The Google Plan: Clean energy by 2030  

Posted by Big Gav in ,

The SF Chronicle has an article on Google's $4.4 trillion proposal to switch the US over to clean energy - Google's clean plan for 2030. Bob Morris has more. The target for solar power seems a bit light on but its a pretty good start. A massive stimulus package in the form of investing in a new, smart electricity grid and clean energy to power it seems a much better way of spending money than endless handouts to cronies of the administration.

The goal is to press the U.S. government into action despite what Google CEO Eric Schmidt said is a "complete failure" by Washington to address the issue. "It's cheaper to fix global warming than to ignore it," he said in a speech tonight at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

In short, the Mountain View Internet giant is calling for a big push in wind, solar and geothermal power to largely replace fossil fuels. Hybrid and electric cars would also get a major boost.

Schmidt's speech added details to a pitch he made earlier this month at the Corporate EcoForum. Here's some of the ideas:

Electricity: Google hopes to reduce the energy industry's reliance on coal (currently the source of 50 percent of electricity), natural gas (20 percent) and nuclear (20 percent). Instead, it wants renewables as to largely keep America's lights on.

Wind power should grow from relatively insignificant today to 29 percent of U.S. electricity production. Geothermal should grow to 15 percent while solar should grow to 12 percent. Natural gas, hydro-electric power and nuclear would account for the rest.

If the transformation takes place, and electricity consumption remains flat, fossil fuel use would be cut by 88 percent from 2003 projections while carbon emissions would be reduced by 95 percent.

Vehicles: Getting consumers to buy hybrid and electric cars is the central theme of its plan. Sales should ramp up from 100,000 in 2010 to 22 million in 2030.

If coupled with efforts to improve energy efficiency of conventional vehicles, among other things, the U.S. would consume 38 percent less oil compared with the projections for 2008.

Dan Reicher and Jeffery Greenblatt have a post at the Google Blog on the proposal - Clean energy 2030.
Right now the U.S. has a very real opportunity to transform our economy from one running on fossil fuels to one largely based on clean energy. We are developing the technologies and know-how to accomplish this. We can build whole new industries and create millions of new jobs. We can reduce energy costs, both at the gas pump and at home. We can improve our national security. And we can put a big dent in climate change. With strong leadership we could be moving forward on an aggressive but realistic timeline and an approach that balances costs with real economic gains.

The energy team at Google has been crunching the numbers to see how we could greatly reduce fossil fuel use by 2030. Our analysis, led by Jeffery Greenblatt, suggests a potential path to weaning the U.S. off of coal and oil for electricity generation by 2030 (with some remaining use of natural gas as well as nuclear), and cutting oil use for cars by 40%. Al Gore has issued a challenge that is even more ambitious, getting us to carbon-free electricity even sooner. We hope the American public pushes our leaders to embrace it. T. Boone Pickens has weighed in with an interesting plan of his own to massively deploy wind energy, among other things. Other plans have also been developed in recent years that merit attention.

Our goal in presenting this first iteration of the Clean Energy 2030 proposal is to stimulate debate and we invite you to take a look and comment -- or offer an alternative approach if you disagree. With a new Administration and Congress -- and multiple energy-related imperatives -- this is an opportune, perhaps unprecedented, moment to move from plan to action.

Over 22 years this plan could generate billions of dollars in savings and help create millions of green jobs. Many of these high quality, good-paying jobs will be in today's coal and oil producing states.

To get there we need to move immediately on three fronts:

(1) Reduce demand by doing more with less

We should start with the low-hanging fruit by reducing energy demand through energy efficiency -- adopting technologies and practices that allow us to do more with less. At Google, we've seen the benefits of this approach. We identified $5M in building efficiency investments with a 2.5 year payback. We've also designed our own data centers to run more efficiently, and we believe they are the most efficient in the world. On a smaller scale, personal computers can also become much more efficient. A typical desktop PC wastes nearly half the power it consumes. Last year, Bill Weihl, our Green Energy Czar, worked with industry partners to create the Climate Savers Computing Initiative to raise energy efficiency standards for personal computers and servers. If we meet our goals, these standards will cut energy consumption by the equivalent of 10-20 coal-fired power plants by 2010.

Government can have a big impact on achieving greater efficiency. California's aggressive building codes, efficiency standards and utility programs have helped the state keep per-capita energy use flat for years, while consumption in much of the rest of the country has grown significantly. Enacting similar policies at the national level would help even more.

We also need to give the American people opportunities to be more efficient. The way we buy electricity today is like going to a store without seeing prices: we pick what we want, and receive an unintelligible bill at the end of the month. When homes are equipped with smart meters and real-time pricing, research shows that energy use typically drops. Google is looking at ways that we can use our information technology and our reach to help increase awareness and bring better, real-time information to consumers.

(2) Develop renewable energy that is cheaper than coal (RE<C)

Google’s data centers draw from a U.S. electricity grid that relies on coal for 50% of its power. We want to help catalyze the development of renewable energy that is price-competitive with coal. At least three technologies show tremendous promise: wind, solar thermal, and advanced geothermal. Each of these is abundant and, when combined, could supply energy in virtually every region of the U.S.

This year Google has invested more than $45 million in startup companies with breakthrough wind, solar and geothermal technologies through our Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal initiative (RE<C), but that is a drop when we need a flood. We need to unleash massive private investment in clean energy. The government can have a big impact here as well. We must dramatically increase federal R&D and enact measures supporting the rapid deployment and scaling of clean technologies such as long-term tax support and national renewable energy standards. Tax credits for wind and solar have lapsed several times in the last 20 years, starving these nascent industries of the capital they need to truly enter the mainstream.

We also must work both sides of the RE<C equation. Progress will accelerate when the price of carbon reflects its true costs to society. Putting a price on carbon through cap-and-trade or a carbon tax would help address this.

(3) Electrify transportation and re-invent our electric grid

Imagine driving a car that uses no gas and is less expensive to recharge than buying a latte. A "smart grid" allows you to charge when electricity is cheap, and maybe even make some money by selling unused power back to the grid when it's needed. Plug-in cars are on their way, with GM, Toyota and other manufacturers planning introductions in the next two years. At Google we have a small fleet of Toyota Prius and Ford Escape plug-in conversions, as a part of our RechargeIT program. The converted Prius plug-ins get over 90 MPG, and the Escapes close to 50 MPG. However, to successfully put millions of plug-in cars on the road and fuel them with green electricity, we need a smart grid that manages when we charge and how we're billed. A smart grid could also provide for the two-way flow of electricity, as well as large-scale integration of intermittent solar and wind energy. Much of the technology in our current electrical grid was developed in the 60s and is wasteful and not very smart. We are partnering with GE to help accelerate the development of the smart grid and support building new transmission lines to harness our nation's vast renewable energy resources.

We see a huge opportunity for the nation to confront our energy challenges. In the process we will stimulate investment, create jobs, empower consumers and, by the way, help address climate change.

3 comments

I thought the other "2030" plan (they stole the name from) offered more reductions? http://www.architecture2030.org/2030_challenge/index.html

The success and probability of these plans depend upon the amount of corporate and political viability or the plan FAILS. Former CIA director and current McCain policy adviser James Woolsey expressed the great need to move away from fossil fuel dependence in terms of national security, but it would be naive to think that such measures wouldn't face opposition from entrenched business interests.

There are a lot of good things in it but, I was expecting more from google. Couldn't they have just "cut n pasted" a few more solutions from your "google hosted" blog ;-)

Without clearly defining the interaction and benefits of taxes, regulation, business into a energy program we will end up with the same energy outcomes... we all lose.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” - Einstein

When I wrote my first environmental impact reduction proposal, a respected colleague of mine reviewed it and stated, "if you do not rewrite this to reflect the benefits to the companies it impacts, they will ensure that both YOU and the regulation FAIL." - I made the revisions to reflect the longterm corporate benefits of reducing air and water impacts by utilizing greater efficiencies and less natural resources during manufacturing... it passed and they made money by making huge reductions in energy, waste and resources a simple law, plan or regulation never would have reflected.

Skipping the outcomes of big corp and government is a "endgame" to all wonderful plans. I don't have to like it to understand the reality of it.

Have a good weekend,

Chris

To be fair to them, they do seem to be investing in most of the right areas.

Proposing a plan like this (if you want it to be realised) does require a degree of "keep it simple" so that people can understand it, along with being attractive to enough constituencies to be politically possible (partnering with people like GE, Goldman's and Chevron is a good sign in that respect).

My plan (should I ever get around to writing it) would have a lot more breadth - but only energy and environment geeks would understand it, and few industries outside the tech industry would understand the benefits to themselves.

Some of the Google lads do seem to read my rantings from time to time (I'm not sure if it is just regular geeks or people from the more energy oriented groups though).

They did give me a link on "blogs of note" recently (as well as unbanning "Shockwave Rider" and adding me back into Google Alerts) so I'm pretty pro-Google to be honest.

And they seem (maybe deliberately, maybe not) to be slowly working towards realising Bucky Fuller's vision - but more on that later.

I equally like google that "google listens to us" and respect the KISS ("keep it simple") method.

Also that they brought me to you and countless others "ranters for a better cause".

"Buckminster Fuller" you do read well between lines... can't wait to hear your spin or continued contributions to the plan ;-)


Chris (AKA - closet googler)

Post a Comment

Ads

Ads

Statistics

Locations of visitors to this page

blogspot visitor
Stat Counter

Total Pageviews

Ads

Books

Followers

News

Loading...

Blog Archive

Labels

australia (581) global warming (365) solar power (336) peak oil (321) electric vehicles (193) renewable energy (178) wind power (172) ocean energy (154) csp (143) geothermal energy (142) smart grids (139) solar thermal power (133) tidal power (132) coal seam gas (127) nuclear power (122) oil (116) lng (112) geothermal power (111) solar pv (109) iraq (108) china (107) energy storage (105) green buildings (104) natural gas (102) agriculture (85) biofuel (76) oil price (76) smart meters (72) wave power (68) electricity grid (63) energy efficiency (63) uk (63) google (54) coal (52) internet (51) food prices (48) shale gas (48) surveillance (48) bicycle (47) big brother (47) thin film solar (41) biomimicry (38) canada (38) ocean power (37) scotland (36) new zealand (35) air transport (34) algae (34) water (34) queensland (32) credit crunch (31) politics (31) shale oil (31) bioplastic (30) concentrating solar power (30) california (29) geoengineering (28) offshore wind power (28) population (28) cogeneration (27) saudi arabia (27) resource wars (26) arctic ice (25) batteries (25) censorship (25) cleantech (25) woodside (25) bruce sterling (24) drought (24) tesla (24) ctl (23) economics (22) carbon tax (20) coal to liquids (20) distributed manufacturing (20) indonesia (20) iraq oil law (20) limits to growth (20) origin energy (20) brightsource (19) buckminster fuller (19) rail transport (19) ultracapacitor (19) santos (18) ausra (17) exxon (17) lithium (17) cellulosic ethanol (16) collapse (16) electric bikes (16) mapping (16) michael klare (16) ucg (16) atlantis (15) bees (15) geodynamics (15) iceland (15) psychology (15) concentrating solar thermal power (14) ethanol (14) fertiliser (14) al gore (13) ambient energy (13) biodiesel (13) brazil (13) carbon emissions (13) cities (13) investment (13) kenya (13) biochar (12) bucky fuller (12) matthew simmons (12) public transport (12) texas (12) victoria (12) chile (11) cradle to cradle (11) desertec (11) energy policy (11) internet of things (11) lithium ion batteries (11) otec (11) terra preta (11) amory lovins (10) fabber (10) gazprom (10) goldman sachs (10) gtl (10) hybrid car (10) severn estuary (10) tinfoil (10) toyota (10) volt (10) alaska (9) biomass (9) carbon trading (9) distributed generation (9) esolar (9) fuel cells (9) jeremy leggett (9) pge (9) sweden (9) afghanistan (8) antarctica (8) arrow energy (8) big oil (8) eroei (8) floating offshore wind power (8) four day week (8) guerilla gardening (8) linc energy (8) methane (8) methane hydrates (8) nanosolar (8) natural gas pipelines (8) pentland firth (8) relocalisation (8) us elections (8) western australia (8) bloom energy (7) boeing (7) chp (7) climategate (7) copenhagen (7) fish (7) stirling engine (7) vinod khosla (7) airborne wind turbines (6) apocaphilia (6) bolivia (6) ceramic fuel cells (6) cigs (6) futurism (6) jatropha (6) local currencies (6) nigeria (6) ocean acidification (6) saul griffith (6) scenario planning (6) somalia (6) t boone pickens (6) space based solar power (5) varanus island (5) garbage (4) kevin kelly (4) low temperature geothermal power (4) oled (4) tim flannery (4) v2g (4) club of rome (3) global energy grid (2) norman borlaug (2) peak oil portfolio (1)