6 ms·

Kind of buried in the article... but Google is claiming the net of their investments in renewable energy will offset their usage of fossil fuels. That's differ

Kind of buried in the article... but Google is claiming the net of their investments in renewable energy will offset their usage of fossil fuels. That's different than switching to a new energy source.

ChuckMcM 10y ago
Does that change the message for you? As I see it the investments are the leading edge of the change over. So a combination of setting up a way to benefit from available clean energy (being a power company and being able to buy directly from the supplier), and investing in companies that produce clean energy or improve efficiency to keep the market moving so that the late adopters have something to adopt.
- matchagaucho 10y ago
  Yes, it is leading edge and admirable. I applaud the effort but question the headline. A Google datacenter near the Columbia River may derive 100% of it's energy from hydro. Google pioneered that practice and many others followed. But their overall real estate footprint relies heavily on local energy suppliers, which may be coal. Any company making a claim of being 100% renewable, is basically just using offsets. And offsets are a way the government allows companies to (metaphorically) continue driving down the road in gas-guzzling SUVs, but make investments in renewable energy to offset their footprint.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    Ok, I can see your argument, let me repeat it back to see if I got it right. You argue that by being physically near the Columbia river, a hydro electric plant can be constructed which generates power and sends it directly to a Google data center. But their other properties, some of which are nearer power plants which generate power using fossil fuels can not be considered to be using renewable energy. Is that about right? If so, I see it a bit differently, if Google builds a concentrated solar plant in the Mohave Desert and that plant puts adds 1200MWhrs of energy to the Western Grid every month, and Google's real estate in California consume 1000MWhrs of energy from the grid every month, I can see that being claimed as using 100% renewable energy. There isn't a specific path of the electrons to the Google buildings but in that scenario Google will have added more energy through renewable sources into the grid than they extracted from the grid[1] I've got Solar panels on my house and they generate more power during the day than I can use, they generate no power at night. I have them connected to the grid. When I'm generating excess power its probably being used by my neighbors but somewhere nearby a fossil fuel plant is using less fuel because of the power I am feeding into the grid. Because is is set up this way, PG&E bills me on an annual basis and on that basis the 'net' amount of energy my house uses is quite small, in terms of ratios, over 90% of my total electrical energy usage is accounted for by the energy I generate on my rooftop. I think of that as "90%" of my energy comes from renewable sources, even though every night, at that moment, I'm using fossil fuel sources (or simply the grid). Once I have a couple of PowerWall's install it will get a bit more explicit but I consider both interpretations valid. I'm guessing from your argument that you do not. [1] You can also argue that the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that adding it and then removing it will leave a bit behind so perhaps a draw of 1MWhr might need an input of 1.2MWr in order to offset grid losses to radiation and heat.
    - ghostly_s 10y ago
      While I agree with your base argument, I would argue further that the (substantial) transmission losses at least in the consumed and perhaps in the generated energy also need to be factored in, so a simple x:(x+1) relationship is not quite sufficient for a robust claim of "100% renewables" which is based on offsets.
    - hueving 10y ago
      > I'm guessing from your argument that you do not. Frankly I don't think anyone should. It's mental gymnastics to be able to say you aren't using dirty energy when you really are. Let me illustrate with an example of why you can't get by with 'offsets'. Let's say Arizona is running on 80 GW natural gas and 20 GW solar. Google wants to build in Virginia, which relies heavily on coal. So they bring online a 2 GW datacenter in Virginia which is powered by a 2 GW increase in coal burning. They "offset" it by building 2 GW of solar in Arizona, which scales back natural gas by 2 GW. The result of their 'clean offset' has been the conversion of 2 GW natural gas to 2 GW of coal, which is significantly worse for the environment.
      - ChuckMcM 10y ago
        I see what you're saying, but to me trying to phrase it in that way seems more like mental gymnastics than actual double entry accounting in watts. Would it help if the renewable source had to be connected to the same grid-tie (there are 4 I think in the US) ? Then you're putting renewable energy into the same grid you are pulling it out of. What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, then you drove it in a tanker across the country and poured it into generators in Virginia? The way I see it is that watts are watts (just like dollars are dollars) so if the total watts you burn are offset by renewable watts you have put in, then you are ahead. If everyone does that then by definition the entire grid is running on renewable energy.
        hueving 10y ago
        >Then you're putting renewable energy into the same grid you are pulling it out of. Right, but they aren't connected to the same grid. Google has datacenters all over the world, connected to all sorts of different grids with different source compositions. >What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, then you drove it in a tanker across the country and poured it into generators in Virginia? Sure, but you have to account for the emissions from that whole process as well (emissions of solar + emissions of generating the fuel + emissions of transportation + emissions of burning the fuel). >The way I see it is that watts are watts (just like dollars are dollars) Nope, a watt generated on one grid does not spend on another because they're not all interconnected. Until we solve the energy storage problem, the problem is exacerbated further by continually expanding solar installations in one particular region of the US that will generate more than the consumption for part of the day.
- crpatino 10y ago
  Yes, it does change the whole meaning of this. Running even just the datacenters in renewable energy alone is a huge technical and organizational undertaking, - maybe on par with Project Manhattan and the Apollo Program. Doing the carbon neutral gimick is, - until hard proof is presented to show actual reduction in fosil fuels usage, - little more than good intentions and financial sophistry. Don't get me wrong, it is a good thing they are doing at least this much... but in my opinion they are getting a huge, undeserved PR boon out of this. Companies like Oracle could not get away with this, even if they tried. In my eyes, and until hard evidence is presented to disproof this, I think they are still milking all the goodwill from the "don't be evil" motto from yesteryear.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

ChuckMcM 10y ago

Does that change the message for you? As I see it the investments are the leading edge of the change over. So a combination of setting up a way to benefit from available clean energy (being a power company and being able to buy directly from the supplier), and investing in companies that produce clean energy or improve efficiency to keep the market moving so that the late adopters have something to adopt.

matchagaucho 10y ago
Yes, it is leading edge and admirable. I applaud the effort but question the headline. A Google datacenter near the Columbia River may derive 100% of it's energy from hydro. Google pioneered that practice and many others followed. But their overall real estate footprint relies heavily on local energy suppliers, which may be coal. Any company making a claim of being 100% renewable, is basically just using offsets. And offsets are a way the government allows companies to (metaphorically) continue driving down the road in gas-guzzling SUVs, but make investments in renewable energy to offset their footprint.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  Ok, I can see your argument, let me repeat it back to see if I got it right. You argue that by being physically near the Columbia river, a hydro electric plant can be constructed which generates power and sends it directly to a Google data center. But their other properties, some of which are nearer power plants which generate power using fossil fuels can not be considered to be using renewable energy. Is that about right? If so, I see it a bit differently, if Google builds a concentrated solar plant in the Mohave Desert and that plant puts adds 1200MWhrs of energy to the Western Grid every month, and Google's real estate in California consume 1000MWhrs of energy from the grid every month, I can see that being claimed as using 100% renewable energy. There isn't a specific path of the electrons to the Google buildings but in that scenario Google will have added more energy through renewable sources into the grid than they extracted from the grid[1] I've got Solar panels on my house and they generate more power during the day than I can use, they generate no power at night. I have them connected to the grid. When I'm generating excess power its probably being used by my neighbors but somewhere nearby a fossil fuel plant is using less fuel because of the power I am feeding into the grid. Because is is set up this way, PG&E bills me on an annual basis and on that basis the 'net' amount of energy my house uses is quite small, in terms of ratios, over 90% of my total electrical energy usage is accounted for by the energy I generate on my rooftop. I think of that as "90%" of my energy comes from renewable sources, even though every night, at that moment, I'm using fossil fuel sources (or simply the grid). Once I have a couple of PowerWall's install it will get a bit more explicit but I consider both interpretations valid. I'm guessing from your argument that you do not. [1] You can also argue that the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that adding it and then removing it will leave a bit behind so perhaps a draw of 1MWhr might need an input of 1.2MWr in order to offset grid losses to radiation and heat.
  - ghostly_s 10y ago
    While I agree with your base argument, I would argue further that the (substantial) transmission losses at least in the consumed and perhaps in the generated energy also need to be factored in, so a simple x:(x+1) relationship is not quite sufficient for a robust claim of "100% renewables" which is based on offsets.
  - hueving 10y ago
    > I'm guessing from your argument that you do not. Frankly I don't think anyone should. It's mental gymnastics to be able to say you aren't using dirty energy when you really are. Let me illustrate with an example of why you can't get by with 'offsets'. Let's say Arizona is running on 80 GW natural gas and 20 GW solar. Google wants to build in Virginia, which relies heavily on coal. So they bring online a 2 GW datacenter in Virginia which is powered by a 2 GW increase in coal burning. They "offset" it by building 2 GW of solar in Arizona, which scales back natural gas by 2 GW. The result of their 'clean offset' has been the conversion of 2 GW natural gas to 2 GW of coal, which is significantly worse for the environment.
    - ChuckMcM 10y ago
      I see what you're saying, but to me trying to phrase it in that way seems more like mental gymnastics than actual double entry accounting in watts. Would it help if the renewable source had to be connected to the same grid-tie (there are 4 I think in the US) ? Then you're putting renewable energy into the same grid you are pulling it out of. What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, then you drove it in a tanker across the country and poured it into generators in Virginia? The way I see it is that watts are watts (just like dollars are dollars) so if the total watts you burn are offset by renewable watts you have put in, then you are ahead. If everyone does that then by definition the entire grid is running on renewable energy.
      - hueving 10y ago
        >Then you're putting renewable energy into the same grid you are pulling it out of. Right, but they aren't connected to the same grid. Google has datacenters all over the world, connected to all sorts of different grids with different source compositions. >What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, then you drove it in a tanker across the country and poured it into generators in Virginia? Sure, but you have to account for the emissions from that whole process as well (emissions of solar + emissions of generating the fuel + emissions of transportation + emissions of burning the fuel). >The way I see it is that watts are watts (just like dollars are dollars) Nope, a watt generated on one grid does not spend on another because they're not all interconnected. Until we solve the energy storage problem, the problem is exacerbated further by continually expanding solar installations in one particular region of the US that will generate more than the consumption for part of the day.
crpatino 10y ago
Yes, it does change the whole meaning of this. Running even just the datacenters in renewable energy alone is a huge technical and organizational undertaking, - maybe on par with Project Manhattan and the Apollo Program. Doing the carbon neutral gimick is, - until hard proof is presented to show actual reduction in fosil fuels usage, - little more than good intentions and financial sophistry. Don't get me wrong, it is a good thing they are doing at least this much... but in my opinion they are getting a huge, undeserved PR boon out of this. Companies like Oracle could not get away with this, even if they tried. In my eyes, and until hard evidence is presented to disproof this, I think they are still milking all the goodwill from the "don't be evil" motto from yesteryear.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]