Google Buys 20 Years' Worth Of Wind Energy To Power Data Centers

Hot on the heels of its $38.8 billion investment in two wind farms in North Dakota, Google has just signed a 20-year contract with an Iowa wind farm that enables the search giant to purchase wind power at a set rate over the next two decades.

The energy from the NextEra Energy Resources wind farm will be sufficient to power "several data centers," Google wrote on its blog.
In 2007, Google announced its intention to become carbon neutral by the end of the year.

The deal is the first for Google Energy, a subsidiary of the company that received federal approval to trade energy on the open market.

In addition to wind power, Google has also taken advantage of corporate solar installations at its Mountain View headquarters.

Google announced the energy deal on its company blog, explaining:

By contracting to purchase so much energy for so long, we're giving the developer of the wind farm financial certainty to build additional clean energy projects. The inability of renewable energy developers to obtain financing has been a significant inhibitor to the expansion of renewable energy. We've been excited about this deal because taking 114 megawatts of wind power off the market for so long means producers have the incentive and means to build more renewable energy capacity for other customers.

How much energy does Google use? A recent report from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) puts things in perspective--the researchers found that "a single Google search requires half a milliliter of water in energy, and therefore the 300 million searches worldwide, each day require 150,000 liters of water to produce the required electrical power."

What do you think of Google's wind power purchase? Tell us in the comments below.

Comments

[Matt Herren]

11:45 AM on 09/13/2010

Good investment... because once the subsidies end those prices are going to skyrocket.

[Damon Hedman]

04:41 PM on 07/21/2010

Am I allowed to mention that I mentioned this on my blog? If so it's at

http://mathmatters2010.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/science-ignorance/

[Bike Commuter]

12:54 PM on 07/22/2010

I think that in this case it is quite appropriate.

By the way, to clear up a misconception in your blog, I am not what you would call a moderator. HP has a system that allows regular users to help poIice the comment boards. "Community Moderator" is like "Super User". It is just someone who writes comments.

[Tom Czubernat]

03:00 PM on 07/21/2010

There are a lot of companies doing the right thing. GE is running a contest to bring new technologies to the market. It can be found here;

http://challenge.ecomagination.com/ct/ct_list.bix?c=ideas

Wind power has huge untapped potential. I've designed a turbine and have entered it in the contest. You can see it here;
http://challenge.ecomagination.com/ct/ct_a_view_idea.bix?c=ideas&idea_id=E5619807-A73F-44FA-81A3-4F4EDE2942C8

[Bike Commuter]

02:50 PM on 07/21/2010

It is unfortunate that writers attempting to cover technology based articles don't seem to understand the basics of science.

"A recent report from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) puts things in perspective--the researchers found that "a single Google search requires half a milliliter of water in energy, and therefore the 300 million searches worldwide, each day require 150,000 liters of water to produce the required electrical power.""

That statement of "half a milllimeter of water in energy" has no real meaning. Water is not a unit used to measure power. Water actually has a great deal of energy, enough to power all of Google's servers for probably a day or two, so the statement was even more suspect.

It took some research, but I found that the source for this claim is not the IEEE. It is a guy who blogs about water. His calculation was referenced in an article for the IEEE magazine. It is not a "report" in terms of research.
the source: www.watercrunch.com/2010/04/how-much-water-is-consumed-for-google.html

The number references the amount of water that would be used while generating the same amount of power using traditional generation methods. Of course, since Google uses solar power (and now wind power) for much of its electricity, the calculation doesn't apply to their searches at all.

[Bike Commuter]

02:57 PM on 07/21/2010

An ACTUAL way to look at the amount of power used by google is that all of their servers together use about the same amount of energy as 3000 typical homes in the US.

That is based on Google's reported 0.00003 kWh per search times 300 million searches, for a total of about 90,000 kWh per day. Divide that by the typical houshold usage of about 30 kWh per day, and you get about 3000 typical housholds.

sources:
googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/powering-google-search.html
www1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/tips/appliances.html

[Damon Hedman]

04:23 PM on 07/21/2010

Reading "a single Google search requires half a milliliter of water in energy," was like hearing fingernails on a chalk board.

[StansDad]

02:50 PM on 07/21/2010

I wonder if this will actually mean anything for the wind power industry, I mean, on of the largest corporations in the world being able to afford a wind farm or two is good that they are able to buy them but.. I mean.. It could also imply it's too costly for another corporation or something.

[Brutus76]

02:34 PM on 07/21/2010

Now for the rest to stand up. Good leading by example.

[thomas paine]

12:50 PM on 07/21/2010

Kudos to Google

[splinky]

12:39 PM on 07/21/2010

But I like hating google--this reminds me of the time I ran into Michael Jordan after my Celts had just beaten him in a playoff game, and he was nice and polite and talked to me for a minute (and introduced me to Dave Corzine)--how am I supposed to hate either of them when they do things like that?

Well, okay, google still has a way to go to win my affections, but this is a huge step in the right direction.

[LeftRoss]

12:06 PM on 07/21/2010

Those who write that this is a cynical move to get 2030 energy at 2010 prices miss the point. If anything, moves like this drive down the cost of wind energy, making those 2010 kw's less of a bargain.
Cheers to Google! Thanks for helping to fund some much needed infrastructure!

[Bogey907]

11:59 AM on 07/21/2010

I saw hundreds of those big cooling fans in Texas. It sounds like a great idea for the place, but they don't work. It was still hot as heII.

[bgofca]

01:48 PM on 07/21/2010

sorry texas is hell....

[vippy]

03:21 PM on 07/21/2010

General Sherman said same LOL.

[Dan1902]

11:40 AM on 07/21/2010

Good for Google!! If only we could get other billion dollar corps to think this way and follow suit we'd be wll on our way to breaking our addiction to oil!!!

[lemmyk73]

11:21 AM on 07/21/2010

I hate Google but if this is all legit, great move by them. I will not support them nor buy their products but this is a good step in the right direction-

now Google needs to stop spying on people and put their off shore data centers back in US jurisdiction.

[Bike Commuter]

11:33 AM on 07/21/2010

Offshore data centers? I am not aware that they have any offshore data centers other than ones located in other countries (necessary because they are used worldwide).

I see that they have a patent for a floating data center, but I can not find any evidence that they have built any of them. Also, I am not aware that such centers would not be under US jurisdiction.

[Bike Commuter]

11:16 AM on 07/21/2010

Moderators,

The opening sentence of this article is incorrect. It states:
"Hot on the heels of its $38.8 billion investment in two wind farms in North Dakota"

That investment is actuall $38.8 MILLION as reported on google's website.
http://www.google-info.info/?p=92

Please see about correcting the story.

[emeraldcite]

01:03 PM on 07/21/2010

Million. Billion. Trillion.

What's the difference. We can't understand numbers that big anymore.

All we need to know is that they're throwing lots of money at it.

[Bike Commuter]

02:59 PM on 07/21/2010

There are HOUSES that cost more that $40 million.

[lmb21]

11:10 AM on 07/21/2010

Check out this site. If only 25% of it is true we are in for some problems. http://windcows.com/INDEX.html

[OBR]

11:33 AM on 07/21/2010

To late the libs drank the KoolAid,

[DorianCorso]

11:35 AM on 07/21/2010

I went to the site and saw videos of a bunch a whiners complaining about noise. I did NOT see any video or audio of this noise. If it is as common and overwhelming as these people say, why couldn't they provide an instance of it ?

And even if it's true , so what ? Maybe these whiners should move next door to a coal fired power plant .

Years ago when I got my first apartment it turned out to be right next to some train tracks that you couldn't see , Oh but you could hear it. For the first few months passing locomotives would wake me in the middle of the night. By the third or fourth month I noticed it less, by the sixth month it was just another background noise. And I slept right through it and later when I moved from there I actually came to miss the sound of a passing train.

I note also that none of the whiners on that site are asking to make the turbines quieter, they just want them gone.

[lmb21]

11:44 AM on 07/21/2010

It is nice that you are so understanding. Unlike you, I own this house I don't rent. And unlike you the turbines were not here when I moved in. My life savings are tied up it it. When that 400 foot tall turbine goes in next door, how do I sell my house. Will you buy it? How do I get my money out of it.

As far as making them quieter, you will become a millionaire many times over if you can change the physics on a turbine blade. Have at it.

Just before you get all pompous on this subject. Go and check out a turbine ghetto. Who knows, you might like it so much you move out of the train station and into one of these turbine fields. Houses are REALLY cheap. Good luck.

[overit2010]

09:15 PM on 07/21/2010

Might want to resist reading comments on this youtube post but here is someone's sample of the noise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mablINxg3zE
I'm sure you could have looked into this yourself but for one reason or another were unwilling to do a quick search online. Interesting.

[allsopd]

11:07 AM on 07/21/2010

Pretty sure it's $40 million, not billion.