backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by heffeque.. on Apr 23 at 9:59 AM


Rick Needham (center) with partners Arielle Bertman and Matthew Stepka at the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm  (Source: The Official Google Blog)
Google has invested $100 million in the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm in Arlington, Oregon

Aside from running the successful Android operating system and the world's most popular search engine, Google has been making some environmentally conscious efforts as well. Just last week, the web giant invested $168 million in the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System located in the Mojave Desert in California.

Now, Google is investing $100 million in the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm in Arlington, Oregon. It will be joining this project with Caithness Energy, which is the project developer, and GE, an early investor and turbine manufacturer as well as an operations and maintenance supplier. Other investors include Tyr Energy and Sumitomo Corporation of America

The Shepherds Flat Wind Farm is still under construction, but is expected to be the largest wind farm in the world. Once completed, it will produce 845 megawatts of energy, which can power over 235,000 homes. 

"This project is exciting to us not only because of its size and scale, but also because it uses advanced technology," said Rick Needham, Director of Green Business Operations for Google in The Official Google Blog. "This will be the first commercial wind farm in the U.S. to deploy, at scale, turbines that use permanent magnet generators - tech-speak for evolutionary turbine technology that will improve efficiency, reliability and grid connection capabilities. Though the technology has been installed outside the U.S., it's an important, incremental step in lowering the cost of wind energy over the long term in the U.S."

The Shepherds Flat Wind Farm is expected to help benefit Oregon economically, and will also help California meet its renewable energy goals. In addition, the electricity generated at the wind farm will be sold to Southern California Edison under "long term agreements." 

The Shepherds Flat Wind Farm will be completed in 2012. 


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I wonder
By room200 on 4/19/2011 11:35:24 AM , Rating: -1
Do oil/gas/nuclear companies pay posters to come here and post? Any time there is a story about clean energy/solar/wind whatever, you can be assured there will be somebody here talking about that stuff. Ok, we get it it; those things are more efficient, but nothing was ever gained by NOT trying something else. Sheesh.




RE: I wonder
By mdogs444 on 4/19/2011 12:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok, we get it it; those things are more efficient, but nothing was ever gained by NOT trying something else.

So if you keep on doing something that you know is not as efficient and costs more money than other methods, yet you keep lying to yourself in hopes to achieve a different result...what does that sound like? Yep, insanity.

There is a difference between R&D and implementation. Forcing these things into the field while knowing full well that they cost more, produce less, and are inefficient compared to current methods....all while doing so in the name of the talking mother nature tree, is nothing less than lunacy.


RE: I wonder
By Iaiken on 4/19/11, Rating: 0
RE: I wonder
By nafhan on 4/19/2011 1:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
"Energy giants" building wind and solar installations means one thing: they can make money at it. The reason that they can make money at it could be that wind and solar are incredibly efficient and superior to other power generation methods, or it could be that a national government is giving them piles of cash to build the solar and wind installations...

I disagree that things which artificially lower the cost of an inefficient power generation method are immaterial. Money saved now could, for example, go into paying off the national debt.


RE: I wonder
By Harinezumi on 4/19/2011 1:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
It takes time and money to develop new technologies and make them profitable. Often a lot of time and a lot of money. While free enterprise is excellent at quickly coming up with the most efficient and profitable applications for available or soon-to-be-available technology, it doesn't have a particularly good record investing for the long haul. When you invest a significant portion of your capital into projects that won't start paying off for 20-30 years while your competitors focus on the short term, you're not likely to survive as a company long enough to reap the benefits of those projects.

That's where the government comes it. It makes perfect sense for the government to invest taxpayer money into long-term projects that are likely to provide good long-term returns to the taxpayers if such projects cannot be profitably pursued by companies in the short-term. It makes even more sense to provide incentives and subsidies that would allow companies to overcome their vulnerability to taking long-term risks and get them to shoulder part of the cost in exchange for a proportional part of the benefit.


RE: I wonder
By JediJeb on 4/19/2011 2:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
Government investing in the R&D of these technologies makes sense, but government subsidizing the installation of these systems before they have matured just for the sake of installing them does not.

Any company who is installing large solar or wind systems just for the tax write off even if it really doesn't impact their energy budget are only gaming the system and sucking tax revenue out of more important things like getting rid of our debt. I am ok with government financing the Research, but let commercial groups handle installing the working systems when the technology is mature enough to support itself.


RE: I wonder
By Iaiken on 4/19/2011 3:24:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I am ok with government financing the Research


With what money? People want government financing and grants for the advancement of these things, but don't want taxes.

As long as people are paying taxes so the government can service interest payments on the artificial wealth of private central banks, those people are slaves to the private central bank.

1. Realize that the Federal Reserve is not Federal and has only a 10% fractional reserve.
2. Remove the central banks exclusive control over the money supply.
3. Force the banks to gradually reach 100% reserve banking.
4. Open the banks to federal oversight and audits to enforce the above.
5. Gradually print money to retire the debt, allow banks to grow their reserves and facilitate trade.

The control of the money supply belongs in the hands of congress and the taxpayers; not some private, for-profit enterprise that has never been audited.

Did you know that for every $1 in bonds that congress creates and is credited for by the Federal Reserve, another $9 in fictitious credit can be extended to the private banks? Say nine banks each get one of these $1 credits, they can then each create $9 in fictitious credit themselves? So the one real dollar from the bond must then service $81 of fictional credit, plus interest. The answer? MOAR DEBT!!! :P

Most every issue we complain about; taxes, energy, inflation, employment, are all just smokescreens that hide the real problem; the absence of control over the money supply. Read the detailed history of the greenback and weep for it's tragic death at the hands of the international banks and our enslavement by compound interest.


RE: I wonder
By nafhan on 4/19/2011 5:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
It certainly does take time and money to make things profitable, and that's an argument to keep things at the R&D stage until they can be deployed profitably. I don't think this is a good long term investment for taxpayers in any way. Put the money into materials science if it has to be spent.


RE: I wonder
By room200 on 4/19/2011 10:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
So I guess you are also against other subsidies also? It's not like the oil companies need them.


RE: I wonder
By espaghetti on 4/20/2011 1:15:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, this government shouldn't be able to spend a penny outside of infrastructure or defense. The word "subsidize" causes blood to shoot from my eyes.

God, I'm getting old.


RE: I wonder
By nafhan on 4/20/2011 1:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes.


RE: I wonder
By SPOOFE on 4/19/2011 7:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many energy giants (my employer included) are increasingly transitioning to investments in the development of large scale solar and wind operations. Why?

Government subsidies, I'll bet.


RE: I wonder
By room200 on 4/19/2011 10:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, foucusing ONLY on the cost of something is the real lunacy.


RE: I wonder
By nafhan on 4/19/2011 1:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes any time someone disagrees with your POV it's because the oil-nuclear-gas industrial complex has paid them off. The best part is they don't pay in money. Instead, they promise to kill an owl for every post, and use it's body to create bio-fuel.


RE: I wonder
By room200 on 4/19/2011 10:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's not about disagreeing with my POV. It's simply that you know the same people will continue to parrot the same old tired lines. This Article had nothing to do with ANY of the other technologies, and it was more about a private company deciding to spend their own money on something they choose to do.


RE: I wonder
By nafhan on 4/20/2011 1:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
The article had to do with wind power and people started discussing the merits of wind power. That's not too bad as far as tangents go. I'd say inventing conspiracy theories is more of a tangent than that...


RE: I wonder
By SPOOFE on 4/19/2011 7:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do oil/gas/nuclear companies pay posters to come here and post?

All it takes is a single rolling blackout to make people concerned about where their electricity is coming from. I know I wouldn't want, say, to be treated at a hospital dependent on wind power.


RE: I wonder
By room200 on 4/19/2011 10:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have no problem with it.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki