Comments on: Google invests $55 million in wind farms in California's Mojave desert http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Wed, 22 May 2013 16:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120010 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120010 "When the project is complete, it will be capable of generating 1.5 gigawatts, enough to power 450,000 homes." Instead, however, it will used to power all the Google searches for "Newt Gingrich Tiffany's" west of the Mississippi... “When the project is complete, it will be capable of generating 1.5 gigawatts, enough to power 450,000 homes.”

Instead, however, it will used to power all the Google searches for “Newt Gingrich Tiffany’s” west of the Mississippi…

]]> By: AnthonyC http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120271 AnthonyC Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120271 See comment #16. Google is only one of the investors in the project. I haven;t read the original article, maybe it mentions the total cost. In general, wind is currently about 1/5 to 1/3 the price of solar. Not 1/40 as much. Heck, even coal isn't that cheap, about half the cost of wind. See comment #16. Google is only one of the investors in the project. I haven;t read the original article, maybe it mentions the total cost.

In general, wind is currently about 1/5 to 1/3 the price of solar. Not 1/40 as much. Heck, even coal isn’t that cheap, about half the cost of wind.

]]> By: tyger11 http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120020 tyger11 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120020 Maybe they can put the payphone back in! Maybe they can put the payphone back in!

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120021 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120021 > 1.5 gigawatts, enough to power 450,000 homes. Or one Google data center :-) > 1.5 gigawatts, enough to power 450,000 homes.

Or one Google data center :-)

]]> By: arbitraryaardvark http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120023 arbitraryaardvark Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120023 Google has wind projects in Oregon and North Dakota, as well as a solar tower in the southwest and a project in Germany. They have put in over 400 million so far. Usually, as here, they don't go it alone but participate as in investor with an active partner that does the actual project. I blogged about this awhile back. http://vark.blogspot.com/2011/04/google-posted-this-to-its-blog.html meanwhile blackle is a way to conserve energy while googling. http://vark.blogspot.com/2011/04/httpwww_28.html Google has wind projects in Oregon and North Dakota, as well as a solar tower in the southwest and a project in Germany. They have put in over 400 million so far. Usually, as here, they don’t go it alone but participate as in investor with an active partner that does the actual project. I blogged about this awhile back.
http://vark.blogspot.com/2011/04/google-posted-this-to-its-blog.html
meanwhile blackle is a way to conserve energy while googling.
http://vark.blogspot.com/2011/04/httpwww_28.html

]]> By: Manooshi http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120026 Manooshi Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120026 Fuck yeah! About time corporate America started to substantially invest in sustainable energy. Too bad, American OIL/GAS companies aren't stepping the fuck up and fully converting to eco-friendly renewable energy sources such as wind farms. I guess our American oil/gas industries prefer racist/illegal WARS in the Middle East, and toxic FRACKING here at home to help satiate their psycho greed, instead. Yeah. Totally makes sense. USA!!! Fuck yeah! About time corporate America started to substantially invest in sustainable energy.

Too bad, American OIL/GAS companies aren’t stepping the fuck up and fully converting to eco-friendly renewable energy sources such as wind farms. I guess our American oil/gas industries prefer racist/illegal WARS in the Middle East, and toxic FRACKING here at home to help satiate their psycho greed, instead. Yeah. Totally makes sense.

USA!!!

]]> By: semiotix http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120027 semiotix Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120027 And not a moment too soon, what with the situation in Libya so unstable. And not a moment too soon, what with the situation in Libya so unstable.

]]> By: invictus http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120038 invictus Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120038 Blackle used to be at least somewhat interesting; now it's a cute gimmick with no actual benefit. LCDs consume the same amount of power regardless of the colour they display. Blackle used to be at least somewhat interesting; now it’s a cute gimmick with no actual benefit. LCDs consume the same amount of power regardless of the colour they display.

]]> By: jphilby http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120832 jphilby Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120832 CA invested in solar thermal WAAAY back in the 80s, 380MW worth. Those SEGS plants have continued to produce that power trouble-free for 25 years. The US Gov (Reagan years) killed off the company that produced those plants by cutting back on the tax credits. That's the kind of on-again, off-again energy policy that's got us in the position we're in. Bravo, Google for doing the right thing ... again. CA invested in solar thermal WAAAY back in the 80s, 380MW worth. Those SEGS plants have continued to produce that power trouble-free for 25 years.

The US Gov (Reagan years) killed off the company that produced those plants by cutting back on the tax credits. That’s the kind of on-again, off-again energy policy that’s got us in the position we’re in.

Bravo, Google for doing the right thing … again.

]]> By: teapot http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1121349 teapot Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1121349 Keep up the not-evil work, Google. Keep up the not-evil work, Google.

]]> By: barnaby http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120101 barnaby Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120101 What does it mean when someone says that some power source provides enough electricity for x number of homes? Does it mean that one average day of output will provide one average day of use for this number of homes, or perhaps one average year of output, etc. etc.? And what formulas determine use and output? I'm not being cynical in this line of questioning, just curious about the science and statistics that support these statements. What does it mean when someone says that some power source provides enough electricity for x number of homes? Does it mean that one average day of output will provide one average day of use for this number of homes, or perhaps one average year of output, etc. etc.? And what formulas determine use and output?

I’m not being cynical in this line of questioning, just curious about the science and statistics that support these statements.

]]> By: Teller http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1121171 Teller Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1121171 Aesthetically far uglier in the environment than oil platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel. Aesthetically far uglier in the environment than oil platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel.

]]> By: ADavies http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120148 ADavies Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120148 Yeah, I think it's one of those, "weighing as much as XX whales" comparisons - where whales actually come in range of weights. But still handy for giving the (correct in my opinion) impression that this is a significant chunk of energy. Good on Google for this step. Likely also a smart investment. Yeah, I think it’s one of those, “weighing as much as XX whales” comparisons – where whales actually come in range of weights. But still handy for giving the (correct in my opinion) impression that this is a significant chunk of energy.

Good on Google for this step. Likely also a smart investment.

]]> By: Brainspore http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1121188 Brainspore Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1121188 We disagree there. But if you're going to choose a power source based purely on aesthetic considerations, why not just build a bunch of nuclear plants based on the San Onofre design and paint them to look like giant boobs? We disagree there. But if you’re going to choose a power source based purely on aesthetic considerations, why not just build a bunch of nuclear plants based on the San Onofre design and paint them to look like giant boobs?

]]> By: Teller http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1121702 Teller Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1121702 Another reason the NRC should be consulting with you on a regular basis. Another reason the NRC should be consulting with you on a regular basis.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120170 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120170 1.5 GW is likely the total nameplate ratings of the wind generators. Does anyone have any insight into the actual generation statistics for these facilities - the annual generation? Like GW-HOURS for a one year period. Wind proponents and especially those that have a financial interest in selling these projects (and reaping the tax kick-backs) usually quote things like the total nameplate rating of the facilities and misleading stats about how many homes that translates into. Sadly the big propellers don'd go round-and-round all the time - like 24 hours a day. How much energy do these things make? Not the theoretical peak capacity is the number for economic comparisons. 1.5 GW is likely the total nameplate ratings of the wind generators. Does anyone have any insight into the actual generation statistics for these facilities – the annual generation? Like GW-HOURS for a one year period. Wind proponents and especially those that have a financial interest in selling these projects (and reaping the tax kick-backs) usually quote things like the total nameplate rating of the facilities and misleading stats about how many homes that translates into. Sadly the big propellers don’d go round-and-round all the time – like 24 hours a day.

How much energy do these things make? Not the theoretical peak capacity is the number for economic comparisons.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120172 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120172 My understanding is that they use the maximum theoretical power generated per year, then divide by the average US power consumption. If you're thinking "but that's dumb, they're not factoring in the power availability or the usage patterns (ability to produce more power during peak demand, etc.)" then you're absolutely correct. Then again, generation systems with a high capacity factor or variable output tend to have very high externalized costs (e.g. river ecosystem destruction for hydro, pollution and wars for petroleum-based plants, etc.). One wonders if all the "lies" cancel out in the end. I've actually been trying to work out the true cost/kwh of various generation technologies, and it's astoundingly complicated. Especially with the less mature technologies, the data on direct cost/usable power is really not just out there. Of course, trying to figure in externalized costs is ludicrous, given the politicization of the problem. Take for example the Chernobyl disaster. Greenpeace decided that it caused 200,000 deaths, which makes Fox news look honest. Going beyond disingenuous to plain old lying, some other weirdos decided that the radioactive release caused almost a million deaths. The WHO and IAC predicted that the number was 9,000. Getting back to "plain old lying" category, UNSCEAR decided that the number was 62. So, total deaths are definitely between 62 and 900,000. Great. My understanding is that they use the maximum theoretical power generated per year, then divide by the average US power consumption. If you’re thinking “but that’s dumb, they’re not factoring in the power availability or the usage patterns (ability to produce more power during peak demand, etc.)” then you’re absolutely correct.

Then again, generation systems with a high capacity factor or variable output tend to have very high externalized costs (e.g. river ecosystem destruction for hydro, pollution and wars for petroleum-based plants, etc.). One wonders if all the “lies” cancel out in the end.

I’ve actually been trying to work out the true cost/kwh of various generation technologies, and it’s astoundingly complicated. Especially with the less mature technologies, the data on direct cost/usable power is really not just out there. Of course, trying to figure in externalized costs is ludicrous, given the politicization of the problem. Take for example the Chernobyl disaster. Greenpeace decided that it caused 200,000 deaths, which makes Fox news look honest. Going beyond disingenuous to plain old lying, some other weirdos decided that the radioactive release caused almost a million deaths. The WHO and IAC predicted that the number was 9,000. Getting back to “plain old lying” category, UNSCEAR decided that the number was 62. So, total deaths are definitely between 62 and 900,000. Great.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120173 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120173 1.5 gigawatts. Enough to power 450,000 homes, or one flux capacitor with some left over. 1.5 gigawatts. Enough to power 450,000 homes, or one flux capacitor with some left over.

]]> By: Stooge http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120177 Stooge Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120177 It's not quite as impressive as it sounds. Firstly, 450,000 homes seems a bit on the high side when <a href="http://altawindenergycenter.com/benefits.html">Alta Wind Energy Center only claims 275,000</a>. Secondly, Google's investment only covers half of the 102Mw Alta IV phase of the project, which would mean Google's responsible for about 9,000 homes worth of output. Lastly, it's no accident that the unit of reference is homes because it yields the most impressive number in this specific instance: California electricity usage per household is lower than any other state bar Hawaii. It’s not quite as impressive as it sounds.
Firstly, 450,000 homes seems a bit on the high side when Alta Wind Energy Center only claims 275,000.
Secondly, Google’s investment only covers half of the 102Mw Alta IV phase of the project, which would mean Google’s responsible for about 9,000 homes worth of output.
Lastly, it’s no accident that the unit of reference is homes because it yields the most impressive number in this specific instance: California electricity usage per household is lower than any other state bar Hawaii.

]]> By: Moriarty http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120183 Moriarty Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120183 You measure power in homes the same way you measure data in songs. You measure power in homes the same way you measure data in songs.

]]> By: Snig http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120224 Snig Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120224 Compared to other companies that plough profits into CEO's, hookers and blow, and Republican support organization, Google deserves some props for this. Compared to other companies that plough profits into CEO’s, hookers and blow, and Republican support organization, Google deserves some props for this.

]]> By: Rick. http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1119971 Rick. Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1119971 And more than enough gigawatts to travel through time! And more than enough gigawatts to travel through time!

]]> By: nixiebunny http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1119972 nixiebunny Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1119972 $250 per house seems like a very good price, compared to solar power at $10,000. $250 per house seems like a very good price, compared to solar power at $10,000.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1120741 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1120741 Probably more effective than Helios One, but does it include an Archimedes? Probably more effective than Helios One, but does it include an Archimedes?

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1119977 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1119977 This sucker's electrical! This sucker’s electrical!

]]> By: EH http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1119991 EH Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1119991 They just want the company to have a reason to send people to Coachella every year. They just want the company to have a reason to send people to Coachella every year.

]]> By: RedShirt77 http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1119992 RedShirt77 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1119992 Google me this, Batman... What do California Energy companies invest in? Google me this, Batman…

What do California Energy companies invest in?

]]> By: PlaneShaper http://boingboing.net/2011/05/24/google-invests-55-mi.html#comment-1119995 PlaneShaper Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1119995 Great Scott! Great Scott!

]]>