| |

Michael Kanellos Contributor


Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.


Contact Michael Kanellos


Green Tech 47,161 views

Google Explains Why The Future Of Energy Is Green


Google: Where it all began


“While fossil-based prices are on a cost curve that goes up, renewable prices are on this march downward,” said Rick Needham, director of energy and sustainability at Google, during a presentation at the Cleantech Forum taking place in San Francisco. Even if you factor in how fracking has reduced the cost of gas in many regions, the pricing trends generally point toward renewables.

The reason, one could argue, centers on the energy source. The renewable industry revolves around developing and mass manufacturing technologies—efficient turbines, solar panels—to harvest somewhat limitless, omnipresent natural resources. The fossil industry revolves around applying technology to tapping resources that are much harder to extract. Hence, fossil fuels tend to be more volatile in price. (Think of it: you wake up because of the sun every day, not because of the stench from a passing methane cloud.)

Some of his data points:

  • 49% of the new capacity commissioned in the U.S. in 2012 was renewable. 10GW of that new capacity, or 40%, came from wind. More wind capacity was installed than natural gas capacity last year in the U.S. Wind outpaced coal by 2X.
  • The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from solar plants in the U.S. dropped by 28% in the past year.  Solar panels have dropped in price by 80 percent over the last five years.
  • Solar will soon be at cost parity in many markets in the world. Parity is already being achieved in Italy, Spain and Australia.
  • The 240 EV chargers in the parking lots support a corporate EV fleet that has logged 500,000 miles.
  • Google has procured 260MW of wind power. Some wind contracts will provide Google power at stable prices for up to 20 years.
  • The company has also invested $1 billion directly into alternative power projects that will generate over 2GW of power, or twice as much power as Google used in 2011.

Google has also invested heavily in efficiency.

  • An employee frustrated with his commute inspired Google to set up its own van pool. Now, 4,500 employees ride on the Google shuttle fleet. The custom-built coaches run on a biodiesel blend and come equipped with WiFi so employees can work during the commute. It has taken 3,000 cars off the road and reduces carbon emissions by 16,000 tons annually.
  • Plus, the van pool lets Google use parking spaces for more productive uses. (Real estate actually has become one of the big hidden benefits for many companies when it comes to efficiency incentives, so say building management companies, modular builders and people that develop technology that reduces the amount of air conditioners and backup systems you need for data centers.)
  • Google’s data centers use half as much power as conventional ones. The company has saved over $1 billion in energy costs through data center initiatives. (Author’s note: you’re probably wondering about the photo of the Lego structure. That is the first Google storage system ever. You can see it in the Gates building on the Stanford campus.)

Post Your Comment

Please or sign up to comment.


  • goldman goldman 2 years ago

    While I agree that renewable energy has its place in the world, there are still many issues with the technology’s potential effects on humans.

    At point, Wind Turbines should not be near any residences. Setback limits should be miles.

    Solar is great and all, but global dimming is taking its toll in the US, perhaps from contrail sheets and aerosol particulate spraying. Point is, the output is low.

    Micro hydro is a good way to go if used on rivers where there are no fish / animal life needing to travel upstream to spawn or whatever.

    Wave power could be promising, I am not too researched on any negative effects.

    Nuclear power is scary. The USA basically has nuclear power plants all over the nation that will have to be decommissioned properly over decades.

    Something sad is that the Earth may be in a positive warming feedback loop as the ice albedo in the arctic has changed to melting. In the process of melting the arctic ice / permafrost / greenland sheets – they release methane hydrates into the atmosphere which is many times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. This summer should be very interesting as the current arctice ice melt season is about 50 days ahead of schedule.

  • User_ahe User_ahe 2 years ago

    Google is a very ‘thinking forward’ company. they relay on Data which other doesn’t. Maybe because all the Data in the world stored on their servers :)

    i do think green energy is the future but will be with oil ? it is in everything, from grocery bags to computer chips, cups and almost everything..

  • Google may consider to revive PowerMeter, an energy management product for home owners.

  • 一名員工倡議，就可成立共乘車隊，替公司及個人省錢，也替地球節省資源及碳排放量，功德不小。也可見這是個即知即行的公司。為何「正式」機構如政府、國際組織做不到？

  • valcorex valcorex 2 years ago

    that is a really good point, we really should see more of this kind of thing happening at the local and federal government level. Or if they are doing this already it would be helpful for us to hear more about it.

  • Google’s analysis is based on a static view of the data. The data is derived from one of the most dynamic systems we have, the power grid network. The addition of wind and solar to the power grid has a negative effect on the fossil fuel components that Google fails to notice.

    While the LCOE of wind and solar are decreasing, their increased penetration onto the power grid serves to increase the LCOE of fossil fuel power. Since the full fossil fuel power capacity needs to be retained for stability, The point at which parity occurs is much higher that if wind and solar did not exist.

    The net result is a substantial increase in the cost of electricity, which in the long run is unsustainable.

  • Michael Kanellos Michael Kanellos, Contributor 2 years ago

    The interplay of renewables and fossil (and nuclear) is interesting. I spoke to someone in Germany recently who said that fossil people are angry about solar decreasing the cost of peak power. Because solar works best in the afternoon, it’s increasing the supply of peak power and depressing the price.

    In Sweden, unscheduled downtime in nuclear is actually wreaking even more havoc. The former head of Sweden’s energy industry told me that nuclear is more intermittent than renewables.

    I suppose the bottom line is that the transmission system needs to accommodate all. There’s no reason that others should curb ambition because it makes like tough for coal. Then again, you don’t want unecessary costs. Software to dampen the fluctuations will help.

  • I have a problem with all your here-say evidence. My understanding is that the feed in tariffs are such, that when the sun is out, fossil fuel plants are obliged to run at reduced power which lowers their efficiency and increases their LCOE. These are added costs for which fossil fuel plants cannot be fully compensated.

    As for nuclear and coal which are designed to run at constant output for long periods, the intermittent nature of wind and solar on the grid is forcing them to cycle excessively resulting in unexpected reliability problems.

    The need for excess cycling and ramping to firm up the volatility of wind and solar is a hardware problem. Smarter software only serves to aggravate the problem by making the added performance demands more visible.

  • DaCogi DaCogi 2 years ago

    You are parroting anti-clean energy propaganda.

    The more wind and solar deployed, the more dirty fossil-nuke energy is pushed off the grid. That avoids pollution and drives down the base cost of electricity. This is happening in reality – e.g. in Germany.

  • Things are not that rosy in Germany!


    “Sudden fluctuations in Germany’s power grid are causing major damage to a number of industrial companies. While many of them have responded by getting their own power generators and regulators to help minimize the risks, they warn that companies might be forced to leave if the government doesn’t deal with the issues fast.”

  • fredlinn fredlinn 2 years ago

    These are added costs for which fossil fuel plants cannot be fully compensated.”———-

    Meaning they can’t compete. That’s too bad.

    So, you propose compensating fossil fuel plants by not using free fuel(solar or wind) to buy fossil fuels at ever increasing cost instead.

    Now THAT seems like a well thought out plan indeed.

    And if we use renewable energy(wind and solar), there is no delivery charge for fuel……………..regardless of amount used………….ever.

  • Meaning that wind and solar cannot compete without top priority on the grid, at any cost, which forces inefficiency on fossil fuel usage, increasing cost, avoiding little to no carbon.

    In a level competitive field, wind and solar would not even be considered. This was the case since the 70′s until recent legislation forced them on the grid on the false promise of free fuel and carbon avoidance.

    If we stay on this path, China and India will lead the world’s industry.

  • fredlinn fredlinn 2 years ago

    ———” Meaning that wind and solar cannot compete without top priority on the grid, at any cost, which forces inefficiency on fossil fuel usage, increasing cost, avoiding little to no carbon.”———

    No, meaning that the fuel for wind and solar are completely free, and produce no carbon, or mining damage. Solar energy is always available at peak usage periods.

    If you want to convince people that coal is better, you’ll have to alter demand. You’ll have to get people to stay up and do their laundry at 2AM in the morning when solar is not available.

    The other option is to add a form of storage. Denmark does this by sending sending excess wind production(output – current demand) to Sweden for use as pumped hydro storage. Spain is doing this by storing excess solar thermal production as heat using Molten Salt Thermal Storage. Audi is opening a plant that converts CO2 using excess renewable energy to CH4(methane, natural gas)—-the energy is stored as chemical energy in the carbon-hydrogen bonds.

  • I know that sun always shines in California, but I did not think this was true in Germany.

    When we use excess wind and solar power to convert CO2 to natural gas is it cheaper than fracking?

    When we then burn the natural gas to make electricity, don’t we put the CO2 back in the atmosphere?

    It might be useful when the world runs out of natural gas. Until then it sounds like another economic loser that does not avoid carbon.

  • fredlinn fredlinn 2 years ago

    ———” When we use excess wind and solar power to convert CO2 to natural gas is it cheaper than fracking?”———-

    No, it requires more energy to convert CO2 to methane than you get back. But, when you can get more energy from wind and solar than people need(demand)—-it is free. It is available only because you use it. If it is not used, it is not there. So, you might as well use it.

    The carbon in the atmosphere recycles naturally. It is called the Carbon Energy Exchange Cycle. Plants remove carbon by photosynthesis and store energy from sunlight. When the plants are burned(including metabolized by living organisms, eating) it is replaced to the atmosphere. It is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 using biofuels. If the CO2 is not first used by the plants the biofuel was made from, (living) you have no plants from which to make the biofuel.

    No matter HOW cheap fracking may become, it is not free. Therefore, you can not use fossil methane(natural gas) to store solar energy. If you use excess wind and solar energy to convert CO2 to CH4—-it is only possible because you have more energy available than you can use at any given time, therefore, the energy you are using is free. If it is not used, it does not exist.

  • Free energy is not the only element of the cost process that matters. After all, fossil fuels buried in the ground are free just like wind and solar.

    One has to consider the cost to harvest and the value of utilization.

    Fossil fuels have proven value. The value of wind and solar by comparison is close to zero. It’s value can only be estimated only as a future replacement for fossil fuel. At this stage, that is not possible. We may be forced to change our whole lifestyle when fossil fuels are fully depleted, but forcing the transition prematurely on the hope that somehow it will lead to a better world, is economically dangerous with many unintended consequences.

  • fredlinn fredlinn 2 years ago

    Are you dead set against all types of green energy, or just wind and solar?

    What is your idea of an ideal energy supply system source?

  • Richard Lewis Richard Lewis 2 years ago

    When Google data centers run exclusively on wind and solar without fossil fuel backup (i.e., no connection to the grid and no on-site fossil-power generator), we will know the “renewable” nirvana has arrived.

    Of course, Google will conveniently ignore the enormous toll of wind-generated power on the raptor community (http://www.thegwpf.org/hiding-slaughter/) and the negative impact on the desert environment of enormous solar “foot prints”.

    Until the nirvana arrives, Google will seek out locations near large hydro-electric dams, but not whisper a word about environmental impacts there (and, of course, staying backed-up by fossil fuel sources just in case of low water levels). LOL!

    How many data centers does Goggle have in California, epicenter of the renewable nirvana? Zero.(http://www.google.com/about/datacenters/inside/locations/index.html)

  • Hello Richard Lewis,

    You are quite mistaken. Google has two centers in the mid-west where there is considerable wind power infrastructure and uses. They have another center in the Pacific Northwest where there is also a vast amount of wind power.


  • fredlinn fredlinn 2 years ago

    Google is using Bloom Boxes.

  • Bearcat Bearcat 2 years ago

    Is this a serious article or are you joking around to see if anyone is paying attention? I take issue with almost everything in your article, but will try and limit my comments to a few points:

    “The fossil industry revolves around applying technology to tapping resources that are much harder to extract.” If these resources are so much “harder” to extract value from than wind and solar, why haven’t wind or solar EVER been able to compete with fossil fuels on price?

    “U.S. Wind outpaced coal by 2X” The US government is doing everything in its power to push wind development ahead via subsidies, accelerated permitting, ignoring environmental impacts of wind farms etc….while at the same time doing everything in its power to thwart new coal fired generation. Heck, the President all but said he would not allow new coal fired power….yet this statistic implies that somehow wind is beating coal fired power on a level playing field. That is extremely misleading.

    “Solar will soon be at cost parity in many markets in the world. Parity is already being achieved in Italy, Spain and Australia”. Maybe, but achieved at the cost of a ruined economy. You aren’t actually suggesting we should follow the Spain and Italy method of economic management are you?

    “The custom-built coaches run on a biodiesel blend and come equipped with WiFi so employees can work during the commute.” These fleets, while innovative and something I am in favor of, run on biodiesel. How can you fail to mention that despite massive subsidies as well as mandates from State (particularly CA) and Federal governments for refiners to buy and blend biodiesel, almost every biodiesel company in America has gone bankrupt? Don’t even get me started on the regressive tax nature of spiking food prices by turning corn, soybeans, palm oil etc in to fuel instead of food. Have you checked out prices of those commodities since the push towards biodiesel and ethanol came around?
    Lastly, you note that GOOGLE has invested over a billion dollars in these types of projects. Has that billion been wisely invested? CALPERS, a huge proponent of alternative energy investing over the past decade, came out today and essentially said that its investments into the alternative energy space have been a disaster. Sorry about that pensioners of CA….

  • nubwaxer nubwaxer 2 years ago

    just think, the kocha coala brothers could have made even more money by by knowing which way the wind was blowing the wind turbines. coal is done. leave it in the ground. i like next generation thorium/molten salts safe nuclear reactors which can be scaled for even small cities. we invented that technology in the fifties and because it did not provide weapons grade nuclear material it was shelved.
    the early investors in green energy will be the biggest winners over the longer term.

  • Kevin Jackson Kevin Jackson 2 years ago

    I agree that someday, some investors are going to make an absolute killing in green energy. The trouble is, people who made a lot of the initial investment in renewable energy have already lost their money. You have to keep buying back in again and again until the green revolution actually takes off. This might not be for another 20-30 years or more. As always, it’ll be who invests in the right (green) companies at the right time who reap the largest rewards. That might be occurring as we speak, but count me as skeptical.

  • Sid Abma Sid Abma 2 years ago

    Natural gas according to the last meeting of the World Energy Congress is going to be the worlds most important energy source.

    But natural gas can be consumed so much more efficiently than is being done today. How many chimneys are poking out of the roofs of commercial buildings and industry? What is coming out of all those chimneys?
    HOT Exhaust. Lots of hot Exhaust. Why?
    Natural gas is an energy source that can be consumed to well over 90% energy efficiency. So why is America still allowing so much to be wasted?

    The technology of Condensing Flue Gas Heat Recovery is designed to recover the heat energy out of this natural gas exhaust, making this recovered heat energy available to be used inside the building or facility as space heating, or put into heating the domestic or industrial plant process or washdown water. At a hotel or university this heat energy can be used to heat the swimming pools.
    Leaving the Condensing flue gas heat recovery unit will be COOL exhaust.

    Increased natural gas energy efficiency = Reduced utility bills = Profit
    Increased natural gas energy efficiency = Reduced global warming
    Increased natural gas energy efficiency = Reduced CO2 emissions
    Increased natural gas energy efficiency = Water conservation

    The DOE states that for every 1 million Btu’s of energy recovered from these waste natural gas exhaust gases, and this recovered heat energy is utilized in the building or facility, 118 lbs of CO2 will NOT be put into the atmosphere.
    What could this do for our environment?

    How many jobs could be created assessing all these locations?
    How many engineers would be required to determine the best application for applying all this recovered heat energy?
    How many mechanical contractors will be hired to install all these condensing flue gas heat recovery systems?
    What could this do for our economy?

    What Natural Gas is Not Wasted Today, will be there to be used another day, or for another purpose.

  • Hello, the increasing price of oil has other implications:

    as BRIC countries emerge and raise their standards of living the pressure on raw materials derived from oil will increase: so much for the transformation industries providing us with the plastics we cannot live without.

    So let’s welcome the push towards better equipment for generating green energy (essentially sun powered, whether PV, wind, water) as we shall need plenty of it to recycle GHGs into high value chemicals.


  • fredlinn fredlinn 2 years ago

    ——–” Hello, the increasing price of oil has other implications:

    as BRIC countries emerge and raise their standards of living the pressure on raw materials derived from oil will increase: “———-

    BRIC(Brazil, Russia, India, China)——the first country you mention, Brazil, has the most advanced biofuel economy. Brazil went from net petroleum importer, to a major petroleum exporter by replacing domestic petroleum use with domestically produced biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel, and alternative fuels, primarily natural gas. This freed up petroleum to be sold on the international market.

    With the proceeds of international petroleum sales, Brazil has built a stable and diversivied economy and rapidly improved their overall standard of living in a relatively short period of time.


  • A great investment for the future. Those data points from Needham are very telling. We are at the beginning of a renewable energy explosion. @dimatemnikov

  • Nhan Lee Nhan Lee 2 years ago

    Do not go around again, already have a great solution, I introduced several times that no one would believe
    Intended to find solutions Technology and Alternative Energy for the energy crisis and aims to develop New ideas with impact on Economics and the Environment. messaged delivered, No nuclear,no oil,no gas,no coal,no damage landscape .a new initiative is not respected and will be a big waste Please add my new energy sources Details at trongdong.weebly.com

  • Google has procured 260MW of wind power.
    I would like to know where this windpower is produced and how many people will be displaced from their homes by these turbines. Approximately 15% of residents who have had these industrial machines placed too close to their homes are suffering the consequences. Before so quickly jumping on the Green Bandwagon hopefully Google investigated the negative effects to health, wildlife (raptors in particular), landscape, property values, tourism, economy, and last but not least the total disruption of the moral fabric of rural living. Something that had the promise of being so good has turned the complete opposite!