

Google's Goal: Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal - nickb
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20071127_green.html

======
pg
It is amazing to me that on the day Google announces they're going into the
power business, the top story is an xkcd cartoon. Electric power is really
fundamental. Change how it's generated, and you change a lot. And Google could
make a real difference. They have brains and money and a willingness to do new
things. And (equally important) they can be their own beta user.

I grew up in this world; my father designed nuclear reactors. Hidebound
doesn't begin to describe the power business. It's not (just) a conspiracy by
a few big, classically evil companies. There is a whole culture of inertia. It
is very exciting to think of Google doing a cannonball into that particular
swimmming pool.

This announcement also shows how startlingly ambitious Google's plans are.
Could you imagine Microsoft or Oracle, even at the peak of their founders'
energy, doing something like this?

~~~
rms
It was a pretty good xkcd cartoon, you've gotta admit.

~~~
pg
Sure. But a good xkcd cartoon is still just a well-painted bicycle shed.

------
ivankirigin
It's refreshing to see the less-than sign in the name of the initiative. Cost
of Renewables < Cost of Coal

People whine and whine about responsibility for energy, while everyone chooses
the cheapest energy available. This is a feature not a bug, and the same
motivating force that makes our lives so astoundingly good by historic
standards.

The problem with conventional approaches to alternative energy is the hope
that non-solutions can help. They can't. Hybrid cars are not electric cars. A
silicon based photovoltaic system will consume more energy (and money) in
production than it will save. A popular acronym is EROEI: energy returned on
energy invested. Non-solutions have EROEI close to or less than 1.

Potential solutions are those where $/Watt < $/Watt_Coal and EROEI>1\. It is
rare to see people that understand this. Google does.

Thermal solar systems are the way to go, especially in California.

~~~
byrneseyeview
I wonder what kind of cost they're using, though. Is it marginal cost (on
which solar already wins) or return on capital, and does the cost of capital
include the cost of research?

The only way I can think of actually trying this is to sell future contracts
for, say 1% of Google's alt-power production in 2008, 2009, etc., and to
declare the project a success iff the value of 1% of the power, indefinitely,
X 100, is less than the amount invested in the project.

~~~
ivankirigin
Solar doesn't win on marginal cost. What are you talking about? The marginal
silicon based photovoltaic system has higher $/W than marginal increases in
capacity of coal burning plants.

Why sell futures? Can't they sell energy or at least shares of companies they
are investing in?

~~~
byrneseyeview
Marginal cost as in the cost of generating X+1 Watts versus X Watts. With
coal, you dig for more coal; with solar, you wait for more sunlight. The
systems (coal plants, photovoltaic systems) are capital costs.

~~~
ivankirigin
Then to answer your question, people look to capital costs for the cost of
energy. Considering the rate of expansion of energy demand, it is the only
number that matters.

------
rms
This would be a really big deal if they could beat coal energy inside of a
decade. That would justify their stock price in an instant. Energy is the only
resource that matters. Energy is the best industry to be in out of all of the
industries, except maybe banking.

> Webcast and Conference Call Information

Google's renewable energy initiative call begins today at 9:00 AM (PT) / 12:00
PM (ET). A replay of the call will be available beginning at 11:30 PM (ET)
today through midnight Tuesday, December 4th, 2007 by calling 888-203-1112 in
the United States or 719-457-0820 for calls from outside the United States.
The required confirmation code for the replay is 2205214.

Anyone care to put this conference call up as an MP3?

~~~
Goladus
I agree on energy being most important, but others that matter are air, water,
and food(unless you count food as energy). Also human organs and blood for
medicine.

Air probably shouldn't be underestimated. Consider that you can live for weeks
without food and days without water, but without air you'll be dead in
minutes.

~~~
rms
Water -- a desalinization plant allows you to convert energy into water.

Air -- we can bottle as much pure air as we want with energy.

Food -- yes, it takes energy to make food, whether it is grown in the grown or
fed food that was grown or completely artificial.

Human organs and blood -- this is a resource separate from energy, but only
because of medical ethics. If it wasn't unethical to grow/create people for
transplantation/transfusion purposes, we could convert energy to medical
resources. This will hopefully become practical overtime, when science allows
us to clone organs without making a whole human.

~~~
Goladus
I didn't dispute any of that.

------
KB
Not to long ago I interviewed with EnerNOC in Boston (<http://enernoc.com>)
for an R&D position. They are working in green energy and have some really
interesting things going on. Not to mention a decent amount cash to work with
since they went public this year.

Renewable and green energy initiatives are getting big and looks to be a
market to make some serious cash in.

------
inovica
I think this is excellent news. Google is sitting on a pile of cash and it
will take someone with vision to do this. Governments are so tied in to the
oil machine that their hands are effectively tied. Good luck Google!

------
Elfan
Did anything every come of their push for more energy efficient computers?

[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/technology/26google.html?e...](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/technology/26google.html?ex=1316923200&en=dd5a0e8e81a42b4b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

