Google searches for clean, cheap energy

solarcollectors.jpg

Google continues to surprise and delight, most recently with the announcement of a program to develop one gigawatt of renewable electricity at a price cheaper than coal. One gigawatt is roughly enough electricity to power San Francisco.

Not that the specific amount is what matters. Rather, the idea is to deliver clean electricity at industrial scale and at market-competitive prices. Reaching this symbolic milestone would raise hope that we can break the coal habit at home and, perhaps more importantly, in the rapidly industrializing Asian economies.

What are the details of Google’s plan? Hard to say from the press release, but their strategy could perhaps best be described as “all of the above”: they’re staffing up with the relevant renewable energy specialists, making investments in early-stage companies, funding basic research, and performing R&D themselves. They’ve announced an early focus on solar thermal energy, high altitude wind, and geothermal systems. But just so no one feels left out, they’ll also consider “other potential breakthrough technologies.”

This is all to the good. Of course, even Google’s considerable resources are a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the global expenditures on energy research and infrastructure development. But the company has a track record of innovation and audacity, both sorely needed in the energy sector.

Google has condensed its goal into a computer-code like shorthand: RE<C (renewable energy cheaper than coal). Behind the shorthand lie further questions: does Google’s gigawatt include the sort of baseload power that coal is so good at providing? And how cheap is coal, exactly, particularly in a carbon-constrained world?

Hopefully we’ll have some answers soon. Larry Page thinks Google can reach its goals in “years, not decades.” Page’s interest in this topic is more than simply altruistic. He hopes Google’s investments will eventually pay off financially as well. As should we all.

Update: The Cleantech Group has some more details from Google’s conference call following the announcement. Still pretty high-level stuff, though — it’s hard to be too specific about technology that doesn’t exist yet. Right now Google thinks the most likely route to market for any technology they develop will be licensing it on favorable terms, although they’re open to other opportunities.

Further update: Charles Komanoff looks more thoroughly at some of the issues I gloss above, and raises a skeptical eyebrow.

Author Bio

adam

Comments Disabled

  1. richard schumacher - December 5, 2007

    Will they include all indirect costs in their reckoning?

  2. richard schumacher - December 5, 2007

    I think Charles Komanoff has it spot on. The fastest surest route to Google’s result would be for them to spend most of their two billion dollars on lobbying for a carbon tax of, say, $50 per tonne levied on all fossil fuels.

  3. SJA - December 6, 2007

    Government incentives for sustainable energy investment vs. taxing existing energy is more likely to spur development. Spending $2 billion on lobbying would only make Washington fatter.

  4. Barbara Appelbaum - December 10, 2007

    I remember from a few years ago, in Science News, a short announcement that someone had developed a filter for smokestacks of coal plants. It sequesters carbon dioxide. I have no idea whether anyone took this up. It strikes me that, as wonderful as replacing coal with other energy sources would be, cleaning up coal could have an immediate impact and be much easier to carry out.
    Barbara Appelbaum

  5. Adam Stein - December 10, 2007

    Yep, there is intense interest in what has been dubbed “clean coal,” which is the subject of an ongoing series of political battles.
    Unfortunately, however you feel about clean coal, it’s not really easier to carry out. Still pretty speculative stuff.

  6. richard schumacher - December 12, 2007

    The fundamental problem with sequestering CO2 is that people make so damn much of it. Last year we created about 25 billion tonnes of CO2 by burning fossil fuels. This is equivalent to about 10,000 cubic miles of CO2. There’s simply no way to capture and permanently store more than a tiny fraction of that much gas.

  7. John - November 9, 2008

    I am interested in “CHEAP” Clean & Renewable electricity. That is 10 cent per kWh or less deliveried to all states. John Kennendy said we will put a man on the moon in ten years, but he didn’t say we should a Titan rocket instead of an Atlas rocket, so like him I’ll leave it to the smart people to figure out how to do it. If we don’t figure it out than all those energy sensitive jobs will move to a place will there is cheap electricity whether it is clean renewable or not.

Facebook

Get the Facebook Likebox Slider Pro for WordPress