Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Power

Google Says It Is About To Reach 100 Percent Renewable Energy (blog.google) 176

Posted by msmash from the doing-earth-a-favor dept.
Google said today it will power 100 percent of its sprawling data centers and offices with renewable energy starting next year. The company said today it has bought enough wind and solar power to account for all the electricity it uses globally each year. In comparison, 44 percent of Google's power supplies came from renewables last year. From a blogpost: To reach this goal we'll be directly buying enough wind and solar electricity annually to account for every unit of electricity our operations consume, globally. And we're focusing on creating new energy from renewable sources, so we only buy from projects that are funded by our purchases. Over the last six years, the cost of wind and solar came down 60 percent and 80 percent, respectively, proving that renewables are increasingly becoming the lowest cost option. Electricity costs are one of the largest components of our operating expenses at our data centers, and having a long-term stable cost of renewable power provides protection against price swings in energy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Says It Is About To Reach 100 Percent Renewable Energy More

Google Says It Is About To Reach 100 Percent Renewable Energy

Comments Filter:

  • Stealing people personal data and providing it to advertisers to better target Ads. No amount of Greenwashing is going to help with that. I dont trust any company which at its very beginning has such a megalomaniacal view of itself that it makes its logo "Do no Evil" . if I was starting a search company the potential for Evil would not even popup in my mind but even at that early stage Google founders were aware of how much abusable power they had in their hands. Google has too much power. Time for the FTC

    • Re:Greenwash (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FyRE666 ( 263011 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @12:50PM (#53433439) Homepage

      "if I was starting a search company the potential for Evil would not even popup in my mind" and that's why you're not a billionaire, and Serge is.

    • Time for the FTC to Break Google up into multiple companies and separate the Search and Ads so that Google Search can be used with Bing Ads and Bing search can be used with Google Ads

      Not one of us deserves to live in the ensuing paradise such a scheme would create.

      (BTW, the FTC doesn't break up companies. That's the job of the DOJ)

    • I dont trust any company which at its very beginning has such a megalomaniacal view of itself that it makes its logo "Do no Evil" .

      Fair enough, but what large, successful company *doesn't* have the opportunity to be evil? I don't view that as megalomaniacal, I view it as taking the viewpoint that you may one day be wildly successful. I'm not suggesting that they've adhered to this motto exactly, but compared to banks, agrochem and pharma (in particular Monsanto's pending merger with Bayer), the food/tobacco industry (in particular Altria)...

      Yes, it's a mildly disturbing motto [xkcd.com], but at least they're confronting it head-on. Just my opi

    • Stealing people personal data and providing it to advertisers to better target Ads.

      It's not stealing when people give it up willingly. You can argue that isn't a good deal for users of Google products but it isn't theft.

  • Great! (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by ooloorie ( 4394035 )

    To reach this goal we'll be directly buying enough wind and solar electricity annually to account for every unit of electricity our operations consume, globally. And we're focusing on creating new energy from renewable sources, so we only buy from projects that are funded by our purchases. Over the last six years, the cost of wind and solar came down 60 percent and 80 percent, respectively, proving that renewables are increasingly becoming the lowest cost option. Electricity costs are one of the largest com

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      Which tells you that no government incentives or actions are needed: if this is a reasonable accounting of costs, companies will switch to renewables all by themselves.

      Of course, since the US is all about fair competition-you know, free market and all-then we can safely remove government subsidies to other forms of power such as oil or coal as well. We wouldn't want one segment of an industry working with an unfair advantage now, would we?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Well, until Trump or Pence given them millions in tax breaks to send thousands of jobs out of the country...

      • Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by danbert8 ( 1024253 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @01:25PM (#53433807)

        Modded insightful? What are you calling a oil or coal subsidy? Generally when people talk about subsidies for fossil fuels, they are really pulling bullshit out of their asses. Are there tax breaks and funds that indirectly go to oil and coal companies? Yes. Are those direct fossil fuel subsidies? Not really. They are tax benefits for capital construction that apply to all industries. Depreciation benefits that apply to all mining and resource industries. When they tout the really big numbers for oil subsidies they usually throw in infrastructure spending that benefits cars regardless of fuel source (but happens to be primarily oil based). Maybe some home heating subsidies which usually means gas, electricity from coal, or heating oil. Maybe they include military and civilian fuel purchases by the government that happen to be based on fossil fuels.

        Those aren't really subsidies for fossil fuels as much as they are the reality that to provide energy, you have to generally use fossil fuels for a lot of it at this point. So those huge "coal and oil subsidies" are really just energy subsidies.

        • Re:Great! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by archer, the ( 887288 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @04:51PM (#53435559)
          Other than coal, oil, and gas companies being allowed to dump their waste into the atmosphere, causing health problems and climate change for which the rest of us are paying by means of health coverage and property insurance?

          • Well I guess we are all getting subsidies then because you dump your waste into the atmosphere as well. Also, it's not really the oil and gas companies that are dumping their waste into the air, it's the consumers of the fuel...

        • Add'ly, Google can't take too much pride just as yet until they've saved the amount of energy in fossil fuel consumption it took to manufacture all the renewable energy equipment they bought. Manufacture of solar cells, batteries, wind turbines, wiring.. those items are still being manufactured in factories using fossil fuels, so until the factories are themselves powered 100% by renewable, it's not a total conversion from fossil fuels. That's gonna take many years more.

        • Re:Great! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by bluegutang ( 2814641 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @06:29PM (#53436295)

          The real subsidies for fossil fuels are military (trillions spent in the Middle East to secure our oil supply) and medical (massive amounts of exhaust pumped in the atmosphere and no need to pay for the resulting medical harm).

          • Here's a hint, the majority of fossil fuels in the USA doesn't come from the Middle East. Almost all coal and natural gas is domestically produced or imported from Canada (lots of military spending there...). Well over half of the oil we use in the US is now domestically produced as well. http://needtoknow.nas.edu/ener... [nas.edu]

            Also, that exhaust pumped into the atmosphere is mostly CO2 which isn't known to cause any medical problems in concentrations found in the atmosphere. You might have had a point when TEL wa

            • The price of oil is determined by the worldwide supply, which includes the Middle East.

              Exhaust is "mostly" CO2, but also contains nasty substances like mercury or nitrogen dioxide in quantities that are high enough to harm human health.

        • While there are technically few subsidies in our accounting books for fossil fuel energies, please don't ignore the many expenses that are externalized and pushed onto taxpayers, consumers, and the government.

          1. How about the Iraq war and other "oil wars" in the Middle East? I think we should count the financial cost of those when we calculate the extra cost of fossil fuels. Not even to mention the loss of life incurred as a result of fighting over oil, which has reached millions.

          2. How about environmental

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Lucas123 ( 935744 )
        I always get a kick out of people who think subsidies for the nascent renewable energy industry is unfair because I can then point out that global fossil fuel subsidies represent about 6.5% of global GDP. That's $5.3 trillion in subsidies in 2015 alone. And those subsidies have been ongoing for decades even though I think we can all agree that industry doesn't need it -- never did.

        • I am for solar subsidies, but danbert8 did already respond to OP with how the numbers you used are being misrepresented. Almost all of the "trillion in subsidies" to oil is subsidies to customers, tax free diesiel for farmers, oil bought for our national defense for the petroleum reserve, tax breaks for other customers based on their oil consumption. This drives up the cost of oil, which does benefit big oil indirectly. Where as the Solar subsidies are direct to producers, to lower the cost of solar. S

          • Actually, parent specifically said "global fossil fuel subsidies," not "US fossil fuel subsidies." Your comment and danbert8's comment applies only to the US. Lucas123 is correct.

            The grandparent danbert8's comment (modded +5 insightful, I suspect the mods are either biased or sleeping) states some facts but completely ignores the bigger picture. The social, economic, and environmental cost of fossil fuel use is not accurately depicted when you look at just government subsidies. I won't copy/paste my reply t

      • Of course, since the US is all about fair competition-you know, free market and all-then we can safely remove government subsidies to other forms of power such as oil or coal as well. We wouldn't want one segment of an industry working with an unfair advantage now, would we?

        Indeed, favor abolishing all energy subsidies (as well as all agricultural subsidies for that matter).

        There is some disagreement about US energy subsidies [wikipedia.org]. By one accounting, renewable energy is subsidized by about $7.3b, while fossil fu

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dave420 ( 699308 )

          You are forgetting the atmospheric mess they release, which is not factored in to the prices. If fossil fuels included all their costs in their product they wouldn't be nearly as competitive.

          • You are forgetting the atmospheric mess they release, which is not factored in to the prices. If fossil fuels included all their costs in their product they wouldn't be nearly as competitive.

            No, I'm not "forgetting" that; I've looked at that data and concluded that it is already accounted for. In any case, those are not the same as "subsidies".

            But feel free to try to do the calculation yourself and then try to make a compelling argument.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Except of course in order for that wind/solar/renewable power to work, spinning generation from fossil fuels MUST be running to regulate voltage.

      So no, it's not going to 100% renewable, ever.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ghoul ( 157158 )

        One word. Storage. Yes it can be 100% renewable. It just needs investment in storage to smooth the power peaks and troughs. Right now as Fossil plants are already built its cheaper to use them for base load instead of putting in storage for peak load. However as these plants get decommisioned they will be replaced with more green plants and more storage till we reach a point where we are fully renewable with storage.

    • Which tells you that no government incentives or actions are needed: if this is a reasonable accounting of costs, companies will switch to renewables all by themselves.

      I'm afraid not. First off the competing fossil fuels receive substantial subsidies from the government. Worse, fossil fuels do not have to pay for a large portion of the pollution (including carbon) that they create so their prices are artificially low. Second, while renewables are becoming cheaper they aren't the lowest cost option just yet outside of some corner cases. Getting them to be the lowest cost option likely will require some amount of financial and/or regulatory support for a while longer.

      • First off the competing fossil fuels receive substantial subsidies from the government

        Google is saying that "renewables are increasingly becoming the lowest cost option" taking into account current cost structures. Furthermore, fossil fuels are not, actually, very much subsidized per unit of energy.

        Worse, fossil fuels do not have to pay for a large portion of the pollution (including carbon) that they create so their prices are artificially low.

        Again, Google is saying that "renewables are increasingly becom

  • Indulgences (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @12:53PM (#53433481) Journal

    And we're focusing on creating new energy from renewable sources, so we only buy from projects that are funded by our purchases.

    What exactly does that mean? Buying green power isn't really all that green: the renewable power you are consuming is power that is not going to be consumed by someone else. To be really green you need to work towards significantly increasing green energy [\production, not consumption. True, what they do does increase demand which may help drive investments in renewables. But I'd be more impressed if they would actually generate most of the power they need themselves. At the scale they use it, that should be economically feasible too.

    • Re:Indulgences (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @02:09PM (#53434247) Homepage Journal

      By buying renewable energy you increase demand for renewable energy. It's not a zero sum game, if there is demand it increases the price of renewable energy and encourages investment to build more of it. And Google does in fact build its own renewable energy systems too, on its campuses and at its datacentres.

      • Buying green power isn't really all that green: the renewable power you are consuming is power that is ...

        By buying renewable energy you increase demand for renewable energy...

        Right now it is a mix of both.

        In many areas the power grid is only energized by fossil fuels. In other areas the power grid is only energized by hydro power, or by wind power, or by other 'renewable' energy.

        You cannot truly increase demand for hydro power in an area without significant amounts of moving water, or increase demand for wind power in an area that seldom has high wind, or increase demand for solar power in an area that isn't suited for it. The initial costs to building whatever infrastructure

        • Once electricity is in the grid, it is fungible.

          It doesn't matter where you displace the fossil fuel generation with renewable sources, it only matters that the fossil fuel generation is displaced.

          • Once electricity is in the grid, it is fungible.

            Within a local network, yes.

            But power in Los Angeles is a totally different system from the power in Portland, which are totally different systems from the one in New York City, which are totally different systems from the one in Dublin Ireland.

            If the local power grid is powered entirely by fossil fuels, extra energy credits will not replace it with wind or solar or hydro power. Only building a new energy source (expensive) or running cables to another power supply (expensive and also suffers from energy l

            • But power in Los Angeles is a totally different system from the power in Portland

              Wrong: [wikipedia.org]

              All of the electric utilities in the Western Interconnection are electrically tied together during normal system conditions and operate at a synchronized frequency of 60 Hz. The Western Interconnection stretches from Western Canada south to Baja California in Mexico, reaching eastward over the Rockies to the Great Plains.

              There are basically 3 grids in the USA: Western, Eastern and Texas.

  • Interesting wording (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @01:00PM (#53433559)

    So they aren't necessarily using renewable energy, they are buying it? This sounds more like they're paying money to companies who have renewable energy credits to sell. They may also be taking part in that travel scam where you don't have to change how much your people fly and waste jet fuel at all... you just swap credits with other non-flying people and say you're being "green".

    Someone in an earlier comment used the term "indulgences" - and it really is a lot like the medieval practice where rich people would pay the Vatican basically for pre-approved forgiveness of whatever unethical / immoral thing they were planning to do.

    • Yeah, it's like planting a tree to offset a tree getting cut down... it's not quite the same thing but the end result, the part that matters, is pretty much the same.

      Because Google is buying all this renewable energy, it is adding to the market for renewable energy, which in turn drives competition for renewable energy companies, etc, etc.

    • So they aren't necessarily using renewable energy, they are buying it?

      This is supreme court justice level of contrived thinking. Do you buy energy and just keep it laying around the house? Or do you buy only the exact amount of energy you are consuming? If the end result is to direct money towards green energy projects in the hope they will be more viable and start taking over a larger portion of the grid, then yes this is achieving that goal perfectly.

  • "There's a giant coal plant outside our offices providing power....but we purchased electricity credits in some far off land to offset this"

    My local power corp allows me to purchase Green Energy too -- all through the same wires. I get to pay more for the same electricity coming to my house - but am lead to believe it really came from a solar panel somewhere on a mountain.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ledow ( 319597 )

      More like:

      "There's a giant coal plant outside our offices **smack bang in the middle of a large city already contributing to peak power usage where electricity costs a fortune** providing power....but we purchased electricity credits in some far off land **where it's dirt cheap because it can't be practically transported to anywhere so they can't sell it to anyone else** to offset this"

  • Sigh (Score:5, Informative)

    by ledow ( 319597 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @01:07PM (#53433649) Homepage

    So, am I about to reach 100% veganism if:

    "I eat meat all day long, but I pay someone else to eat only vegetables too, so that's alright, isn't it?"

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So, am I about to reach 100% veganism if:

      "I eat meat all day long, but I pay someone else to eat only vegetables too, so that's alright, isn't it?"

      Sure does! I used this to stay pure for marriage, by paying others not to have sex.

      • Sure does! I used this to stay pure for marriage, by paying others not to have sex.

        Paying others is a non-issue if the others you are considering are already married.

    • No. Only if your goal was to prop up the vegetable industry. You can't chose where your power comes from, but you can chose who the costs get directed to.

      If the goal was to kill one less cow, then yes your silly contrived example achieved it's goal.

  • Honestly, this is just getting embarrassing for you green fanatics. You don't seen to understand at all how the grid works AT ALL.

    The fact that you can just buy your power from a so called renewable resource power company doesn't mean that you're not still pulling power from the same coal fire power plants that are the BACK BONE of the US power infrastructure. They're not 'bottling up' that electrics and shipping it to the Google. You're just buying more expensive power so you can feel like you're doing

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ghoul ( 157158 )

      However it does help in getting more investments into Green Power as the electricity companies are able to sell it at a premium. Its like a Ford and a BMW. The difference in specs does not really justify the difference in price. Electricity is electricity and transportation is transportation but if someone is willing to pay a premium you can use the extra money to build in features which are not necessary but nice to have like renewability.

      • So basically your BRILLIANT plan is to just eat the cost and buy expensive electricity. Because it MIGHT make it cheaper... eventually. Because power need will NEVER go up, solar panes and wind turbines will NEVER wear out way faster than they'll ever make their money back, and all the massive subsidies for solar and wind power will ALWAYS be there.

        This is exactly the problem with you fanatics. You always talk about what it MIGHT be eventually, yet you can't be bothered to EDUCATE YOURSELF in how it work

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ghoul ( 157158 )

          Some people like buying BMWs. Some like buying Green Power. Its a free market though BMWs can only be sold as govt pays subsidies to create roads on which going over 50 miles an hour is safe.

        • solar panes and wind turbines will NEVER wear out way faster than they'll ever make their money back,

          You are the fanatic. you are the one who needs education.

          You are wrong. The idea that wind and solar never pay back is just one of the fossil fuel lobby's lies about renewables. The idea that wind and solar don't provide cost-effective sources of energy is ridiculous. Yes, it's taken some time to get there, but we have arrived. Coal is dying because it's too expensive.

          I hope the Koch brothers pay you well

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ghoul ( 157158 )

            The problem with Solar is not that you cant make a panel which pays back for itself. The problem is pollution. The manufacturing of a Solar Panel creates a lot of pollution including heavy metals which when they get into the water supply cause cancer. They are also a hazard during a house fire. Plus the battery backup needed for Solar causes more pollution both at manufacture as well as disposal time. All of these societal costs are not charged to the Solar manufacturer or consumer and are paid for by Socie

            • Solar doesn't necessarily need battery backup, although this does make it more useful. In large parts of the world, demand for electricity is highest when the sun is shining.

              We are at an early stage and recycling is not important yet, but it will. There are too many materials used in batteries for it not to become viable to recycle in the future.

              As for your comment about birds, that's out of date. The newest (and largest) turbines don't have anything like the same kill rate.

              The problem with CNG is that its

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ghoul ( 157158 )

                Even if wind doesnt kill birds its still an Eyesore.
                As for CNG, CNG or methane can be got from Biogass plants - Cowshit and farm waste fermented anaerobically. it doesnt have to be mined out of the ground so its not causing additional damage. Also we are far from getting off Oil (especially for transport gas is a lot safer than huge batteries which can explode) and as long as Oil is extracted Gas is going to be there.

                Eventually we will move to Nuclear Fusion but till that comes around for cities with a grid

    • Well, to be fair, this is about working within the capitalist system. We don't have ubiquitous green power plants right now. We have a lot of coal and gas powered utilities today.

      But how do we get to a point where it is more economical to build a green power plant instead of a "dirty" one? One way is government subsidy, which is sort of happening. Another way is to make green power plants actually cheaper. How do we do that though if "dirty" power is cheaper? You get some major players like Google to prop u

      • Yes, once again we have another green fanatic talking about the POTENTIAL of green technology, when it still doesn't work NOW. Just because you've read a lot of Facebook stories about new green tech doesn't mean it works for a national power infrastructure.
    • Apparently you fail the grasp the facts that our reliance on carbon based energy like coal and oil is causing us many different environmental problems.
      Forget about climate change and just focus on air pollution:
      https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
      https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
      http://www.ibtimes.com/china-a... [ibtimes.com]

      I really fail to understand why people continue to support an energy and technology that we have been using since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
      It is time to grow up and move o

    • The fact that you can just buy your power from a so called renewable resource power company doesn't mean that you're not still pulling power from the same coal fire power plants that are the BACK BONE of the US power infrastructure. They're not 'bottling up' that electrics and shipping it to the Google.

      Calm down. We all know that. You don't seem to grasp that it doesn't matter on a net basis whether Google consumes the power themselves or not. Google needs X joules of power and they pay for X joules to be generated from renewable sources. Whether they use it themselves or not has EXACTLY the same effect on the ecosystem overall.

      You're just buying more expensive power so you can feel like you're doing something.

      They are doing something. They are subsidizing the development of renewable energy. Early adopters always pay more. It's a good thing that they are doing and with the amount

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • You gotta start somewhere (Score:3)

    by Billy the Mountain ( 225541 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @01:38PM (#53433931) Journal
    1. It's a good start for what could be considered to be a chicken-and-egg problem.
    2. It tells any local would-be renewable energy company that chooses to step in that there is local demand for your product.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Except it doesn't. Does paying welfare to homeless people say that there is a demand for homeless people?

      The most outrageous part of this is that it is 'fake news' & nobody will call Google or any news organization that runs this out on it. This is entirely a marketing spin.

      So the world of 'news' gets more grey every day & the 'news media' and 'elites' wonder why.

  • Renewable energy is a buzzword from the 90's
    Modern fossil fuel harvest methods mean that there is no real shortage and we will have fossil fuels to burn indefinitely.
    Ethanol and bio-diesel renewable even though there less carbon effecent than fossil fuels.
    If Google ran there data centers on burning baby kittens, that would be renewable.

    The new hotness is carbon neutral and I guarantee that Google's data centers are not.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't panic.

Close