Google signs 20-year deal to power data centers with wind energy

Quote:

---

It's not the first investment Google has made in wind power, but anyone wondering about its commitment needn't look any further than the company's just-announced deal with NextEra Energy. It's agreed to buy wind power from NextEra's wind farm in Iowa for the next twenty years, which it says will provide enough power to supply "several" of its data centers. What's more, Google says that the size and length of the deal (taking 114 megawatts of energy off the market) will also lead to other indirect benefits for the wind power industry, and give NextEra the flexibility to invest in additional clean energy projects. Head on past the break for NextEra's press release on the deal.

---

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/20/g...h-wind-energy/



Good on them!

Skynet is going Green!

But that's great that Google is being environmentally friendly :)

When will people see wind power ISN'T the solution??? Shame on Google! What happens when the wind stops? You have to bring power from a power station... which you have to leave running 24/7...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recursion

When will people see wind power ISN'T the solution??? Shame on Google! What happens when the wind stops? You have to bring power from a power station... which you have to leave running 24/7...

---

Not really a shame on Google. If there is wind now, use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recursion

When will people see wind power ISN'T the solution??? Shame on Google! What happens when the wind stops? You have to bring power from a power station... which you have to leave running 24/7...

---

Wind power is what we call "a temporary solution to a permanent problem".

It's the answer at the minute because wind is available, but if they cared THAT much, they'd just be storing solar power energy and using many other alternate forms of energy generation, such as hydroelectric power.

They are also using other alternative forms of energy such as Bloom Boxes - http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/22/bloom-energy-boxes/

I remember watching the 60 Minutes video a while back and found it pretty interesting :)

Good on Google!

I think solar power is the way to go, because the efficient panels can work very well even when it's cloudy. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recursion

When will people see wind power ISN'T the solution??? Shame on Google! What happens when the wind stops? You have to bring power from a power station... which you have to leave running 24/7...

---

i'm sure Google would have looked into all the pros & cons of buying wind power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Special

i'm sure Google would have looked into all the pros & cons of buying wind power

---

Umm no they haven't as it's well documented that wind turbines have a very short lifespan, require an awful lot of maintenance, aren't very reliable and they actually cost more to make than they will earn in their lifetime. So while it's good they're using renewable energy sources, they are essentially promoting a ridiculous way of generating electricity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

Umm no they haven't as it's well documented that wind turbines have a very short lifespan, require an awful lot of maintenance, aren't very reliable and they actually cost more to make than they will earn in their lifetime. So while it's good they're using renewable energy sources, they are essentially promoting a ridiculous way of generating electricity.

---

what do you mean 'no they haven't' lol, they are have bound to look into wind energy wether it's for profitble reasons or enviromental reasons. they arn't just going to think 'hmm let's buy a 20 year contract for wind energy' and sign the dotted line within 5 minutes lol...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

Umm no they haven't as it's well documented that wind turbines have a very short lifespan, require an awful lot of maintenance, aren't very reliable and they actually cost more to make than they will earn in their lifetime. So while it's good they're using renewable energy sources, they are essentially promoting a ridiculous way of generating electricity.

---

Google = Multi-million pound company.
People on hxf - nothing like that.

I am sure google know the risks etc lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Special

what do you mean 'no they haven't' lol, they are have bound to look into wind energy wether it's for profitble reasons or enviromental reasons. they arn't just going to think 'hmm let's buy a 20 year contract for wind energy' and sign the dotted line within 5 minutes lol...

---

I agree, obviously Google aren't just going to rush into a 20 year contract lol...

Anyway it's nice to see that Google are going green

Wind energy costs a helluva lot for what you get. It's environmentally friendly, but not economical. Google have the money to spend on it, while things like the UK government that get attacked for such things, do not really have the money or the money is better spent elsewhere, seeing as it's tax payers money. I think that's where some of you are getting a bit confused.

Econimical = No.
Environmental = Yes, sort of.

The public needs to stop being so scared of Nuclear power... THAT is the way forward for now.

What we need to find out is just how much pollution is actually made in the manufacturing process... I'm sure they pollute in someway, be it when they produce the paint to when they are producing the metal to go into the blades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biohazard

Good on Google!

I think solar power is the way to go, because the efficient panels can work very well even when it's cloudy. :)

---

LOL. Solar power and efficient in the same sentence? Solar Panels are nowhere near efficient at their current stage of development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recursion

The public needs to stop being so scared of Nuclear power... THAT is the way forward for now.

What we need to find out is just how much pollution is actually made in the manufacturing process... I'm sure they pollute in someway, be it when they produce the paint to when they are producing the metal to go into the blades.



LOL. Solar power and efficient in the same sentence? Solar Panels are nowhere near efficient at their current stage of development.

---

That's the thing though. You can not say nuclear will be 100% safe and that you don't need to be scared, too many events have happened in the past with Nuclear and that's why people are scared. I agree that Nuclear power is a good way to go for the future, I can understand why people are not too sure about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recursion

LOL. Solar power and efficient in the same sentence? Solar Panels are nowhere near efficient at their current stage of development.

---

I didn't once say that solar power was efficient. I said the efficient PANELS (efficient compared to the basic panels) can work well even when it's cloudy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recursion

When will people see wind power ISN'T the solution??? Shame on Google! What happens when the wind stops? You have to bring power from a power station... which you have to leave running 24/7...

---

That has got to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen you make since Vista :P

The idea is to produce a surplus of energy with these turbines than required in which the additional accumulation of energy will be used when there's a lack of wind to power the turbines.

Tom, do you think the engineers who design these turbines or the people at Google are seriously so stupid as to not take wind inconsistency into consideration? They position these things where there's the most and best chance of wind too. I somewhat doubt the mountains and hills they're--usually--placed on disappear overnight, and by the time they've eroded we will either be dead or they would have upgraded technologies.

Yes--shame on Google for trying to be cleaner!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HotelUser

That has got to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen you make since Vista :P

The idea is to produce a surplus of energy with these turbines than required in which the additional accumulation of energy will be used when there's a lack of wind to power the turbines.

Tom, do you think the engineers who design these turbines or the people at Google are seriously so stupid as to not take wind inconsistency into consideration? They position these things where there's the most and best chance of wind too. I somewhat doubt the mountains and hills they're--usually--placed on disappear overnight, and by the time they've eroded we will either be dead or they would have upgraded technologies.

Yes--shame on Google for trying to be cleaner!

---

It's a worldwide fact there isn't always wind at the same point... :P

And actually, I know over here in the UK anyway, there isn't much choice about where your energy comes from, it's all in the national grid anyway. And as someone else said, these Wind turbines actually break very quickly and very easily and we still don't know how much pollution is made in the manufacturing process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HotelUser

That has got to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen you make since Vista :P

The idea is to produce a surplus of energy with these turbines than required in which the additional accumulation of energy will be used when there's a lack of wind to power the turbines.

Tom, do you think the engineers who design these turbines or the people at Google are seriously so stupid as to not take wind inconsistency into consideration? They position these things where there's the most and best chance of wind too. I somewhat doubt the mountains and hills they're--usually--placed on disappear overnight, and by the time they've eroded we will either be dead or they would have upgraded technologies.

Yes--shame on Google for trying to be cleaner!

---

Wind Turbines have a lifespan of 20 years and that's with regular maintenance, for them to last another 5-10 years they need very costly upgrades. They are not economically viable as they cost more to produce than the electricity does so it's a ridiculous renewable energy source to promote. In the long term, even something like Solar Panels are better as they have a much longer lifespan even if they do cost a bit more.

If you ask me, Google have just gone for them for the good publicity and the low-cost in the short term (yet they'd actually save money if they looked into long term solutions).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

Wind Turbines have a lifespan of 20 years and that's with regular maintenance, for them to last another 5-10 years they need very costly upgrades. They are not economically viable as they cost more to produce than the electricity does so it's a ridiculous renewable energy source to promote. In the long term, even something like Solar Panels are better as they have a much longer lifespan even if they do cost a bit more.

If you ask me, Google have just gone for them for the good publicity and the low-cost in the short term (yet they'd actually save money if they looked into long term solutions).

---

They have money to waste, so it's fine really :P They're just trying to look environmental.

The problem is, people are spending the money in the wrong place... if we spent as much money on R+D of other forms of power as we do on wind turbines, we'd probably be a lot further ahead. :(

Oh great, looks like more money is being wasted on going 'green'. When will people realise that correlation is NOT causation? Global warming is not caused by a build up of CO2, water vapour is by far the most common 'pollutant' in the atmosphere. Indeed, cover all the reservoirs, outdoor swimming pools, rivers, ponds, lakes, and other exposed bodies of water - don't want any evaporation going up there and causing major global warming now do we?! Of course, as this heats the atmosphere, more water will evaporate leading to unstoppable global warming (unless you give some rich people even more money)!!

Maybe I'd believe in global warming if global temperatures were actually increasing constantly and not cooling. There were two periods of global warming, 1915–1945 and 1977–1998, and two periods of global cooling, 1880–1915 and 1945–1977, in the 20th century, of course I must be wrong since Al Gore says so in his political document film documentary. I must be wrong again, look at all the tampered data that has been gathered. Furthermore, it is statistically certain that if you collect enough data you could prove ANY hypothesis, even though it would be obviously refutable because the data itself refutes itself, is poor or there is a far greater wealth or data that disproves it. I could easily 'prove' that having more police in an area increases incidence of crime - when really we know that crime is higher, so more police are moved in. A bit like how temperature rises, and then CO2 levels rise.

My last point is that sudden fluctuations in the climate have been happening presumably since the earth began. There have been 10 large changes in the global climate in the past 15,000 years and 60 smaller sudden changes in the past 5000-ish years. These can be changes of 15f in a century. Also, look back at the period called Younger Dryas, 15,000 years ago the world was warming and glaciers were receding. 12,000-13,000 years ago the world started to cool intensely (Younger Dryas period) and the glaciers started advancing again. Then 1300 years later this cooling period ended with a very sudden and very intense warming period.

Sure, go ahead and buy green solutions, but remember, if you want to sell a product you have to market it. What better way than a moral panic.. and I'l leave my final point in a quote;

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it. H.L. Menken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wig44.

Oh great, looks like more money is being wasted on going 'green'. When will people realise that correlation is NOT causation? Global warming is not caused by a build up of CO2, water vapour is by far the most common 'pollutant' in the atmosphere. Indeed, cover all the reservoirs, outdoor swimming pools, rivers, ponds, lakes, and other exposed bodies of water - don't want any evaporation going up there and causing major global warming now do we?! Of course, as this heats the atmosphere, more water will evaporate leading to unstoppable global warming (unless you give some rich people even more money)!!

Maybe I'd believe in global warming if global temperatures were actually increasing constantly and not cooling. There were two periods of global warming, 1915–1945 and 1977–1998, and two periods of global cooling, 1880–1915 and 1945–1977, in the 20th century, of course I must be wrong since Al Gore says so in his political document film documentary. I must be wrong again, look at all the tampered data that has been gathered. Furthermore, it is statistically certain that if you collect enough data you could prove ANY hypothesis, even though it would be obviously refutable because the data itself refutes itself, is poor or there is a far greater wealth or data that disproves it. I could easily 'prove' that having more police in an area increases incidence of crime - when really we know that crime is higher, so more police are moved in. A bit like how temperature rises, and then CO2 levels rise.

My last point is that sudden fluctuations in the climate have been happening presumably since the earth began. There have been 10 large changes in the global climate in the past 15,000 years and 60 smaller sudden changes in the past 5000-ish years. These can be changes of 15f in a century. Also, look back at the period called Younger Dryas, 15,000 years ago the world was warming and glaciers were receding. 12,000-13,000 years ago the world started to cool intensely (Younger Dryas period) and the glaciers started advancing again. Then 1300 years later this cooling period ended with a very sudden and very intense warming period.

Sure, go ahead and buy green solutions, but remember, if you want to sell a product you have to market it. What better way than a moral panic.. and I'l leave my final point in a quote;

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it. H.L. Menken.

---

That's a very good post and all that but fossil fuels will run out that's pretty indisputable, the alternatives need to be looked at before it's too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

That's a very good post and all that but fossil fuels will run out that's pretty indisputable, the alternatives need to be looked at before it's too late.

---

Yes, but for the right reasons. People shouldn't feel bad because they are using fossil fuels. I do think alternatives are needed soon because collecting fossil fuels damages the areas it is plundered from and pollution to the environment from oil spills for example (and other shady business practices from the giants who profit from fossil fuels) are unacceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wig44.

Oh great, looks like more money is being wasted on going 'green'. When will people realise that correlation is NOT causation? Global warming is not caused by a build up of CO2, water vapour is by far the most common 'pollutant' in the atmosphere. Indeed, cover all the reservoirs, outdoor swimming pools, rivers, ponds, lakes, and other exposed bodies of water - don't want any evaporation going up there and causing major global warming now do we?! Of course, as this heats the atmosphere, more water will evaporate leading to unstoppable global warming (unless you give some rich people even more money)!!

---

Water vapour is in no way the cause of "global warning", just no.

But I do agree with the rest of your post. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wig44.

Oh great, looks like more money is being wasted on going 'green'.

---

Climate change isn't the only problem with our traditional ways of creating energy. For example, we're burning our finite supply of oil for energy when it could be better used to create plastics, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recursion

Water vapour is in no way the cause of "global warning", just no.

But I do agree with the rest of your post. :P

---

I was being sarcastic. The point is, water vapour is the most populous element in the atmosphere which contributes to the green house effect (which is negligible).

Ah ok, just fyi, it's hard to detect sarcasm on the internet. LOL

Nuclear power is the way forward. What google are doing is stupid and costs too much money. Nuclear power is very clean and extremely safe. The bad events you hear of are mainly from the east, not the west. And when they're from the west it was in the infancy of knowing just wtf to do, we have stricter regulations and a far, far better safety record than ever. We're going forward into the future and the sooner we get nuclear power the better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty-vH42H_7k

snm.