I'd rather see the US start spending 200 billion a year on this than the current plan on spending 700 billion to pay for wall street's mistakes.

As nebulous as it is, it's more well defined than where the 700 billion bailout money would go.

bpatten

Somehow I highly doubt a project that will cost over 4 trillion dollars will lower Googles electricity bill. Why in the hell would anybody invest TRILLIONS of dollars and not stay extremely close to what all the other standard electric companies are charging per KWH?

It's not like you would like to recoup 4+ trillion dollars of your investment. Free electricity for everybody! Saying that Google is proposing this plan, offering 1trillion dollars of it's own money, just to "cut costs" is beyond asinine.

phoenix27

"None of the key points are radical, except for asking for a $4.4 trillion investment" - Absolutely Hilarious!

pdditty

@Hiphopopotamus: Not to mention the fact that population is still growing at an amazing rate, so I'm curious how they expect to decrease use when there will be so many more people to use it.

bobman1235

So Google knows how to save energy? Does it save money? If it does then Google will do it on its own. If not then it is a waste of money.

CGANIERE

What about that nuclear reactor in my backyard by 2010?

UofITom

Google for President in '12!

SgtToastie

Any plan that bases assumptions on a decrease in demand (especially a 33% decrease) is inherently flawed.

You can't get most people to turn off a light in a room they aren't using - as a matter of fact, there is a whole industry of home security products that will make sure your lights turn on when you're not there.

It's all about more bang for the buck, not doing more with less.

Now back to my plan -- Gigantic f***ing nuclear plant on the entire surface of the moon and one big extension cord.

Hiphopopotamus

It'll need even more than this estimate because unless this is all vastly microdistributed, we'll need a redesign of the energy infrastructure (transmission lines, etc.) to accomodate the renewables that, out of necessity, are localized and often not near population centers.

ScruffytheJanitor

if google can't save the world it can tell you who can. just google it.

yungjerry703

@noone1569:

Just add it onto our debt!

noone1569

Chump change

noone1569

$200 billion a year is still a lot of money.

ripfire

It's a non-starter because there's no way we're going to reduce our use by 33%. It will more likely be up by that much or more. And why eliminate Clean Coal? Why no nuclear? If 9 out of 10 cars are electric, and autos must average 45 MPH, does that mean that the 1 out of ten gas autos can only get 4.5 MPH? This strikes me as being a touchy-feeley symbolism over substance kind of thing that is never really meant to happen, but it sure makes them look like they care.

GadgetPlay

@ripfire: If we can bail out rich folks to the tune of 700 billion while spending tons in Iraq, I don't see why this can't be a priority either.

Marcelo

wow, google wants their hand in everything. soon 'google earth' will literally mean just that.

Kohono

@bobman1235: Actually the population growth rate has been steadily declining since the mid 60's...

By about 2042 we'll be at roughly 9 billion though.

Xavoc

@phoenix27: Whoops, mis-read the 1 trillion part. Even without them fronting any money I still doubt it would lower their electricity bill much at all.

phoenix27

@GadgetPlay:

No nuclear because assholes (like Obama) think its dangerous and have a knee jerk reaction anytime the word is mentioned. Even though 88 people die per year in coal mining accidents and zero die in uranium mining.

este

@phoenix27:

If we spent 4 Trillion on cold fusion we would have it before 2030. Problem solved.

este

My dad who works for the power company here in Montana helped with a huge windfarm put up in Judith Gap. He said that the amount of energy that is put into making one single wind generator is more than it will produce in its 75 to 90 year lifespan.

WolfDemon

@Xavoc:

I love when people say turn off a light without realizing that every traffic intersection you've ever been to there are 2-30 lights on CONSTANTLY, 24/7. And while some of the newer lights are LEDs the majority in this country are still 100W incandescents.

Turn off a light... LOL.

este

i think this might be better that turbines:

[video.popularmechanics.com]

Ariel_Wollinger

@este: The Energy saving campaign in the '70's included stickers for our light switches. Nice bright orange with a cute little character urging you to turn of the light and "Kill a Watt".

The sad thing is that once everyone got accustomed to the status quo, we all went back to our demand-heavy ways. Where a car's biggest selling point in, say, '78 or '79 was MPG that fell by the wayside by the early '80's. Now it's back and the cycle continues.

balloondoggle

@este: Or because renewable resources are safer than both. Obama said he wasn't against it he just said he would expand it minorly.

Zomb

broho: "At least Google is putting a realistic plan down on paper"

UNrealistic.

GadgetPlay

@ZanEurotas: Wingnuts have their panties in a bunch over the latest polls.

johnnyabnormal

Isn't the US already 13+ trillion in debt? Whats another 4.4 over 22 years? How much did that little war cost us again?? At least Google is putting a realistic plan down on paper ... kudos to them.

broho

Why can't more companies be like Google?

They make this world a happily open source place.

P3nnst8r

@WolfDemon: Try more like 3 months, if you factor in the energy consumed in the manufacture, transportation, maintenance and eventual scrapping of materials.

There's been plenty of very well written and verified scientific studies out there for a several decades supporting this assertion. Here's a good place to start.

[www.awea.org]

I'd love to see any 'facts' to backup your father's claims.

geekpi

WolfDemon wrote: "My dad who works for the power company here in Montana helped with a huge windfarm put up in Judith Gap. He said that the amount of energy that is put into making one single wind generator is more than it will produce in its 75 to 90 year lifespan." You dad is completely wrong. According to experts at EPRI and elsewhere, a wind turbine energy payback period is 3 to 6 months, which compares favorably to most other generator types.

MarkBabalastic

If they located those windmills in Washington D.C. they'd power the planet! (Old jokes are the best jokes!)

EricAlder

Obama specifically said he supports nuclear power. Are you internet disabled? http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf

ZanEurotas

@Zomb:

Don't kid yourself. Obama has no nuclear plan because dems are against it. He's "serously considering it" lol.

Renewable energy is USELESS without better batteries. When the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining you are F-ed in the A.

Nuclear is a clean, safe, cheap, and immediately accessible option with no change in infrastructure.

este

I like Carlin's opinion on our national debt. He says "fuck em! Don't pay it." What they going to do? Nothing that's what.

I say let Google do it's thing.

Strider-No.9

@Kohono:

I can live with that.

Strider-No.9

@este: "no change in infrastructure"

That is absolutely false. Nuclear is not "clean". Nuclear is a great option for the short term, but the fuel will run out and building new plants is very expensive. You've also left out enhanced geothermal and hydro/tide.

@GadgetPlay:

[www1.eere.energy.gov]
[egs.egi.utah.edu]

johnnyabnormal

@balloondoggle:

What I'm saying is that when government turn off lights. Then I'll start.

(Google can stay on, they do some good)

este

That Ms. Sarah-Google-Biden-Nader sure has my vote! (an endless source of hot air powered generators)...

Stem_Sell

@SgtToastie: Buy-n-large corporation?

smarttart62

@phoenix27: Also, you should learn at an early age to respect your elders, but also think for yourself. Kinda a life lesson that blows up on young kids that their parents are never infallible and honestly, are oftentimes wrong ><

phoenix27

@WolfDemon: Your dad is completely ignorant. Maybe he misheard "75 to 90 days" and heard years.

I am unsure how young you are but can you even comprehend how, for lack of a better word - stupid it would be to make anything like this that would take over 75 years to pay for itself? Think about it for a bit...

phoenix27

@broho: "How much did that little war cost us again??" Not as much as the recent "bail-out."

Rabid Penguin

@Rabid Penguin: I heard the new wind power plan for Nebraska is putting one of these in every corn field. Muhahahaha!!

johnnyabnormal

@johnnyabnormal:

You do know that a plant is a STRUCTURE, infrastructure is all the little stuff in between.

Renewable sources don't output enough to travel efficiently over current high voltage setups. We don't have any sort of battery system for wind or solar. This is the stuff in between that does not need to be changed to get nuclear running, the stuff that is WAY more expensive then a handful of new nuclear plants.

So.... by "absolutely false" maybe you mean "I don't know what infrastructure means"

este

@yungjerry703: Apparently, it's penguins who will save the world.

[www.google.com]

Reiji

@este: "Renewable sources don't output enough"

Have you read the enhanced geothermal info I've linked you to? I'm not even talking about solar and wind.

"the stuff that is WAY more expensive then a handful of new nuclear plants"

Tell me how much you think it costs to build a new nuclear plant. Yes, you will need new infrastructure to handle new power plants.

"So.... by "absolutely false" maybe you mean "I don't know what infrastructure means""

No, I mean you making a claim that nuclear is "clean", which is false. Like I said, I'm not anti-nuclear...I just know it isn't long term.

johnnyabnormal

Well, if the 700 billion a year in imported oil cost is to be believed, not to mention the damn wars it causes, then the total over 22 years if nothing changes is about 15.4 trillion, and that doesn't account for the cost of the current war and the next ( and there will be a next and a next ... ) Something has to be done , this sounds like a solid plan to me. No plan will be cheap but spreading it out over 22 years I think makes it closer to doable. At least we'll finally have energy independence--screw the Saudi Royal family. All I ever read are criticisms to these kinds of plans but the people who condemn them don't offer an alternative??? The opinions of those who don't have a better plan don't matter. Thanks Google!

AllegraSternwah

@bpatten:

that's the most intelligent thing i've read in days.

etimy

Brilliant! Ignore the naysayers. Nothing is possible with those people. I haven't read it yet myself but plan to. There's one thing I already know for sure. If any organization is capable of creating an actual-workable plan, it's definitely Google! They eat complexity for breakfast and make apparently impossible things reality. Common people!!!

silicon-nectar

Google's ingenious. They're entire way of doing business is dealing with strange complexity. I trust there plan. Anyway, I'm sure if we had all the numerical details in the plan itself we'd find that it makes good sense or we'd find we're too dumb to even comprehend it. And so what if it actually takes 25 or 25 years or 30. No nuclear. No coal. No so-called clean coal. Pollution-based energy sources or radioactive energy sources are unnecessary. We don't need them.

PhilippaKaplog

@UofITom: Here you go, but you'll have to wait until 2013.

GTgeek

@Rabid Penguin: Hahaha...

johnnyabnormal

@johnnyabnormal: You're thinking of Iowa (for the corn) or California (for the gays)... Our flag would have a cow on it. A cow snorting crystal meth.

Rabid Penguin

Didn't Google apply for some patents around a floating server farm on the ocean powered by the waves? Now that would be a funny Google Power product.

Doublenix