Google's Clean Energy Plan  

Posted by Big Gav in

CNet reports on a plan being promoted by Google to fix America's energy problems, using a combination of energy efficiency and clean energy technology - Google sees energy solution in the math. Its encouraging to see the way Eric Schmidt outlined most of the solutions we need to put in place so succinctly to a audience of particularly influential people.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt outlined an energy plan Monday to reduce America's dependence on oil and create green jobs.

At an event called the Corporate EcoForum, Schmidt laid out Google's energy plan to sustainability executives from Coca-Cola, Motorola, Clorox, Microsoft, and dozens of others. In characteristic Schmidt-Google fashion, he backed up the idea with some calculations. The plan could be compared to something like energy efficiency = savings (or E2=$).

"It's just a math problem," Schmidt said to a crowd of executives here at the Fairmont Hotel.

He said that, if by 2030, the U.S. were to adopt renewable energy sources for 100 percent of its power generation, replacing energy production from coal-fired plants, and replace at least half of its cars with plug-in hybrids, then it could cut carbon emissions by half. (And potentially avert a global warming crisis.)

No easy feat. But if the plan is adopted, Schmidt calculated that the U.S. would save 77 percent of $2.7 trillion in energy spending over the next 22 years. So expenditures would only be $600 billion; or assuming an 8 percent discount rate (factoring interest rates), the government could save even more in that time.

Google is taking its own advice. He said the company's plan is to reduce global demand for oil and help to generate new white- and blue-collar jobs by investing in solar, wind, and geothermal energy projects.

So far, Google.org has invested $10 million in geothermal energy and another $10 million in wind technologies. There are 500,000 jobs in wind companies alone, Schmidt said.

Google has chosen to bet on those renewable energy sources because they have the proof points to back up their viability, he said. It has avoided nuclear power as an investment because of security concerns, he said, but Google may consider wave power as a fourth or fifth investment in its plan. ...

For example, Schmidt said that years ago he considered the fact that 40 percent of carbon emissions originate from buildings. At the time, he asked his facilities people what they could do to mitigate the problem, and they had estimated that it would cost $5 million to make Google's buildings more energy efficient. The company would reap the benefits after 2.5 years, he said.

"So what else could we do?" Schmidt said. Google outfitted a dozen buildings and a couple of carports with solar panels a year and a half ago, and it now has a dynamic internal system that measures energy savings by building.

"The question is: can any one of you make a difference...Of course we can," Schmidt said. "But we must have a policy."

Smart garages
He attributed the current climate crisis to a "total failure of political leadership." Leaders are shortsighted about the benefits of technology to solve issues of global warming, he said. When asked which presidential candidate he supported, Schmidt declined to comment.

He talked about changing government incentives for business owners so that they're encouraged to create energy efficiencies. And for consumers, he said the trick will be in creating a "real-time information loop," such as household smart meters so that people can see how much money they're spending on energy.

Google Earth is a means to help people see the scope of the climate change problem with the use of data and graphics, according to Schmidt. For example, he showed the North Pole without ice in 2050 if current projections of climate change stay on course and temperatures there rise to 40 degrees C.

Google is also board member of a new group called Climate Savers Computing Initiative, a coalition that aims to reduce computing power consumption by half by 2010. It will do that largely by encouraging member companies like Google to turn off computers when they're not in use. Schmidt said that if it reaches its goal, it would be the equivalent of taking 11 million cars off the road.

The power grid is also a problem and area for innovation, he said. There's a 9 percent efficiency loss in the current grid infrastructure, which could be offset with smart technology systems, he said. For example, a plug-in vehicle's batteries could be charged at night and then send surplus energy back into the system during the day, shifting power back to the grid at peak energy-usage times, he said.

"I could imagine a smart garage where I would plug in my car and the computer handles it. I could even make money by cost shifting," he said.

"It sure sounds to me like a problem for the Internet...and personal computers. It's the largest opportunity I could possibly imagine," he said. "It solves energy security, energy prices and job creation...and by the way, climate change."

4 comments

Congrats on being a Blog of Note!

"The question is: can any one of you make a difference...Of course we can," Schmidt said. "But we must have a policy."

I hope our project will make the "policy gap" google is concerned about easier to pass.

Kudos to google, they have really done a lot with this (although they still scare me).

Also my understanding of grid "9 percent efficiency loss" is a gross underestimate (13-20%) from plant to door steps.

Google - "It sure sounds to me like a problem for the Internet...and personal computers."

A glutenous techno driven culture is a large part of the cause and effect, and should be part of the solutions.... however, really change can only happen with government policy change.

Let's not kid ourselves, without the current heavy subsidizes given to solar, wind and geothermal google would have never even entered the game.

This is about money, big money.
While there is enough to go around and pull our nation out of job and credit debt... google was just smart enough (it is what they do) to jump in when we are giving large "GREEN" hand outs.

I even love in your photo shot how google even made the "exit sign green" a fire code violation maybe, but they sure did cross every T ;-)

Have a good weekend,

Chris

I noted that Google is avoiding nuclear power (due to security concerns) despite its use throughout the industrialized world. Fox News reported earlier this month that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will consider the Energy Department’s application for nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. What has not been reported is that this problem was created by Jimmy Carter in 1977 when he outlawed the recycling of nuclear fuel. Recycling reduces tons of spent fuel into more energy and leaves only a few pounds of waste that becomes harmless after 30 years or so. 98% of the “nuclear waste” is actually very usable fuel and other useful elements. All of the other nuclear power users (France, Japan, etc.) recycle their fuel and have no disposal problems. If we recycled nuclear fuel, we wouldn’t need Yucca Mountain!

It amazes me that most of those screaming for clean energy get positively hysterical in their opposition to nuclear power. It is completely clean and is extremely safe due to comprehensive safeguards within the U.S. nuclear power industry. Contrary to news media hype, Three-mile Island was an industrial accident not a “near-disaster.” They had equipment failures coupled with human errors and yet there was no release of radiation in the community, and no one was injured. I was employed at Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems in Pittsburgh at that time and we supplied the pressure relief valves for that plant. They, along with all their other safety devices, functioned exactly as designed!!!

Chernobyl was caused by a complete lack of safeguards combined with a low-budget Russian reactor design.

I suspect Google's main reasons (other than security concerns) for avoiding talking about nuclear power are:

1. Cost - nuclear power isn't remotely competitive with wind or solar power without massive government assistance and guarantees. Centralised, bureaucracy heavy states like France and Japan (and the old Soviet union) made large use of it for exactly that reason - countires that rely on private investment tend not to, particularly when there is a lot of competition and consumer choice.

2. Waste disposal - there just isn't any way of disposing of the waste safely (you can't recycle all of it and recycling adds further costs, making it even less competitive).

Regarding safety, Chernobyl was a result of operator error - and its impossible to safeguard against all forms of poor maintenance and use outside normal guidelines - people are people at the end of the day. If a wind turbine malfunctions, its unfortunate - when a nuclear reactor does its a disaster. You've also got falling planes, earthquakes and other acts of god to be concerned about.

Nuclear power was always a way of subsidising the nuclear weapons industry - it should be consigned to the 1950's where it belongs and forgotten about.

Post a Comment

Statistics

Locations of visitors to this page

blogspot visitor
Stat Counter

Total Pageviews

Ads

Books

Followers

Blog Archive

Labels

australia (619) global warming (423) solar power (397) peak oil (355) renewable energy (302) electric vehicles (250) wind power (194) ocean energy (165) csp (159) solar thermal power (145) geothermal energy (144) energy storage (142) smart grids (140) oil (139) solar pv (138) tidal power (137) coal seam gas (131) nuclear power (129) china (120) lng (117) iraq (113) geothermal power (112) green buildings (110) natural gas (110) agriculture (91) oil price (80) biofuel (78) wave power (73) smart meters (72) coal (70) uk (69) electricity grid (67) energy efficiency (64) google (58) internet (50) surveillance (50) bicycle (49) big brother (49) shale gas (49) food prices (48) tesla (46) thin film solar (42) biomimicry (40) canada (40) scotland (38) ocean power (37) politics (37) shale oil (37) new zealand (35) air transport (34) algae (34) water (34) arctic ice (33) concentrating solar power (33) saudi arabia (33) queensland (32) california (31) credit crunch (31) bioplastic (30) offshore wind power (30) population (30) cogeneration (28) geoengineering (28) batteries (26) drought (26) resource wars (26) woodside (26) censorship (25) cleantech (25) bruce sterling (24) ctl (23) limits to growth (23) carbon tax (22) economics (22) exxon (22) lithium (22) buckminster fuller (21) distributed manufacturing (21) iraq oil law (21) coal to liquids (20) indonesia (20) origin energy (20) brightsource (19) rail transport (19) ultracapacitor (19) santos (18) ausra (17) collapse (17) electric bikes (17) michael klare (17) atlantis (16) cellulosic ethanol (16) iceland (16) lithium ion batteries (16) mapping (16) ucg (16) bees (15) concentrating solar thermal power (15) ethanol (15) geodynamics (15) psychology (15) al gore (14) brazil (14) bucky fuller (14) carbon emissions (14) fertiliser (14) matthew simmons (14) ambient energy (13) biodiesel (13) investment (13) kenya (13) public transport (13) big oil (12) biochar (12) chile (12) cities (12) desertec (12) internet of things (12) otec (12) texas (12) victoria (12) antarctica (11) cradle to cradle (11) energy policy (11) hybrid car (11) terra preta (11) tinfoil (11) toyota (11) amory lovins (10) fabber (10) gazprom (10) goldman sachs (10) gtl (10) severn estuary (10) volt (10) afghanistan (9) alaska (9) biomass (9) carbon trading (9) distributed generation (9) esolar (9) four day week (9) fuel cells (9) jeremy leggett (9) methane hydrates (9) pge (9) sweden (9) arrow energy (8) bolivia (8) eroei (8) fish (8) floating offshore wind power (8) guerilla gardening (8) linc energy (8) methane (8) nanosolar (8) natural gas pipelines (8) pentland firth (8) saul griffith (8) stirling engine (8) us elections (8) western australia (8) airborne wind turbines (7) bloom energy (7) boeing (7) chp (7) climategate (7) copenhagen (7) scenario planning (7) vinod khosla (7) apocaphilia (6) ceramic fuel cells (6) cigs (6) futurism (6) jatropha (6) nigeria (6) ocean acidification (6) relocalisation (6) somalia (6) t boone pickens (6) local currencies (5) space based solar power (5) varanus island (5) garbage (4) global energy grid (4) kevin kelly (4) low temperature geothermal power (4) oled (4) tim flannery (4) v2g (4) club of rome (3) norman borlaug (2) peak oil portfolio (1)