot of electricity but if you recycle back, costs goes down, total aluminum energy cost of Apple is likely much lower than all those servers running throughout the year.

Recycling rates are generally pretty low. I think the highesst rates have been ~80% for lead (batteries). For aluminium in the US, it's closer to 40% IIRC.

USGS has online reports.

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/recycle/rec... 40% ~2001

For 2015, it looks as of 30% of supply came via recycling: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mc...

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

#233

Post by greglindahl »

hueving wrote: post #229
greglindahl wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

More than half of the people in this thread think google is running on 100% renewable energy. They have been deceived. Google is still using dirty energy, they are just offsetting it by returning extra to the grid when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining.

"using" is a complicated word. If you don't like the usual way "using renewable energy" is used for electricity, by all means campaign against it, but there's nothing special about Google or this press release for this usage... and the New York Times article this discussion is about is quite clear.

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

#234

Post by nostrademons »

rocketraman wrote: post #167
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…

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…

I would bet that the article is inaccurate and the majority of this "renewable energy" is hydro. Google has taken great care to place its datacenters in locations that are close to affordable hydro power, and in many cases owns or has long-term exclusive leases on several power-generation plants within existing hydro dams.

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

#235

Post by philipkglass »

martinald wrote: post #218
philipkglass wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renewable project developers want long term power purchase agreements (PPAs) so they have predictable revenue for projects they plan to develop. These are agreements that go something like "for the next 15 years, we agree to buy up to X megawatt hours per year from your project for Y dollars per megawatt hour." There are other ways to sell output from renewables (like bidding output directly into the electricity spot…

You are missing one point though, that the cost of non-renewable energy goes up when there is no renewable energy in the grid often very significantly. Effectively renewables have an externality cost of their own: they make "reliable" sources of power much more expensive. Imagine that wind/solar power supplies 25% of the grid's needs - this means 75% of the time you need a gas power station to fill in the lulls in pr…

I didn't mention effects of 75% grid supply from wind + solar because no major grid is operating at that level. Most grids are significantly below 25%. The US as a whole is currently at 5-6% of all electricity consumption from wind + solar. (I know there's not a single unified grid across the US, but still.) I expect that storage is going to be significantly more mature by the time the US reaches even 25%.

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

#236

Post by ChuckMcM »

hueving wrote: post #227
ChuckMcM wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you're saying, but to me trying to phrase it in that way seems more like mental gymnastics than actual double entry accounting in watts. Would it help if the renewable source had to be connected to the same grid-tie (there are 4 I think in the US) ? Then you're putting renewable energy into the same grid you are pulling it out of. What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, th…

>Then you're putting renewable energy into the same grid you are pulling it out of. Right, but they aren't connected to the same grid. Google has datacenters all over the world, connected to all sorts of different grids with different source compositions. >What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, then you drove it in a tanker across the country and poured it into generators in Virgini…

One small point I realized reading your comment here is that you mentioned emissions. The original article is about "renewable" energy, not "carbon footprint neutral" energy. If you had a wood fired power plant, it would be 'renewable' energy, but it would not be 'carbon neutral'. I think it is important to distinguish between the two and both are important.

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

#237

Post by sangnoir »

kevinchen wrote: post #147
evanws wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, 7% of Apple's global power is still dirty and they have not made any public commitment to bring that down any further. Google is a much much larger energy consumer, has been carbon neutral since 2007, and is going to use 100% renewables globally within the next year. Also, Google made its energy company play back in 2010. Apple made theirs in 2016.

Apple has pressured Foxconn to build out renewable capacity for certain steps of iPhone manufacturing by 2018. There is a lot of work to be done in manufacturing (much harder problem) but they have definitely made a public commitment to reduce the impact: https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/10/22Apple-Launches-Ne...

I think the point parent was making was that Google (as a whole, not just data centers) is leading the industry to 100% renewable energy. Something Apple - which is making great advances - is yet to achieve.

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

#238

Post by dagss »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #236
hueving wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then you're putting renewable energy into the same grid you are pulling it out of. Right, but they aren't connected to the same grid. Google has datacenters all over the world, connected to all sorts of different grids with different source compositions. >What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, then you drove it in a tanker across the country and poured it into generators in Virgini…

One small point I realized reading your comment here is that you mentioned emissions. The original article is about "renewable" energy, not "carbon footprint neutral" energy. If you had a wood fired power plant, it would be 'renewable' energy, but it would not be 'carbon neutral'. I think it is important to distinguish between the two and both are important.

What do you mean? A wood fired power plant totally IS carbon neutral, as long as the logging is done sustainably (i.e. "renewable"). The trees suck up exactly as much CO2 when they grow up as they emit when burned.

I guess nuclear power is non-renewable but carbon neutral. Cannot think of anything that is not carbon neutral but renewable...wouldn't that require creating CO2 matter from nothing?

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

#239

Post by hueving »

greglindahl wrote: post #233
hueving wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than half of the people in this thread think google is running on 100% renewable energy. They have been deceived. Google is still using dirty energy, they are just offsetting it by returning extra to the grid when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining.

"using" is a complicated word. If you don't like the usual way "using renewable energy" is used for electricity, by all means campaign against it, but there's nothing special about Google or this press release for this usage... and the New York Times article this discussion is about is quite clear.

That's not the "usual way" it's used. If I want to use solar power for my home, I don't contribute to a fund building solar panels on a different continent and claim I'm "using renewable energy". However, that's exactly what google is doing here.

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

#240

Post by hueving »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #236
hueving wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then you're putting renewable energy into the same grid you are pulling it out of. Right, but they aren't connected to the same grid. Google has datacenters all over the world, connected to all sorts of different grids with different source compositions. >What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, then you drove it in a tanker across the country and poured it into generators in Virgini…

One small point I realized reading your comment here is that you mentioned emissions. The original article is about "renewable" energy, not "carbon footprint neutral" energy. If you had a wood fired power plant, it would be 'renewable' energy, but it would not be 'carbon neutral'. I think it is important to distinguish between the two and both are important.

Ok, if we throw out emissions and just worry about renewable, then the trucks traveling across the country have to also run on the fuel generated by the solar panels for your watts to be fungible across grids.
Post reply on HN