2 ms·

The title is misleading. They will not run entirely on renewable energy. Instead, they are buying at least as much renewable energy as they are consuming in tot

The title is misleading. They will not run entirely on renewable energy. Instead, they are buying at least as much renewable energy as they are consuming in total. So Google might pay for 1 megawatt of solar power going into the grid, but actually pull 1 megawatt of fossil fuel power. This is more than a nitpicking point. The reason why renewable energy isn't a totally viable energy source is because of problems with reliability, predictability, geographic concentration of production, etc. It is highly misleading to give people the impression that an operation like Google can actually operate directly off exclusively renewable energy. What Google is doing will eventually hit a cap and become zero sum. You still need fossil fuels (or nuclear) to support a reliable and dispersed grid, and can therefore only have a a certain percent of the grid powered by renewables. So if you want your company to "run entirely on renewable energy", you'll end up in a bidding war with other companies that want the same thing, to be the technical purchaser (not consumer!) of the renewable energy going into the grid.

Brakenshire 10y ago
> The reason why renewable energy isn't a totally viable energy source is because of problems with reliability, predictability, geographic concentration of production, etc. It is highly misleading to give people the impression that an operation like Google can actually operate directly off exclusively renewable energy. That's true in general, but not if you can choose where you are using the electricity. If your datacentres are in Iceland (geothermal), the Middle East (reliable solar), certain parts of Canada, or Norway (hydroelectric), you could actually run the systems entirely off renewables. I agree though that buying 1 unit of renewable power for each unit that you use is a much less meaningful action. Not to be sniffed at, but not what is being implied.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
They also buy in the general location of their datacenters. It doesn't always match up exactly, but they are aiming for slightly better than just a purely numerical correspondence.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  Good point. And I don't mean to suggest that their actions aren't admirable, they are! I'm just a little frustrated at the misinformation, and resulting misconceptions, floating around concerning renewable energy. These misconceptions have political and economic consequences.

Brakenshire 10y ago

> The reason why renewable energy isn't a totally viable energy source is because of problems with reliability, predictability, geographic concentration of production, etc. It is highly misleading to give people the impression that an operation like Google can actually operate directly off exclusively renewable energy. That's true in general, but not if you can choose where you are using the electricity. If your datacentres are in Iceland (geothermal), the Middle East (reliable solar), certain parts of Canada, or Norway (hydroelectric), you could actually run the systems entirely off renewables. I agree though that buying 1 unit of renewable power for each unit that you use is a much less meaningful action. Not to be sniffed at, but not what is being implied.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

They also buy in the general location of their datacenters. It doesn't always match up exactly, but they are aiming for slightly better than just a purely numerical correspondence.

marcoperaza 10y ago
Good point. And I don't mean to suggest that their actions aren't admirable, they are! I'm just a little frustrated at the misinformation, and resulting misconceptions, floating around concerning renewable energy. These misconceptions have political and economic consequences.