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

241–250 of 273 posts

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

#241

Post by greglindahl »

hueving wrote: post #239
greglindahl wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Some people put solar panels on their home, other people pay someone else to install solar panels elsewhere. It's extremely common for businesses to choose the second, even if homeowners mostly choose the first.

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

#242

Post by ChuckMcM »

hueving wrote: post #240
ChuckMcM wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well there is no reason the trucks couldn't, it would just affect the overall efficiency (the amount of solar power in to the amount of electricity out).

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

#243

Post by ChuckMcM »

dagss wrote: post #238
ChuckMcM wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Actually nuclear power can be used to make breeder reactors, which uses the neutron flux from a critical reactor to create more fuel, in theory giving them a lifetime that is at least as long as the supply of heavy elements holds out, but if you want to be seriously pedantic then Solar isn't exactly renewable since the Sun has a limited amount of hydrogen to burn and once it runs out it will be very hard on our planet, catastrophically so by all estimations.

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

#244

Post by matchagaucho »

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…

One of Enron's many schemes involved creating a logical abstraction layer across physically partioned grids.

I think the lesson learned from that scandal is to keep it simple. On a per grid basis, simply acknowledge that fossil fuel accounts for X% of power, and rally the community behind an honest metric.

Headlines claiming 100% "mission accomplished" will lull most people into a false perception.

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

#245

Post by axman6 »

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.

I don't agree it is deceptive, if Google paid for 1GW of renewable electricity to be generated and 1GW is contributed to the grid from renewable sources then everything is as it should be. If the EMF that gets to Google's servers happens to be provided by a nearby coal plant they have still caused 1GW to be produced by renewables. This is how the grid works, and how it has always worked, it's just that no one in the past has cared if it was coal, gas, hydro or something else they were getting it from. Organisations are now willing to pay a small premium to use an equal amount of energy as renewables are generated. Storage matters for the long term goal of a zero emissions grid, but is not necessary for the economics to work out and the benefits to be felt.

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

#246

Post by NEDM64 »

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.

Cognitive dissonance, it's your problem.

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

#247

Post by NEDM64 »

megablast wrote: post #211
evanws wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't just data centers, they're going to hit 100% renewables for global operations. From Google's 2016 energy report: "And in 2017 Google will reach 100% renewable energy for our global operations..."

So the Pixels made by HTC are also using renewable energy?

No.

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

#248

Post by crdoconnor »

philipkglass wrote: post #198
r00fus wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big Coal and Big Oil work together far more often than not. Extensive renewable energy would eliminate the massive profit of power utilities and refineries both.

I would have agreed with you a few years ago, but coal producer antipathy toward O&G has increased a lot since fracking unleashed the cheap gas that has been eating their lunch. At the same time gas producers have softened their stance against climate action, calculating (correctly) that in the short-medium term coal-to-gas switching in the name of climate action can send a lot of new natural gas demand their way. As…

>gas producers have softened their stance against climate action

They simply pretended that they were "cleaner" than coal and gas, which isn't really true:

http://www.newswise.com/articles/methane-leaks-can-make-frac...

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

#249

Post by SixSigma »

CptJamesCook wrote: post #231
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.

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...

How do iPhones get exported from China ?

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

#250

Post by walshemj »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #53

This is pretty awesome, Google is definitely leading the industry here. 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 i…

Makes sense for very high power users I know that an organisation in the UK (RAE Twinwooods) that ran wind tunnels had a private link to the grid and for the really big tunnels had an arrangement where they would control the wind tunnel by directly controlling the local power station
Post reply on HN