Slashdot Log In
Google Campus to Become Solar-powered
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:19 AM
from the off-the-grid dept.
from the off-the-grid dept.
prostoalex writes "Reuters is reporting that Google is equipping its headquarters with a solar panel 'capable of generating 1.6 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power 1,000 California homes.' This will make Google's Mountain View campus the largest solar-powered office complex in the United States."
Related Stories
[+]
Solar Tree Bears Fruit 16 comments
Hugh Pickens writes "A prototype solar tree that recently went on display on a busy street in Vienna, Austria has passed a key test by providing light during the night-time even when the sun had been blocked by clouds for four days in a row. The branches of the solar tree were decorated with 10 solar lamps, each one powered by 36 solar cells. The tree included rechargeable batteries and electronic systems to measure the amount of light in the atmosphere and trigger the solar lamps to go on. 'Not just trees but other objects could be decorated with solar cells and so keep streets well lit at night time,' said Christina Werner from Cultural Project Management. Google uses a similar concept to light their parking lots with 3,000 solar panels that provide up to 10 percent of the Googleplex's power demand. We discussed Google's solar initiative last year."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Google Campus to Become Solar-powered
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 394 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Big deal (Score:1, Insightful)
Does this mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently they believe the sun shines out their ass, so these panels will actually be mounted into the flooring - weather be damned...
Good, but not a huge deal (Score:5, Interesting)
That's great, I am really proud of them for using an alternative energy source (especially in such a sunny area) but most of their energy usage is those data centers and servers, not their employees. They purposefully did not give a % of total energy saved because it probably would have been on the order of 0.1-5%, which would have revealed the ridiculous amount of energy they actually use.
Re:Good, but not a huge deal (Score:4, Insightful)
-matthew
Re:Good, but not a huge deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good, but not a huge deal (Score:5, Funny)
I mean the "not being part of the problem" bit - I'm a bit concerned about your combination of tofu, handjobs and watermelon.
Oh, the implications! (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder how easy the transition will be for them to leave Linux behind in favor of a sun [sun.com] powered setup.
Oh yes. I went there.
Just one? (Score:2)
Re:Just one? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Just one? (Score:5, Funny)
Two words: Duct Tape.
Re:Just one? (Score:5, Funny)
Would that be to fix it or to shut up the person who revealed the problem?
Re:Just one? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just one? (Score:5, Funny)
So does the universe explode if you spray duct tape with WD-40?
Re:Just one? (Score:5, Funny)
But, before we use any power tools, let's take a moment to talk about shop safety. Be sure to read, understand, and follow all the safety rules that come with your power tools. Knowing how to use your power tools properly will greatly reduce the risk of personal injury. And remember this: there is no more important safety rule than to wear these -- safety glasses and a funny hat.
I have with me a brand new roll of duct tape, and a fresh can of WD-40. Next to me is my trusty lab assistant, Timmy, who will be assiting in this experiment.
I am now going to rip a piece of duct tape approximately six inches long off of the roll and have Timmy hold it.
(I rip tape and hand it to Timmy)
Ok, Timmy, hold the tape tight, I am going to commence spraying the tape.
(I spray the tape)
Ok, Timmy... continue to hold it as we observe what happens.
(wait 5 seconds)
Timmy has told me it is starting to shake and do funny things...
OMG! A black hole has opened where the tape was. Timmy, hold on to it... this is the crucial moment...
Uh, oh! I think we are going to need another Timmy! It looks like Timmy was consumed by the black hole.
Luckily, I was prepaired for this. I will now throw into the black hole a few New Kids on the Block tapes and a copy of the movie Hobgobblins. This should cause the blackhole to enter "terminal suckage phase" and end its existance.
(I throw in the NKotB tapes and the copy of Hobgobblins. The black hole immediately ceases to be)
Well, it looks like yet another experiment has occured.
Tune in next week when I will show everyone how to build a perpetual energy generator using a cat and a slice of buttered toast.
Commendable (Score:2)
Re:Commendable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Commendable (Score:5, Funny)
So, they'd be replacing New Mexico with something useful? And the catch is?
Re:Commendable (Score:4, Informative)
My guess is the picked the location for the nearby/cheap power, low labor costs, cheap land, and relatively low corporate taxes in Oregon. Plus there's great windsurfing just 20 miles down the river.. and it's a pretty place.
How big is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
The google campus doesnt have that many buildings, I have this weird image in my mind of all their buildings completely covered by solar panels.
Re:How big is it? (Score:5, Funny)
3nL4rG3 Y0uR S014R p4N3Ls!!!
Re:How big is it? (Score:5, Funny)
Yawn! (Score:3, Informative)
OK, to be serious, this is a wonderful leap. Granted, it took a company as flush with cash and as well organized as Google to make the switch, but even if they're much better suited to do so, they can at least be an example to strive for.
Eating their own dog food? (Score:2)
And yes, I'm too lazy to google for the facts, it's 10pm for me and I'm about to have dinner.
Crazy (Score:2)
make a little, share a little... (Score:1)
Re:make a little, share a little... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure google will share/sell what they don't use.
Microsoft's response (Score:2, Funny)
Ballmer unleashed....yes, a campus run on fear
Hours (Score:5, Funny)
victory is ours! (Score:2)
This is clearly the result of giving a cabal of nerds 130 billion dollars. Also, it's merely an order of magnitude short of the 1.21 gigawatts necessary for time travel.
Now (Score:3, Funny)
Install panels for data centers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming it's more like 80MW of power they consume (equivalent to ~60K homes), I wonder if there'd even be enough high quality solar panels to offset a majority of this power consumption? I guess it makes more sense for them to start building wind farms near their out-of-the-way GooglePlexes. Some 5MW wind turbines are being tested today - hmmm
BTW: here's a link to a more detailed article on the subject: SF Gate - Google sets sight on solar [sfgate.com]
Payback? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Payback? (Score:5, Funny)
What an age we live in.
All buildings should be solar (Score:1, Interesting)
Cost Savings.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Cost Savings.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cost savings, cost savings, cost saving... This is why humanity's lifespan as we know it will be much shorter than it could've been. It should not be just about the money and cost saving, but about nature saving, resource saving, human saving.
Any company who deploys renewable energy sources as a partial or total replacement, gets my support.
And, this news is proof for one more thing: geeks should have more money, they can do the coolest things.
Is this called 'late adoption'? (Score:3, Informative)
I love google but I call "Yippe Skip" (Score:3, Insightful)
It happens when your rich, I suppose.
Re:I love google but I call "Yippe Skip" (Score:5, Informative)
Solar power is simply a small way from being price competitive with established power generation. It is a viable energy source. It is not a net energy loss.
Way to go Google! (Score:1)
What this takes. (Score:5, Insightful)
OK. One square meter of solar panel is typically good for 130 watts at peak, but only about 655 watt hours per day, or 27 watts averaged over 24 hours. In other words, the average power is about 20% of the peak. So, to get 1.6 megawatts average power, you need about 60,000 square meters of panel, or an area 245 meters square. This is about two football fields of area, or three Wal-Mart Supercenter roofs.
A typical price for a good solar panel today is about $1000 for 160 watts peak. So to get 1.6 * 5 = 8 megawatts peak power, you need 50,000 of those panels, or about $50 million worth of panels. Batteries, inverters, and installation extra. (I suspect that Google is talking about 1.6MW of peak capacity, but that's a phony number to compare to other energy sources that can run 24 hours a day.)
There are already data centers that draw 30 megawatts continuous. That would take about a billion dollars worth of solar panels to power.
And by power plant standards, 30MW is dinky. Commercial power plants today run around a gigawatt.
Re:What this takes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What this takes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google will realize tax writeoffs for the whole thing, a one-time tax credit (or perhaps they will find a way to make the tax credit apply at a lower amount over multiple years), and above and beyond that they will see significantly reduced site power bills.
The next thing they need to be looking at is average power consumption per employee and find more efficient ways to work. Putting a PC on every desk is wasteful. One fat LTSP server per department (or for multiple departments!) and a thin client on every desk would be more than enough for most people. I did this at another shop a few years ago and it worked great. It's a real shame that most people are stuck in a rut and won't try a new way of doing things .
OK it's not a new way of doing things. The idea itself is really very old. But the technology has caught up with the idea, and it's now a very workable idea, unlike the old X terminal toasters of the early 1990's running on 10Mbps ethernet with lousy graphics chipsets and poor performance, with a couple of dozen people sharing a SPARCstation 5 (not enough machine for one person, let along 12).
Spy sats and black helicopters (Score:2)
Solar Power? (Score:2, Funny)
Nice but .... (Score:2)
Should carry this over to other campuses (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news (Score:1)
Checklist (Score:2)
Independent network? Check-ish.
Solar powered? Check.
Super-human AI. ????
ALL HAIL OMNI-SUPER-GOOGLE-MIND-BRAIN!
Google earth view (Score:1)
Solar? How Boring! (Score:2)
Solar PANEL? (Score:1)
1.6MW enough for 1,000 california homes? (Score:3, Informative)
Don't people in California have airconditioning?
The smallest contract my electricity company (EDF) will sell is 3kW, and nobody uses that 'cos your main circuit breaker would blow if you turned on a couple of electric heaters and a microwave.
As far as I can remember I've got an 18kW contract, so this thing would be able to power around 100 people like me.
(Personaly I'll stick with my nice PWR thankyou).
Google stockholders, REVOLT!, $170 mil lost (Score:2, Insightful)
Now your average square yard (or square meter, close enuf) solar panel can, if at right angles to the Sun, on a clear day, can put out maybe 160 watts.
So they could be planning on having 1,600,000 / 160, or ten thousand solar panels.
That's a pretty big number.
Now let's see if this is cost effective in any way:
Let's say they can get a quantity discount and can bargain the price down to, say, $1,000 each. (Current prices, with installation, are somewhere around $4,500, so we're being generous).
And let's also assume all the ancillary folderol of DC to AC converters costs only another 20% (probably closer to 40% in real life).
So we're talking about $1,200 per panel, $120,000,000 for the whole shebang. Chump change for Google.
Actually, literally "chump Change".
Becuz those panels, over a 24-hour average, although they can peak out at 160 watts each, if you take into account unavoidable things like "night" and "clouds", the average power is closer to 15 to 30 watts.
Now scientists tell us there are about 8760 hours in a year. Thirty watts for a year is about 263,000 watt-hours, or lets round it up to 300 kilowatt-hours. Multiply it by the number of panels, and that's an impressive 3,000,000 kilowatt hours. At a rate of 10 cents each, they can save $300,000 a year. If we are extremely optimistic, and assume the panels will last 15 years, they will save $4,500,000 over their lifetime.
"Good for the environment", at a first glance. "Gives you warm and fuzzy feelings", for sure.
Of course, if you do the math, $120 million spent, a return of $4.5 mil, that's not so good if you're an accountant.
It's actually worse than that, as if you keep the $120 million in the bank, it will garner at least $54 million at just 3% interest, risk free, leaving $174 million in the bank. So Google will lose about $170 million on this project.
But if you are a STOCKHOLDER in the CORPORATION, you should be apalled. One Hundred Seventty Million Dollars down the drain. Your Money.
Even if energy prices QUADRUPLED over the next 15 years, they will still lose over $120 million. Yipes.
If I owned any Google stock, I'd be pissed.
Cool stuff (Score:2)
too bad they're not in the desert... (Score:2)
1/3 from the sun... (Score:2)
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/ [digitalelite.com]
A good thing!!! (Score:1)
I think it is time to start looking at alternatives and Google starting this initiative to power their workplaces with solar power is a good thing in my opinion. I could only whish that more companies started to experiment with those kinds of things.
It would be ideal if in lets say 10 years all new offices should be equipped with there own alternative energy supply, think solar power, wind power,... It is not a thing of extremist save the world kind op people, it is a thing for modern corporations to protect their way of doing business for the future.
1.21 Gigawatts?! (Score:1)
50/50 (Score:2)
directly into the UPS? (Score:2)
In America we pay you! (Score:1)
They're not the first to use solar (Score:2)
There was also mention on that episode of a new "solar paint", using nanotech, that the scientists envision painting buildings with, so the buildings can be self powered and only on the grid for backup power. Neat stuff.
Reducing energy use is more important (Score:2, Insightful)
From the article: The solar array will be "... capable of generating 1.6 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power 1,000 California homes" however, "the company will rely on solar power to supply nearly a third of the electricity consumed by office workers at its roughly one-million-square-foot headquarters" (emphasis added).
The way I read that, the Google campus uses over 4.8 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power over 3,000 California homes, just for the offices, excluding the server farms and data centres.
Alternate energy sources are great and I'm all for them, but the only long term solution is to be smarter about energy use and use less of it. For example, I've recently replaced my home PC with one using a Pentium M motherboard and cut my PC power consumption in half. Similarly, turning off devices instead of putting them on standby, and taking other measures such as replacing lightbulbs with low-energy bulbs all helps reduce my personal energy consumption.
In a business context, how about turning off office lights at night or going for motion sensor solutions so you aren't lighting empty space? Encouraging employees to turn off workstations overnight, etc. I've no idea if Google does something along these lines already, this isn't an attack on them.
My 2 cents.
I've been at Idealab! (Score:1)
The entire building is supposedly off the grid, and the price is relatively low to actually produce. I won't reveal how bloody cheap it is, but it is really is insanely cheap to produce. I thought it was a great idea, but to be honest, unless it's hidden away (like on the roof), it is quite ugly to look at.
Some Basic facts... (Score:1, Informative)
The point of these systems is to be able to provide some of the power that a building needs. NOT ALL OF IT!
More importantly, the peark Solar power is available when the Utility companies need it most -- when it's bright and sunny outside and the air conditioning load is hammering the utility grid. That's when the power companies need to buy 'peak power' from outside of California. And peak power costs butt loads of cash. Sometimes 10 to 15 times more than 'non-peak' power.
Here's a link to the real time power consumption for the state of California. Click on the graph for lots of details,
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html [caiso.com]
At the worst, the red line will peak at over 54 Gigawatts.
Here's a real time display of a working solar power system used by a business, http://www.fatspaniel.com/datapage.html [fatspaniel.com]
Google's system will be the same, just bigger.
Let's stop all this silliness about 'running the office on Solar' and 'DC Powered Offices'.
The Solar panels make DC. The panels get connected in series until the voltage from the panels adds up to about 600 VDC. These structures are called 'Strings'.
Strings get connected in parallel to Inverters. Inverters convert the DC into AC.
If you want to play with an online system for configuring strings, go here, http://www.sma-america.com/solar-technology/solar
The outputs of the Inverters are connected into the building's electrical system.
The main power for the building comes from the utility company.
The Inverters will try to deliver as much power as they can to the power system in the building. Any 'extra' power is delivered back into the utility grid. Google gets a credit for what get's delivered to the gird. That credit reduces their monthly energy bill.
It would be insanely expensive to try to convert an office to DC.
Also, Solar panels won't be able to provide power during all of their business hours -- and it's simply not economically viable to build a battery system to store the energy and recover it later.
Gives a whole new meaning to ... (Score:1)
Why homes? (Score:2)
I would have expected them to use it to power their office building. How many servers could it power?
Ballmer announced MSFT installing coal generators (Score:2)
energy balance and embedded environmental impacts (Score:1)
Google too powerful? (Score:5, Funny)
I think I heard a story about it once...
Re:Google too powerful? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google too powerful? (Score:5, Funny)
Technician 1: I got it! We can just shut off the power!
Technician 2: No such luck. It's solar powered.
Technician 1: Solar power! When will people learn?
Re:Long Term Benefit? (Score:2)
Re:Long Term Benefit? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the boys from They Might Be Giants summed it up best.
The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where hydrogen is built into helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees
Yo ho, it's hot, the sun is not
A place where we could live
But here on Earth there'd be no life
Without the light it gives
We need its light
We need its heat
We need its energy
Without the sun, without a doubt
There'd be no you and me
The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where hydrogen is built into helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees
The sun is hot
It is so hot that everything on it is a
gas: iron, copper, aluminum, and many others.
The sun is large
If the sun were hollow, a million
Earths could fit inside. And yet, the
sun is only a middle-sized star.
The sun is far away
About 93 million miles away, and that's why it
looks so small.
And even when it's out of sight
The sun shines night and day
The sun gives heat
The sun gives light
The sunlight that we see
The sunlight comes from our own sun's
Atomic energy
Scientists have found that the sun is a huge
atom-smashing machine. The heat and light of
the sun come from the nuclear reactions of
hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and helium.
The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where hydrogen is built into helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees
Re:Long Term Benefit? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Long Term Benefit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Long Term Benefit? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Long Term Benefit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't enough of it end up reducing the effectiveness of the panels?
Re:Long Term Benefit? (Score:5, Funny)
Goatse.cx (mod down, maybe?) (Score:2)
Economic, not environmental. (Score:4, Informative)
If you measure it as "payback of the purchase price", it could be as little as 2.5 years, depending on the specific technology.
If you measure it as ERoEI, it's generally acknowledged by everyone except die-hard solar power advocates that the ratio of Energy Returned over Energy Input for solar is less than 1, unless you use very very recent strained Silicon-based technology, which barely hit break-even earlier this year.
If you use thin film technology the purchase price payback grows to 4 years, and the Payback ERoEI drops to about 0.8.
There's also the little problem of there being a shortage of polycrystaline Silicon, from which solar cells are made. This shortage is expected to last through at least 2008, since it takes about 3 years to build a manufacturing plant for it, and that's what would have to happen to reduce the cost overhead.
So for right now, any decision to switch to solar by Google is going to be an economic one, rather than an environmental one.
This makes sense, since Larry Page and Sergey Brin are invested in a Solar power startup, Nanosolar http://www.techreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17
Since Nanosolar is a thin-film photovoltaic shop, we are looking at a longer economic payback time; their output capacity after their plant is built will be 430MW of cells per year, so this will eaither be the first run cells, or it will be about a day and a half of cell output at their full production capacity.
FWIW, the 1.6MW capacity is going to put them at ~1/500th of the total US Solar capacity, which as of this year is at 927MW, for just this one installation. Comparatively, total US solar capacity is only 85% of the output of one of the two reactors at Diablo Canyon (1087MW each), while total US wind power capacity is 10,000MW and growing by 3,000MW in 2006 alone, according th AWEA (the American Wind Energy Association).
-- Terry
Re:Economic, not environmental. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Economic, not environmental. (Score:5, Interesting)
There still seems to be a popular belief that PV systems cannot 'pay back' their energy investment. The data from recent studies show however that although for present-day systems the EPBT can still be high, it is generally well below the expected life time of a PV system
Re:1.6 Megawatts is hardly news (Score:2)
http://www.jaeri.go.jp/english/press/980618/gif/t
Re:Long Term Benefit? (Score:2)
In terms of energy, it takes about 6 years for a typical monocrystalline panel to make as much energy as it took to make the panel.
Most panels are guaranteed for 25 years, but should last a good bit longer, although they tend to lose efficiency as they age. They should still put out at least 80% of rated power at 25 years old.
Re:Long Term Benefit? (Score:1)
1: It goes with their motto. (Do no evil)
2: It gives them a proving ground for their solar investment and on a fairly large scale. (and on this topic, don't you think their investment might have paid off with some R&D to make solar panels more efficent? I mean they don't invest just for the sake of investing).
3: It saves them some money for the long term use of their data centers.
Also, remember I doubt seriously that they are going to switch over completely to solar power.. I suspect its more like redundancy power "Sun's on full?.. then dial down the Grid (not off)... Clouds are out, then crank it up to 11").
Give them the benefit of the doubt to see how this plays out. But lets not throw stones when all we know is one small piece of the puzzle. For all we know, it may pay off... I personally suspect it will (not to the extent that they might believe but succeed it will). But I'm content to let it ride a little before we start throwing stones.