No Long-Term Prognosis for Fossil Fuels
Those who foresee slow, incremental change in the energy industry should take a peek at this. Google, the company with the second highest market cap in the U.S., will receive 100% of the considerable amount of energy it consumes from renewable resources beginning next year.
It’s just another data point showing the inevitable conclusion: All Trump’s men won’t be able to put the fossil fuel industry back together again.
And ironically, the fundamental reason for the burgeoning success of renewables is capitalism itself, i.e., lots of people are making lots of money investing in clean energy all over the world.
That is rather meaningless.
It is certainly possible for a few companies to get 100% of their power from renewables, but at what cost? Could all companies actually afford it?
Generally, when the cost of wind and solar power is computed, the computation does not include the storage necessary to make it a reliable and continuous source of power. Even now it is technically possible to add enough batteries to get reliable power but the cost of the battery storage would be prohibitive. If that were not the case, then wouldn’t solar enthusiasts, in addition to having PV panels on their roofs, have battery storage and disconnect themselves from the grid? If the storage is too expensive for residential use, wouldn’t it also be too expensive for business use where cost is an important consideration?
I wouldn’t call in meaningless, for the reasons Glenn Doty noted and I’ve explained to MarcoPolo above. Also, there are huge companies that are finding that they can generate the electricity they use more cost-effective on their own than by buying it from the utilities. Again, not meaningless in the least.
Craig,
Yeah I’m afraid frank is quite correct, it’s pretty meaningless. It’s a bit of ‘feel good PR to offset some of the darker aspects of Google’s activities.
However, if you’re a die hard Wind and Solar fan,and into symbolism and empty gestures, then I guess it has meaning.
Frank wisdom dictates we should take into consideration general principals and exceptions. In this case, what you say may be appropriate for most companies. But Google is a computing technology company.
Even in the 70’s, before personal computing, when a business “computer room” had many desk sized machines sitting on a removable floor where wires could be routed from machine to machine… When IBM was king, even then, special consideration was given to incoming power. The power to those “crude” machines had to be conditioned and it had to be continuous. Another desk sized machine would be installed to ensure that power never drops out. The working component of these machines were either batteries or flywheels to fill in needed power within milliseconds. Back up generators would take over longer outages. No hospital operating room was better supplied with power.
The world has moved forward but computing continues to demand some of the best power supplies. It is critical to their business. And the cost – benefit analysis must take into consideration more than just economics and include elements like customer satisfaction. You can expect companies like Google to be experts on power supply and storage.
So as their business model demands an un-interruptable power supply, you can easily expect them to also want to have methods of production under their operating roof. They will look for the cheapest sources and as all business does they will crow about what they must do in any event as a sound business model.
Your cynicism may not be entirely misplaced but it may be misapplied. I think we can afford to be a little gracious and give credit where it is due even if it is with a wink.
Craig,
Oh dear Craig, I hate to be the one to rain on your parade, but this is little more than a publicity stunt by Google.
Shuffling around some figures and effecting some complicated purchasing arrangements doesn’t prove the efficacy of renewable energy so much as the desire of Google to acquire the illusion of “going green”.
(It’s now becoming obvious that for the next 4 years every news item will contain some reference to Donald Trump).
That’s the problem for left ideologues, they need a villain, and enemy to vilify. In a way, that’s how ‘President’ Trump was created. His Presidency is largely a rebellion against sanctimonious, self righteous, leftist ideologues.
Renewable energy technology must prove it’s technical and economic superiority , while fulfilling essential needs. It must competitive without complicated extraneous excuses and extravagant claims that become discredited.
Voters may say one thing in polls, but once the economy begins to decline, the electorate always votes from economic self interest.
Government subsidies, hidden consumer increases etc, are all tolerated as long as the economy remains strong. Once the economy start to totter, the burning brands and pitchforks appear.
The US has been living for a number of years on a credit card. The national debt has reached a stage where it’s simply accepted and even considered a virtue by leftists, who believe it proves that prudent financial management can be ignored as long as extravagant social programs and an expansion of the bureaucracy continues unabated.
Recently, I read an article castigating the cash-strapped Australian government for failing to fund an increase in the number of social workers trained to assist the unemployed to adjust to the problems of unemployment.
The author trumpeted angrily that by withholding a $60 million annual increase, demand by the labour-left opposition, the centre-right government was showing it’s usual callous disregard for the unemployed.
The thought that maybe the $60 million might be better spent on lessening unemployment, and the idea the unemployed might not welcome the advice of a young social worker, with a newly minted degree in sociology, never seemed to occur to the authors sense of smug sanctimony.
As each renewable energy technology fails to meet extravagant claims, Joe Public begins to resent and disbelieve the constant excuse of climate change/global warming to justify obvious deficiencies and waste of public money.
The more the media publishes this sort of illusion to the urban prosperous, especially the young and tech savvy, the deeper the distrust and disillusionment in the heartland.
Craig, it not really important what the already converted believers in renewable energy believe, it the vast mass of the general public who are growing disillusioned who need to see real evidence of practical progress.
The time for publicity stunts has passed.
Making huge investments in renewable energy has an enormous value in terms of environmental stewardship–regardless of its capacity to generate good PR.
Craig,
Um, again not wishing to be cynical, but Google isn’t really making a “huge investments in renewable energy” ! .
In fact is carefully analyzed you would discover Google’s “investment” to be relatively small and easily contained within their PR Budget.
Like most “green-washing” , it’s mostly just an illusion.
Marcopolo,
Although I agree with much of your post, you statement, “That’s the problem for left ideologues, they need a villain, and enemy to vilify.” is out of place.
Here we are concerned with energy systems; they can and should be completely divorced from political viewpoints. Where energy is concerned, people on what is often consider the “right” or the “left” can even have the same viewpoints. Bringing “left” and “right” into the discussion simply obfuscates matters and should be completely avoided. Maintaining complete objectivity is essential.
Hi Frank,
In principle I agree with your desire to see maintaining complete objectivity as essential.
My reference was a response to way every news item or article seems to contain some reference to Trump, no matter how irrelevant or tenuous. ( the cartoon and ” All Trump’s men won’t be able to put the fossil fuel industry back together again”).
While non-par6isan objectivity is desirable, Craig’s references are justified to some degree since Government policies affect investment.
Technically, Google is buying grid-mix power, and any incremental load they put onto the grid will be responded to via spare capacity, which is almost all fossil sourced power.
What the green tag program does is serve as a carbon offset program that doesn’t have a tarnished reputation. Note that carbon offsets are in fact the most rational way to address the issue. It’s far better for an environmentally minded decent person in Seattle to invest in a wind tower in Oklahoma or Kansas than it is for that person to spend the same amount on a rooftop solar system and battery storage in Seattle.
It makes since, but the left vehemently attacked carbon trading mechanisms in the early 2000’s, and so no-one can use that name anymore. But that is what Google is essentially doing with their green tags. They are buying offsets for their energy emissions. It’s a noble expense that will do a great amount of good for the planet over the coming decades… but it doesn’t mean they are emitting no carbon as of right now.
You’re 100% right; I should have explained that in my post.
I had a similar conversation with a lady from some progressive town in Northern California a few years ago, whose position was that their entire berg used only renewable energy. As I pointed out to her, what you’re saying is not actually true; the electrons that are heating up your toasters come from wherever grid operators deem that they should, but it’s cool that you’re investing in renewable energy to offset that.