WSJ Blogs

Real-time commentary and analysis from The Wall Street Journal
Environmental Capital

Google’s Big Idea: How Realistic is Google’s $4.4 Trillion Clean-Energy Plan?

    • In brief, this is an early view of the Obama Plan. It is clearly ridiculous and deserves no further comment or consideration other than where your vote is placed in the Presidential Election.

    • What is it about energy that makes every loon on the planet come up with a plan to meet our energy needs? Does the CEO of Duke Energy feel compelled to tell the world his plan for the internet? Is someone at BP giving speeches about how the entertainment industry should change? No.

      Energy is important. These loons depend on energy to maintain their lifestyle. They would be lost if they has to chop fire food or plow a field behind a mule. Invariably, conservation advocates are the grosses energy pigs. The have party jets and mansions.

      I am not too worried about energy. Mostly it is because providing it only requires a few years of planning. Folks in California may want to wait until rolling black outs to build power plants but real energy plans ensure that the average person does not have to worry about energy.

    • James, Kit, and Climateer, you people disgust me. Set aside your ego for 3 seconds and discuss an issue that we all face in a not so distant future. You are relying upon the same people you give payments to every month to draft plans against their current business model. Get a grip. Reform comes from the support of practical solutions, and although this plan may not be practical, it sure is a lot more than anyone else is providing. Maybe we can learn something from their plan, and together form a real solution, instead of sitting here pointing fingers. Fortunately enough for younger generations, people like yourselves wont be in power for very much longer.

    • One question: Why not?

      Even if it is an 'early view of the Obama Plan' does that make it automatically wrong? What do you have to lose other than your interest in Oil and coal?

      The writer calls wind and solar 'intermittent power sources' but doesn't mention that Google's plan also incorporates ways to store that power for future use. Will the sun stop shining? Will the wind stop blowing? Not indefinitly, but will Oil stop flowing? Yes, at some point. Why wait for that point? Why not ween yourself off if it? I'm not saying that by 2010 we're going to be out of oil, but I am saying that our supply is not growing.

      Secondly, what incentive does ExxonMobil have in opening exploration in alternative energies when they can still maximize profits through oil?

      I would never expect to hear a fossil fuel producer to say: "Gee, I think Solar Power is a better source of power than the stuff we're making. You should go invest in that instead." I would only expect competing arguments to come from outside, hence: Competition. (oh crap, that means oil won't be at $100 a barrel... better get out!).

      Investment- Why not, it's taking $ out of Middle East and investing it in America. What incentive is there not to do that? It baffles the mind that people rail against the middle east and then say, "no I don't want to stop sending them $ for energy"

      And can someone tell me why China is leading us in this? Geez, we used to be the leaders, now they're leagues ahead of us.

      Back to my question: Why not???

    • A solution for the intermittent supply of power problem is pump storage. This is what it is. You either use existing dams or make new ones, off rivers by building two lakes, one higher than the other. When you have an excess of power you pump the water uphill and when you want to get the power back you let it fall down through turbines like they already do at the Grand Collee Dam. The higher lake is called Baker Lake.

    • Oil companies understand the flow is slowing ultimately to a dribble. They understand the need to position themselves within the alternate energy market. So when I read the Google plan I applaud the vision and courage to fuel market evolution and lead the marketplace and the politicians who can't or won't address the economic requirement of future energy resources to keep our economy strong and growing responsibly.

    • Google's Energy Plan is very comprehensive. The problem is, it's too comprehensive.

      It's a waterfall-type plan where all the pieces have to work or we're hosed. There is no Plan B.

      I would prefer to see an incremental plan which says, this much can be done in 5 years, and if that works, then we could do this..., or else, this...

      Extreme programming. Those guys should know that.

    • Nothing wrong with clean coal. Today with the technology available,coal can be utilized without contamination of the ozone. However, all things are do we go back to caves and spears...sounds good to me.

    • To those who claim that renewable energy is not economically justified, you are not taking into account the total cost of fossil fuels as an energy source. These costs include global warming, pollution, huge trade deficits and transfers of wealth from the US, increased reliance on unstable regimes for oil, and increased military spending to secure oil sources (just one of many examples, the first Iraq war was justified by fears of Iraq controlling Kuwait’s oil).

      The Department of energy tells us that good wind areas in the US could provide up to one and half times our current electricity consumption, not even taking solar into consideration. The Google plan is good news since it estimates a cost to convert our entire economy from fossil fuels to renewable, clean energy. Imagine that – a permanent, secure, domestic supply of clean energy! I wish all Americans could get behind efforts to accomplish this goal. It would be the best investment we could make for our future.

    • Well Jim if you think putting the word 'clean' in front of renewable energy makes it a good idea, I hope you have a better plan than Google. Imagine Jim climbing to the top of a wind mill to do maintenance. It does not matter how many American get behind something if they do not know how to make it work.

    • Google, an imaginary company(P/E ratio?) has an imaginary solution for an imaginary problem(Carbon forced global warming).

      It is nice that the boffins @ Google are starting to look for some basis for their stock value. I hope they find an actual problem to solve for future income flow.

    • "the $100-$300 billion nuclear pricetag doesn’t show up in Google’s spreadsheet" that doesn't show doesn't represent the cost of an additional 10GW of nuclear energy depicted in their chart. The planned upgrades and new plants in process will take care of that 10GW very soon. What google doesn't do well is properly analyze and compare the cost of nuclear to other power sources. Today if we had an additional 250-300 reactors, our clean electrical energy from nuclear would be closer to 80% like France. This would cost far less than google's plan, at just over or around 1 trillion dollars. Obama and Biden both support nuclear energy and Obama did vote for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which made major advances for the nuclear industry. John McCain did not vote for the act and was in the small minority of some 15 senators who voted no on it.

    • @Jason

      I happen to think Energy Policy Act of 2005 is a great policy for both renewable energy and nuclear. McCain is one of the reasons it was not the Energy Policy Act of 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004. Many senators are against things like ethanol or nukes until they happen to be standing in front of a crowd in other states that have first has experience with the benefits of such a policy. Oddly, there were many things in the energy bill that would have benefited Arizona.

      What is the voting record of Obama in the Senate during those years?

      Both McCain and Obama are about as week on energy as you can get. You have to be from California or New York to me more clueless. Google is not marketing to the heartland.

    • Global warming is a much bigger long term threat to humanity than terrorism or China or Rusia. The 100s of billions we waste on guarding against these would finance a google program

    • hi everybody that's a loty of money there i wonder what there giving it to

Add a Comment


About Environmental Capital


    • Environmental Capital on Twitter
    • Environmental Capital on Facebook