Hey, hey, take a look at the light, hydrocarbon-powered pundits! Computer chips -- Google's giant brain cells -- are made with silicon. So are solar cells. That stuff does dovetail, dog. Plus two: Google's biggest hard cost is probably electricity. Those hard drives are not hamster-powered. If Google can set up its server farms in sunny climes and pump its own juice, they're off that rusty hook that all you old-economy dinosaurs have jammed into your nasty old veins. Thus they, unlike you, will not need to bomb bomb bomb Iran.

Arizona Amp and Alternator, dog -- low spark of high heeled boys. Like the man with three lug nuts, Google may be crazy, but they are not stupid.

TCrush

http://storagemojo.com/2007/09/05/the-google-power-perspective/

Google runs an astounding number of computers in their data center, and power is a big chunk of their operating expense. They've obviously spent a lot of time researching the impact of power usage on a data center, and it's also pretty logical for them to start look for their own energy independence.

Google knows that the potential long-term benefits are huge. And those benefits go beyond simple cheaper electric bills. There are things that are (for the moment) difficult to quantify, such as the savings from not having all the downstream* effects of a combustion-based energy infrastructure.

This is not quixotic, it is visionary and inevitable. That a company like Google is leading the way ought to be a given. They've been right about too much to dismiss out of hand.

* Health and pollution based positives, which will manifest themselves once such things become commonplace.

The worst part is the line "Its shareholders probably don't want ". He has no idea what its shareholders want, he just knows what he wants or what he thinks typical shareholders might or might not want. Hasn't done a survey, hasn't tried contacting shareholders or tried to see if Google asked any of its shareholders, just says what he thinks and attributes it to what shareholders "probably don't want". For all he knows, Google's shareholders are excited about this investment. I know I would be if I held any Google stock.

The conservative philosophy:

The federal government shouldn't really invest in clean energy research, because it's not the government's job to interfere with the free market.

Commercial companies with stock holders shouldn't invest in clean energy research because it's not fair to gamble with stock holder's money.

Got it.

@jwbates

Is exactly right. In order to run all those computers in a huge data center you need to have energy. Lots of energy. If they can divorce themselves from being held hostage to power companies then that is potentially a huge win for their business overhead.

And if they can make it into a commodity solution which is easy to sell... then it could be an immense win across the board.

While some people may argue that it's not core to Google's business, the major consumable Google uses is electricity. If they eliminate that - then they increase their profits by reducing expenses.

It has nothing at all to do with 'being held hostage'. Google runs something like 750 data centers world wide. In many of those places they are a major if not the largest local power consumer. As such major customers get all sorts of rebates. But what Google is worried about is capacity. Capacity - the availability of power when they need it. That's a much bigger problem.

The other problem, almost as critical is redundancy. Redundancy - the ability to spool up all or part of another power supply when the primary supply is curtailed in part or in whole.

The third problem is that Google has, today, a DC in a box. Literally, a dumpster sized steel crate that is a self contained DC they can wheel up practically anywhere. The problem as always is access to power. Portable power is bigger than the DC itself.

Please leave your insane retarded politics at the door and stick to the econometrics of engineering solutions. Thanks.

The first article I read about this pointed out what many of the other letter writers have: one of GOOG's biggest operating costs is power. If they can come up with a cheaper, more efficient way to power all of those servers, it will benefit the company and the shareholders. Oh, yeah, and if they come up with anything good, they'll be able to license/sell it to other companies. More products--another benefit to the company and shareholders.

I'm having a hard time seeing the downside here. Apparently I'm not alone, either--after the announcement went out (yesterday), the stock price went up.

Juliebird is right. The WSJ does not want venture capital going into power conservation or alternative energy in any way, shape of form. They are coal/oil/nuclear boys.

Mother Jones or the Nation had a story yesterday about how venture capital first started leaning towards alternative energy, and has now jumped into security in a bigger way - you know, cops, dogs, high tech IDs, etc. Where the real money is. WSJ is pushing that too. Blackwater II is the best investment for the future...get your gated world ready.

Bush/WSJ think the 'market' will solve the environment? May these people rot in hell, or better yet, lose money.

The officers of a corporation have a fiduciary obligation to run it in such a way as to operate to the shareholders' benefit. While clean, renewable power is certainly not universal, it also already makes some degree of economic sense, even at its current state of development. Google is clearly taking a longer view than the "what's good this quarter" that many outfits seem to have (see: Wow! We're making a killing off these giant SUVs right now! Let's make more!). Since by all accounts Google uses gobs of electricity, investigating this alternative is actually the responsible course of action and not just some feel good flyer at an idealized perfect world.

They're planning for a decade of rotating intermittent brownouts and service interruptions while we transform our power grid into an adpative power network. Good for them. Beats helping authoritarian governments erect firewalls and spy on their citizens I guess.