Google Explains Why It Became an Energy Trader 112
angry tapir writes "Google has explained how it might use its status as an energy-trading company to increase the use of renewable energy sources in its data centers. In February, the company's Google Energy subsidiary received approval from the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to buy and sell power on the wholesale market."
More crazy US laws. (Score:5, Interesting)
It is currently illegal to resell electricity that you generate using 'waste'.
So say you run a heat-treat process. You don't have much incentive to install a way to reprocess that heat. I wish I could remember the TLC/Discovery/History channel special that they had about it...
By becoming an 'energy trader' I'm wondering if Google can skirt these laws and make their data centers more efficient or even energy negative.
Elementary (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, this way the extent and sizes of their data centers can be hidden behind a energy trading corp controlled by them.
Re:More crazy US laws. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is currently illegal to resell electricity that you generate using 'waste'.
Okay, you're going to have to explain that. (ie [citation needed]).
(And, if you're generating it, it would be "sell", not "resell", wouldn't it?)
Because they know more than anyone else? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if they can get any insight into other energy trading companies' plans and strategy based on the search activities of their employees and executive teams...
Re:More crazy US laws. (Score:3, Interesting)
What? You better tell that to the thousands of dumps across the country burning 'waste' methane to produce electricity to sell.
Many industrial facilities also produce energy from waste heat and manufacturing bi-products. It's called co-generation. For example, many cement manufacturers burn natural gas (among other things) to produce lime-ash. They take the waste heat and produce steam to turn generating turbines, often producing more electricity than they use.
Re:More crazy US laws. (Score:4, Interesting)
(And, if you're generating it, it would be "sell", not "resell", wouldn't it?)
Depends on your viewpoint. Waste heat from electronics is just the energy your purchased with it's form converted. If you convert it BACK to electrical energy, you could be considered to be REselling it. This is opposed to hydro, geothermal, solar etc where the original form was never actually purchased. Coal, nuclear, etc might still be considered "reselling" even for the power company though since in those cases you do buy a material with stored energy.
Either way though, pointing out these differences is just being a pedantic ass, but I suppose turnabout is fair play.
Re:More crazy US laws. (Score:3, Interesting)
"often producing more electricity than they use"
Guys, seriously? Welcome to hyperbole 104.
No, it isn't uncommon for manufacturing to produce more electricity than it consumes, and it doesn't violate thermodynamics. Hint: the GP didn't write "energy" in that quotation.
ENRON (Score:3, Interesting)
You know who else was an energy trading company? /I keed.
Re:More crazy US laws. (Score:3, Interesting)
Lighten up, Francis....
I wasn't challenging the laws of thermodynamics, I was challenging the parent comment "It is currently illegal to resell electricity that you generate using waste".
As for my resume', I'll spare you the details, but my background is in energy and energy transmission contracts- more specifically, natural gas sourced co-generation.
Besides the "illegal" comment from the parent post, the statement "You don't have much incentive to install a way to reprocess that heat", is BS. There are thousands of facilities here in California selling electricity produced from 'waste' heat as a bi-product of their primary business. There are incentives for doing this- specifically, decreased natural gas transmission costs for BTUs put back on to the grid in the form of electricity (electricity that they market themselves or sell through marketers). Check out http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/ [ca.gov] and search 'cogeneration'. It's a huge industry here in CA and is heavily 'incentive-ised' and subsidized as an alternative to building power plants.
Re:What is Greenpeace smoking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually it's a little more complex than that. Greenpeace rated apple way, way low on the "environment-friendly" scale because they use PVC plastics in some of their products. Very few, actually. Apple had no comment on this; but they were making much less power-hungry products, with much less lead than anyone else, with more efficient packaging, on more efficient processes. For this small misstep and a complete lack of care to deal with Greenpeace's bullshit, Greenpeace ranked them way down.
In other words, Greenpeace rates you as "environmentally friendly" if you dance for them at request. They are not a standards body, they don't publish a spec you barely fall inside to score well; they say "DANCE MONKEY!" and you dance or they cry to the world that you won't play nice with them.
Re:What is Greenpeace smoking? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm all for supporting a cause, but there are few organizations more ridiculous than Greenpeace. (I'll mention PETA to get it out of the way, but lets not derail).
My mother works for a certain Oil and Gas Company here in Canada. A rather Large one. She was actually one of the people who helped start the oilsands projects, which I agree is terrible for the environment but has made Canada a little more self sufficient, so I'm torn on whether its a good or a bad thing. Anyways, the position she happens to hold is the Environmental/Health and Safety Director. So she has quite a few interesting stories regarding GreenPeace. On some matters, she can't even tell me what happened, confidential information. (Since this is the internet I'm trying not to disclose any information I shouldn't).
But I do remember Greenpeace, rather than just protesting or picketting, they went and snuck their way into one of the refineries up there. They wanted to set up a banner or something atop one of the structures. The pathway they chose was along this big conveyor belt, which they had shut down, and started to climb. So, now not only had they commited a break and enter on private company property, but they were also disrupting the clockwork system those kinds of factories set up. Now, just about any incompetant foreman could have turned on the conveyor belt again, and the Greenpeace activists would have been pushed into a big fiery pit, but of course they don't hire morons for foremen, and he caught on right away what was going on. I don't know exactly how it all ended, but some arrests were made.
Anyways, the more I look into Greenpeace and what they do, the more I hate them. However noble their cause might be, the idiocy in their actions strikes me as unbelievable. This is NOT how you bring about change.
Re:What is Greenpeace smoking? (Score:5, Interesting)
My favourite Greenpeace press release contained the following sentence:
"In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]"
Yes - the bit in caps is theirs.