Google Goes Green 374
foobsr writes "Google today announced its RE<C project to make renewable energy cheaper than coal in the near future. The company, and its charitable arm google.org, plan to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the initiative. Larry Page stated: 'With talented technologists, great partners and significant investments, we hope to rapidly push forward. Our goal is to produce one gigawatt of renewable energy capacity that is cheaper than coal. We are optimistic this can be done in years, not decades.'"
Nuk-u-lar (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait, we don't like that kind of renewable resource...
Go Google (Score:5, Insightful)
I have spent so long lamenting the short-sightedness of American business, that it's easy to overlook the fact that at least some companies are willing to stake their immediate earnings on potentially much greater gains in the future. It's therefore very nice to see Google at the forefront of energy innovation because, let's face it, as a geek, that's exactly where I'd be pouring a fair portion of my post-billionaire funds. That and space... but alas Brin hasn't decided to finance his own airospace company YET...
It's just a matter of time (Score:2, Insightful)
Just one gigawatt? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about energy storage? (Score:4, Insightful)
why name Gates and Jobs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly Gates doesn't have to do anything in the renewable energy market, what he is doing through his foundation is saving more lives than can be counted, not exploiting current pc trends towards "everything global warming", doing proven work that benefits people today. Hell, his foundation is more important than Microsoft in my book. Trade some "evil" here for worlds of good elsewhere.
As for Apple, they list many iniatives. Why do they have to be energy related to qualify for points? They do a lot in the recycling arena. They make a big thing out of ensuring their equipment is recyclable and is moving to using non-dangerous/polluting means of making it.
Re:gMatrix (Score:5, Insightful)
Skies darkened to block out the Sun so that their solar power sources would be negated? Well, duh. What was stopping them from building taller solar power collectors that were above the black stuff? Neo and Trinity penetrated the layer, didn't they?
Alternatively, they could have used whatever power source the remaining free humans were using: Zion wasn't powered by human batteries, was it?
Worst Plot Hole Ever.
Re:Disregard carbon; pay attention to all else (Score:4, Insightful)
With even Patrick Moore (the founder of Greenpeace) realising that nuclear power (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html [washingtonpost.com]) is the way forward, so-called "environmentalists" need to get a clue. The nuclear waste argument is almost entirely moot thanks breeder reactors, as has already been pointed out.
There are more deaths in the coal industry per measure of power produced, than in the nuclear power industry (including mining, catastrophes, meltdowns).
The fact that some environmentalists actually attempt to hinder the obviously superior, and obviously more environmentally healthy option of nuclear power is a testament to their reactionary and brainless nature.
Re:How about energy storage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that even at very high voltages you lose significant amounts of power to line resistance when you send electricity long distances.
Maybe when we develop very low temperature, dirt cheap superconductors electricity will become a global commodity, but until then it's destined to be consumed relatively locally.
Re:why name Gates and Jobs? (Score:5, Insightful)
The total amount of energy available to the Earth increases over time. We haven't even scratched the surface of exploiting what we have, let alone optimized the exploitation of energy that comes in continuously that is currently unused.
Hence, no zero sum game. In other words, I don't have to take energy from you in order to increase the energy available to me, there are many other ways I can increase usage or efficiency.
In the U.S. we are not currently taking advantage of this fact, to our great discredit. It's short sighted and results in conflict.
Re:Great scott! (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, the correct course of action is still strikingly clear. Move away from it. As quickly as possible. Either we escape an artificially-created economic sink, or we reduce our dependence on a an energy source that is in its twilight. Win-Win, if you ask me.
Hydro power (Score:2, Insightful)
Hydro power share one problem with solar. It is not easily availiable everywhere at all times of the year, and electrical power is not as easy to transport in over long distances as many believe.
Re:Go Google (Score:3, Insightful)
transmission lines? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Go Google (Score:4, Insightful)
In that case you can have no problem with every SUV owner on the planet. Or people that don't car pool. Or people that shop at Walmart.
It is their own money and their own business.
I on the other hand find it more than a little hypocritical for Larry Page to own a private 767 and talk about the importance of alternative clean energy.
As I said I have no problem with them having a private jet. Just with a private 767. There are many very nice private jets that burn a lot less fuel but can fly just about as far and even faster.
Why not import? (Score:2, Insightful)
Another take on Peak Oil (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, as has often been a trait of humanity, we rose to the occasion and, true to form, Peak Whale Oil [energybulletin.net] was not the disaster so many thought it would be. Why? The biggest reason, of course, was the ingenuity of American business to not just lie down and die, but to innovate. They found that the black liquid bubbling up from the ground could be tapped as a brand new energy source, and they built out the huge infrastructure that was needed to make it happen.
The same thing will happen again. Nobody is going to just lie down as our world falls apart. If for no other reason than there's a (huge) buck to be made in preventing that.
Don't under estimate the powers of greed and self-preservation.
Re:Nuk-u-lar (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, just that most people who wax lyrical on the subject of the starving masses frequently have never, and will never, go without themselves, yet profess to understand and represent the people who do.
Re:Great scott! (Score:5, Insightful)
Artificially reducing refinery capacity does reduce gasoline supply - which definitely increases the price of gasoline. BUT it also reduces the demand for crude oil - which lowers its price!
And yet, the price of crude oil not only has gone up, but it has gone up faster than gasoline prices this year (http://www.wtrg.com/daily/oilandgasspot.html). I suspect you might have to further refine your crude conspiracy theory.
Re:If you can't store it, you can't count on it (Score:2, Insightful)
With regard to transportation energy (sort of off topic for your post, but there it is...), ride a bike! You'll be in good health, save money, and slow down enough to appreciate things you never even notice in a car!
Re:Great scott! (Score:2, Insightful)
Both nuclear and solar need subsidies at present because coal is dirt cheap. Nuclear has also almost certainly received more investment and subsidies than solar.
The big difference though is that nuclear actually makes up a large part of the world's power production, and is actually a realistic way to meet the world's growing power demands. Barring a miracle world-changing invention solar just can't.
If you want your tax dollars (in subsidies) to fight climate change then you'll get much better bang for your buck with nuclear.
Re:Great scott! (Score:5, Insightful)
The current problem with rapidly escalating oil prices is not related to US refinery capacity. If the bottleneck was at the refinery level, crude would be cheap and gasoline would be expensive. In fact, both are expensive.
A statement like "more oil is currently known to exist than any other time in human history" is absurd, and I wonder how you arrived at it. We don't know how much oil exists, partly because some of it is - as you say - "undiscovered", ie we think it might be out there but we don't know for sure - but mostly because OPEC lie about the size of their remaining reserves. Data quality in the oil industry is poor to non-existant. We don't even have accurate figures for how much we pump out of the ground each day, let alone how much we have left.
You are confused about the pricing of sour crudes. Yes, they are cheaper, but not significantly so. The spot price of Mexican Maya on the 16th was $79, only about $10-$12 less than the price of the high quality stuff. Given that oil used to cost $10-$12 the fact that sour has risen to slightly less than sweet is really of no consequence.
You say there's no factual information to indicate that we're at peak. But world production has been flat since the summer of 2004, despite progressively increasing prices (due to increased demand from Asia) providing every incentive to pump more. This behavior has not been seen before and strongly suggests that world production capacity is maxed out - there are huge wins to be had by any company or country that can significantly boost production, but doing an analysis of an oil major like ExxonMobil, will show that their existing fields decline as fast as they can replace them. To me this is a pretty good sign that we're at peak - inability to raise production despite huge demand.
The whole "it's an oil industry conspiracy" won't wash, sorry. This isn't like the computer industry where one or two companies can dominate the landscape - oil is a commodity, and the price is not set by the oil companies but by supply and demand. It's the simplest market you can get. Anybody who is sitting on top of a giant oil field right now would be an idiot to leave it for tomorrow, because there's no guarantee we'll want that oil tomorrow - maybe there's a recession and oil demand is reduced. Maybe we discover better ways to power our cars.
Right now there's a lead-in time of at least 5 years from discovering a field to first commercial oil, sometimes longer. Even if you start today, there is risk. If you leave it longer, the risk gets even bigger. At least for private oil companies, there are huge financial incentives to boost production and thus get a leg up over your competitors in stock price and profits. To claim that the entire industry is in a cartel to deliberately hold back production is to reveal your lack of knowledge around discovery trends, skills shortages and the impact on depletion rates of modern production techniques like horizontal wells/waterflooding.
Re:Nuk-u-lar (Score:2, Insightful)
Coal just chucks out millions of tons of CO2 a year as well as sulphates, nitrates, radioactive radon gas (far more than a nuclear power station), heavy metals etc and lets the environment sort it out. If you covered the cost of cleaning that up, then coal is MUCH more expensive than nuclear.
One comparison I saw said, that if you gave all the CO2 gas that a coal power station chucks out in a *day* to people, it would kill 1 million people. If you fed the radioactive waste from an equivalent nuclear plant to people, it would "only" kill 100,000 people. So, the waste from a coal plant is at least 10 times more toxic than that from a nuclear plant. The difference is that the coal plant waste is hard to handle properly, so it's just dumped into the environment where it has global effects. The nuclear waste is much easier to handle properly, and can be safely contained and only has very localised (if any) effects.
Re:Great scott! (Score:4, Insightful)
And if we actually had to pay triple for our power we all, personally, would suddenly find ways to use less (or reallocate our spending) and companies would put more money into find better alternatives.
I'm all for jacking up the price and removing subsidies.
Too much fruit and nuts for you (Score:5, Insightful)
fyi, nobody is investing in new oil refineries, because noone in their right mind would invest $$$ when they won't get a return on capitol. The market has spoken - the market says there isn't money to be made from more refineries. That's probably because you'd have to run it for 10 years to break-even, and in 10 years time, our refining capacity may outstrip supply. Either that, or there's a massive organised world-wide conspiricy, to keep gold cookies out away from intelligent negative people.
Long story short, there is actually zero factual information to suggest we are anywhere near peak
Ignore the factual information. There's *lots* of oil. Jedi waves hand.
If the oil companies are conspiring to do anything, it's that they want to sell you *more* oil and *now*. That's because it's good for their bottom line. So go to the gas station and fill up, dump in the river and fill up again! Don't worry about future scarcity! We want your money NOW! and if we make money it's good for the economy, so it _must_ be good for you too!
There's an apt saying: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity". As I see it, the oil companies aren't capable of the type of conspiricy you suggest. It's too easy to shine light on their FUD. For example, the chamber of echos that exxon has created to suggest that there's *lots* of scientists who don't believe in the human impact on climate change. Some are fooled, anyone who cares to look it not.
And on the bright side - if you're right - and the oil companies are delibertly trying *not* to sell more oil (falls down laughing), then they're doing humanity a service on so many different levels:
Energy prices have been too low for too long. If an energy crunch happens, it will mean severe economic adjustment (and hardship) that could have been mitigated by a more frugle policy to energy usage. Such policies could help the economy slowly make the necessary structural changes. Such policies fly can only exist when the future becomes more important than satisfying immediate wants. I'm not holding my breath - too many people with a sense of entitlement - that they should have what they want, and have it now. Humanities current flirtation with greed has nothing to do with malice, and everything to do with stupidty.
Re:How about energy storage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just "Not In My Back Yard". *ducks*
Re:Great scott! (Score:3, Insightful)
Most nuclear plants haven't failed; they've been running just fine... France is the obvious example, n'est-ce pas?
Re:Great scott! (Score:4, Insightful)