Posted on 11/28/2007 4:58:16 AM PST by old-ager
Google's Goal: Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal
Creates renewable energy R&D group and supports breakthrough technologies
Mountain View, Calif. (November 27, 2007) Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) today announced a new strategic initiative to develop electricity from renewable energy sources that will be cheaper than electricity produced from coal. The newly created initiative, known as RE"We have gained expertise in designing and building large-scale, energy-intensive facilities by building efficient data centers," said Larry Page, Google Co-founder and President of Products. "We want to apply the same creativity and innovation to the challenge of generating renewable electricity at globally significant scale, and produce it cheaper than from coal."
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
let me get this straight, because they use large amounts of electricty and are innovative in their field of communications that makes them qualified to go into the heavy industry of producing electricity?
Anyone checked the price of MILK per gallon? If that ain’t renewable, I don’t know what IS!
Renewable energy is a term used for energy sources that do not consume "fixed" supply of fuel, like coal, oil or uranium. They typically refer to items like wind, solar or fuel that was grown.
Good Luck
Ok, thanks ... knew I was missing something there .... but still, doesn’t it take energy to produce energy but at a lower energy level?
Yes, but in nearly all the “renewable” sources the original energy source is the Sun.
More like: they’re a heavy user of electricity, and don’t like being beholden to others for it. Somebody probably looked at how much money they would lose for every minute of downtime, and decided it’s better to invent their own energy source ... and of course, pursuing something “green” is a great way to get all kinds of support & breaks, and pursuing something sellable is just more money in their pocket.
There’s a fine line between doing everything possible to support the core product, and losing sight of the core product.
Wanting to create cheap energy is a whole lot different than achieving cheap energy. Pointing out the difference doesn't make one a Luddite or a coal executive.
Yes. When the farmer and processing plant can use ethanol for fuel and do without subsidies I will be convinced of it is a good process.
the investment of energy is greater into producing than what is produced in different form ... theres always a loss in conversion ...
Of course, this is true for all forms of energy. Gasoline, coal, etc systems all consume more energy than they deliver for direct use. I was only explaining the term, not trying to sell you the concept.
Ok, thanks for all your help and info .....:)
/r/jane
We don’t import coal from the ME, we import oil. Oil is rarely used to generate electricity, but is burned in vehicles from cars to big trucks to trains to airplanes.
Having electricity “cheaper than coal” does nothing to reduce the “need to worry about importing fuel from the ME”.
You still have to find a way to use the electricity to create a fuel for transportation uses — and that electricity will have to be MUCH “cheaper than coal” for the electricity-created fuel to be “cheaper than oil.”
There are 200 million planes, trains, and autos on the road that NEED to burn something in an internal combustion engine. There are no viable all-electric replacements for any of those vehicles yet, and even if there were, people can’t afford to replace the ICE vehicles before they are worn out.
If you read what I wrote you will see that I wrote importing energy from the ME, not coal.
Electric plug-in hybrids are reality and would make the amount of oil available in the US (world’s second largest producer) Mexico and Canada go so far as to mean complete energy independence from the ME.
The thing that amazes me about some Freepers is that in one breath they will claim that America is the greatest most innovative country on earth, but in the next they completely doubt (and outright deny) that the United States is capable of making breakthroughs in energy.
If that type of hypocritical bravado is true, American power is doomed to fade in the next 2 centuries.
If the US has to wait for the Democrats to push it, the power will fade in the next two decades.
Not to take away from your point, but we are third.
I read it. You still don’t seem to understand that it doesn’t matter how cheap electricity is, it will have ZERO impact on the use of ME oil.
People have not shied away from electric vehicles and hybrids because of the price of electricity. The electricity used by an electric vehicle is ALREADY cheaper than gasoline per mile driven. People have shied away because they would have to sacrifice size, safety, and range — while paying more for a less-capable vehicle.
The advances that need to be made are in energy STORAGE systems, not energy GENERATING systems. Your comment about renewable electricity cheaper than coal affecting ME oil imports is illogical. There is very little relationship between electric usage and oil usage.
I’m all for getting as much electricity from solar and geothermal as possible and dismatling coal power plants. I think Nanosolar’s thin-film PV panels can potentially do that. That’s great. But don’t confuse the issue by thinking it is somehow related to ME oil, because it isn’t.
If Google would announce they are investing in creating electric vehicles that are superior to gasoline vehicles and cost less, then I’d be a happy camper. I wish they’d announced a big stake in a company like EESTOR or AltairNano or A123 Systems, with a goal to producing vehicle energy storage systems in large numbers at low cost. Instead, Google founders are investors in Aptera, a $30K electric vehicle that is a pricey toy car of very limited capabilities.
I wouldn't agree with that. With cheap enough electricity you can displace basically every application of oil. You can manufacture hydrocarbons using electricity, and therefore liquid fuel.
well said
Hence my statement:
[You still have to find a way to use the electricity to create a fuel for transportation uses and that electricity will have to be MUCH cheaper than coal for the electricity-created fuel to be cheaper than oil.]
I think you raise a good question. Are they going to acquire an energy development company. If not, I’m not sure that their technology expertise necessarily translates to renewable energy development.
There's many ways now. For one, with a big differential between electricity and diesel, you can electrify more rail tracks, for example, and displace an awful lot of diesel fuel.
Hydrocarbons can be manufactured using electricity, not just coal-to-liquid, but also made from CO2 and other base ingredients. Liquid hydrocarbon transport fuels can be made. That's a pricey proposition now of course, but if the price differential between electricity and oil is great enough then more things become possible. And technology is always pushing us further ahead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.