What is Digg?92 Comments
- jmkiii, on 10/12/2007, -6/+46Don't link to your own article, especially if your language is unintentionally laughable and incoherent.
- LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21@ craigb12 - You don't understand how business works.
Just because a company can afford to do something doesn't mean it makes ANY financial sense to do so. Google probably means it wouldn't be worth doing (and thus will not be done) without the subsidies.
Google is a business - it tries to be a damned good business but it's a business none the less. - broeks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17It's easy to "Go Green" when you're rolling in it.
- R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Google has this whole public relations thing down...
- PonyGumbo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Shouldn't that be "without PVC"?
- THMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Google has lots of cool green stuff:
Solar panels in their parking lots (solar trees).
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/googles_solar_t.php
There's the solar project that is talked about by Ars:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/google_ends_sea.php
The google foundation (google.org) is also working on Global warming:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/google_to_tackl.php
Very green company! - Dynamosa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Now if more companies would start following Google's initiatives we might just be able to stem and eventually eliminate our corporate carbon emissions.
Isn't it funny how the best of companies always tend to do the right thing when it comes to charity and the environment? - decipherd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13'keeps you from using wood' ... one of the few truly sustainable materials - yes, god forbid we use more of that!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Dynamosa...you mean the best companies...like Walmart, who is doing the same thing, yet did not get the outpouring of "We all need to suck their ***** now" support on Digg when it happened.
For Walmart, the typical response was "They don't care about hte environment. They are doing it for a PR move. For Google it is "They are going to peronally save the planet!"
Typical Digg hypocrisy. PAthetic. - kwoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"Google, as is normal for them, is just copying what Microsoft did and doing it better."
I was with you till that last comment. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@wipi: You can always plant more trees. You can't always get more petroleum
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Solar panels are considered functionally useless after 30 years. At that time though, they are still making over 3/4 of the original output I believe.
This talks article talks about inverter efficiency, I'm not familiar with why a solid-state circuit like an inverter would degrade. It might contain electrolytic capacitors, which do degrade, but they also are replaceable. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Well, if I had a billion+ dollars at my disposal, my house would be 99.999% solar energy powered (gotta account for possibly having all the panels covered).
Anyone want to help a guy out?
Hell, if someone were to give me the PV, I'd buy the rest of the system. I just can't afford the upfront costs - dubled, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You mean it's easy being green when your Market Cap is 142 Billion dollars.
- BLKMGK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Suggest RTFA.
Microsoft's installation - per the article YOU linked - puts out 480KW. The Google one is over a MEGAWATT and the other installation is even bigger. Megawatts are actually bigger than Kilowatts. The install down the road is apparently someone else or perhaps Microsoft has decided to upgrade, as usual they're following it seems :-P - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's been years since i've reviewed electrical theory but DC can only go so far before it attenuates to uselessness. Also, the power generated is used to augment their power needs, not replace it. So they are still tied to the grid. Most appliances also have a AC->DC converter built in, so unless they want to buy a lot of specialized equipment, they need the source electricity to be AC.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Article gets it wrong.
'It's a textbook example of the convergence of business and environmental concerns, and Ravitz hopes that Google's example will inspire other firms to explore alternative energy sources. It seems to have helped: an even bigger 1.9MW installation is going in just down the road.'
"Just down the road" is Microsoft's campus. And Microsoft installed their solar system first. It was covered on cnet news.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/apr06/04-21SolarPowerPR.mspx
It's great companies are doing this. No, it isn't because Google did it first. Google, as is normal for them, is just copying what Microsoft did and doing it better. - sdpenner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I completely agree. This is a silly puff piece, because google has the wherewithal to install this technology and the political clout to get subsidies.
I like the idea of solar, but the premise that it is easy is completely false. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Tesla vs. Edison.
It's more difficult to convert DC to higher voltages for transmission (even across campus, higher voltages are more efficient).
I do agree though that if Google were to acquire a lot of computers that could run on (say) 48V or 100V DC, then they could rig these panels into them.
However, Google also cannot afford to shut their computers down or when a cloud comes by either. So they need to integrate the panels and the AC utility grid. In this case, that meant turning the panel power into 110V AC power. - keyboardduder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Google is a group of great people. Thats what happens if big business has morals. The second the legacy is passed on, corruption will come fourth and it will be really bad, like nazi-big brother bad.
Oh, and derami, you got dugg down because of spam for your own post just because someone said "Google". - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@nighttrain
Hurting your pocketbook? You pay taxes at the same rate, unless the taxes are raised then it's no longer your money, it's the states/feds money. In the long run, this HELPS your pocketbook. The power plant can produce only so much power, the supply is fixed. By getting a huge load off the grid you lower demand, but supply stays the same. Prices should go down. - jlbraun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Disclaimer: I used to work at a company with a semiconductor fab, and have worked in green building design.
It's interesting to note that the manufacture of solar panels is among the most polluting and noxious industrial processes currently in operation. Here is a partial list of the chemicals involved. Note that these are just the materials used in production - the process also produces horrible byproducts that also have to be disposed of. A single fab produces hundreds of thousands of gallons of highly toxic water a day as runoff.
Arsine - gaseous compound of arsenic
Diborane - toxic
Dichloromethane - toxic liquid
Germane - colorless gas, highly toxic
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrogen fluoride - highly toxic and corrosive gas, (when inhaled in humans it tends to liquefy your lungs instantly and your skin falls off)
Hydrogen sulfide - highly toxic and explosive gas
Nitric acid
Phosphine - highly toxic colorless gas, fatal in concentrations of 8ppm
Silane - extraordinarily toxic, pyrophoric gas (self-igniting in air). When I worked in a semiconductor fab, this is the big kahuna. This is the one that they said "If the silane alarm goes off, RUN LIKE HELL and do not look back, do not take anything, RUN IMMEDIATELY!"
Sodium hydroxide - corrodes human tissue on contact
Sulfuric acid
Tantalum pentoxide - mildly toxic solid
Toluene - carcinogen
Trichloroethylene - toxic, carcinogen
Trimethyl gallium - pyrophoric
Zinc phosphide - rat poison
Cadmium - toxic
(chemicals taken from http://energy.ca.gov/reports/500-04-053.PDF)
Once you create a solar panel, leakage of toxic things is pretty limited (with the exception of cadmium). However, don't pretend that solar panels are completely happy and green and ecologically inoffensive if you use them to provide utility replacement power. The production process is extraordinarily toxic, and the notion that anyone would use photoelectric solar to provide utility-scale amounts of electricity gives me the heebie-jeebies when I think of the amount of toxins involved in the production of the panels. Am I saying that we shouldn't produce solar panels? Not in the least. Am I saying that we should stop thinking of solar panels as hip, green, ecologically inoffensive happy fun time power? Absolutely.
We need to remain aware of just how bad the production process is. Photoelectric solar should be confined to small portable or geographically isolated devices where no other method of can work.
Wind, geothermal, and thermal solar pollute far less. Google's use of solar in this instance is just "green theater" because the solar panels look cool. I'd be more impressed if they put up a thermal solar plant in the parking lot. Think of a circle 300 meters in diameter composed entirely of sun-tracking mirrors, focusing sunlight onto a central boiler, heating it to over 5000 degrees F to boil water and shunt it through a steam turbine. That's cool *****. - sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5While maybe Google's HQ may be going "green", Google is building a lot of large facilities around the US that use massive amounts of NON-green power. In fact Google selects locations right next to power plants because they consume so much electricity.
This seems like a PR move to make Google seem a lot more green than they actually are. - spect3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It would be great for google to build a really tall skyscraper instead of having sprawly-like buildings..
Imagine it, the google tower! Could be 70+ stories tall AND be LEEDS Gold! Now that would be a true achievment! Then fill up the area it take up now with trees, parks, and greenery :) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I would think in single-story data centers that spread over large acreage this would be most beneficial. In the taller skyscrapers where you have many many square feet for a comparatively small ceiling space this wouldn't work as well.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Nobody said they draw ALL their power from those solar cells. What it means is the power plant can turn off a generator or two since the load is much less.
- pnutbutr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Now its up to Microsoft to produce 1.21 jigawatts with their upgrade so they can power the flux capacitor...
- jlbraun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sorry, silane is not all that toxic, started writing the one for silane then switched over to phosphine, sorry.
- mark101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If google wants to go green , they should change their homepage background color of white to gray or something.
white= 74 watts black=59 watts x 550,000 hours every day http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/black_google_wo.php - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They say that the efficiency drops over time. Does anyone know how fast that drop is? Does the solar panel eventually become useless or does it reach an efficiency drop plateau?
- Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3thanks for your informative answers!
- BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Treehugger is an interesting site, but maybe they should practice what they preach. There are a lot of "bright" energy consuming colors on their own site.
- BLKMGK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3RTFA (sheesh). At peak production this will provide 30% of their power. It will have paid for itself in 7.5 years assuming rates on electric don't go up. ANYONE can get those federal and state kickbacks on the install too - California is one of the better states for it in fact. That they did this is commendable, that they use THAT much power is pretty mindlblowing - bet their meter will never run backwards :-)
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I calculated the ROI on a PV install for my house. Not counting any tax credits and counting the cost of capital, the ROI would be about 20-25 years. And I live in a pretty sunny place. Of course, that's if utility rates don't go up over those 20 years.
With tax credits, the payback does come earlier.
But 2-5 years is very optimistic.
In essence, I look at as buying a large parcel (20 years worth) of electricity with up-front money. If you think electric power rates will go up over the next 20 years, you'd be smart to buy in advance, right? To me, that's the biggest argument for a PV install. - phae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@nighttrain2007
You're right. It is "our" money. And we give it to the governments (Federal/State/Local) so that they can take actions on our behalf. Unfortunately, they generally use it to other ends (Pork, Middle East imperialism, etc). Wouldn't you rather they use to a productive end, such as reducing the amount of chemicals in your environment and (as drmangrum points out) lowering the amount of money you pay for your own energy use?
By the way, using solar energy is not in any way "pitiful". It's commendable. - Desolite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3we have solar panels on our house. it looks ridiculous but our electric bills are nil. if your state has a rebate program it is well worth the initial investment if you don't mind the looks. solar technology has only gotten better for the past 10-20 years and now is as good a time as any to try it out. ROI is usually 2-5 years depending on the size of your system.
- wipis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Decipherd. Wood is sustainable but we're logging it faster then we plant it. Not to mention it take 60 seconds to cut down a tree but it takes years to grow a tree worth using. It's sustainable but it is not easy too.
@thelandlady3
"I would rather kill a tree than have a couch made of PVC. Just cause you save one for the production of a couch...doesn't mean your saving anything."
I'm not sure if follow your logic. I'm as ecologically minded as the next person but I don't get it. You kill at tree you kill a tree. If you save one and have your couch or chair make of something else you released some pollution but you still have a tree. Pollution can be cleaned. We use trees to do that. Not to mention all the negative effects cutting down trees have on local environments. It removes habitats, causes flooding, soil erosion, heats up the local area etc. Granted PVC uses a lot of energy and releases other pollutants but so does cutting down a tree. Logging is not the cleanest business. And the trucks and machines release huge amounts of CO. Then there is a lot of energy put into cutting and refining and processing and transporting that HEAVY wood. PVC is light and durable. A truck filled with wood chairs would weigh twice as much as one with the same PVC chair.
And be careful what you say. Don't preach what you don't practice. I would bet most people posting here are sitting on a chair made mostly from PVC. And your couch is probably made with a synthetic cloth from petroleum.
And I don't know why I got dug down for pointing out that there may be a reason its not a typo in the article - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Do like they did and see if you can get federal, state, and local money to help fund it.
- dogstylee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Now if more companies would start following Google's initiatives we might just be able to stem and eventually eliminate our corporate carbon emissions."
lol... I'm sure Google's recycled sofas will make up for China opening a new power station every week...
*switches incandescent lightbulb for magical anti-global warming lightbulb*
I'm doing my part! - cambrown99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Let's just outsource the running of the US government to Google for a few years. We'd all be better off.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's not so bad then, even considering inflation the price drop in the technology would make it far cheaper over time than current power generation. 1 replacement per generation is rather cheap. I was more worried it would be something like a 10 year lifespan, that would suck.
- Singh1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good Job Google...
When you think about the amount of money these guys make though, paying for this lot wouldn't be a big deal... If only solar powered systems were cheap enough for the Average Joe to set up. - BLKMGK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Many states offer these subsidies with Cali being one of the best. If yuo took the time to look you might find that your state does too. Homepower.com would be a good resource for finding out more about this kind of thing - they frequently discuss these subsidies and how best to grid tie various systems.
- hansonc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it's not the panels they're talking about losing efficiency, it's the DC to AC converters...not that I know the answer to that question either but maybe someone else does
- NicP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Changing the website to black will not reduce the power consumption of a LCD display, and in my experience most people use LCD screens not CRT ones.
- NJank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3perhaps a better way of stating what he tried to get across:
While PVC is a petroleum product it keeps you from using wood and lasts longer. Sort of a toss up. A little more pollution but you save all of the equivalent trees that would be used in the PVC part's total useful lifetime, and whatever additional energy/cost is expended by the process of turning those trees into replacement parts.
a legitimate trade off analysis. maybe with a very simple answer (especially since we don't design too many pvc parts that are used long enough to outlast a wooden part's lifetime.) But if I expected something to be needed forever, PVC would be a plus. - bmson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Google is also planing to put up Data-center in Iceland and use geothermal energy, Microsoft and BT are doing the same.
British Telecom and other (don't know who) are going to put up 10 data-centers in Iceland over the next 2 years. This was in the Icelandic news yesterday - ZeroFresh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hell yeah! Go Google. At least it's a step in the right direction.
- ringo380, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bufordt
At the bottom of the article:
"Of course, you don't need to stick entirely with black; you can try EMERGY-C, a low wattage palette that gives you a bit more flexibility, and only costs about 4 watts more than an all black page. Low wattage web design? It's the future. [We'll keep that low-power palette in mind for the next time we redesign the site! -Ed.]"
Looks like this isn't something they understood or realized when the created the most recent design. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually follow through with it on the next redesign. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I did RTFA.
You incorrectly assume I mean the 1.9MW installation is the MS one. That is a weird assumption, because as I point out, the MS one is already installed (and was for a while), while the article says the 1.9MW one isn't installed yet.
I was instead referring to how MS is next door and did it first. It went from MS to Google. Google just copied and improved (bigger installation). -
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is