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

RE: onshore wind is deadly and doesnt make sense
By dubldwn on 4/19/2011 3:32:43 PM , Rating: 3
Hi I believe you have a misguided (although maybe well intentioned) view of nuclear power, especially as it relates to the US power industry. The Chernobyl reactors design and the human reaction to the occurrence have been discussed on this site multiple times, and do nothing to further an anti-nuclear argument. Also, while I can’t comment on what is going on in Germany, I do know that cancer rates are not higher in the US and France among those living near nuclear facilities. And for the US these aren’t even Gen III reactors, which I assume is what we would build now. Also, radiation will not “spread throughout the whole food chain” in a measurably significant way. Don’t you think that that’s fear mongering? People get much more radiation from so many mundane activities. Finally, you surly know that solar and wind are not the answer. They supplement power at best, and we’re left with coal, ng, and nuclear.

I am interested in the German fuel balls, though. Perhaps you could provide a link so I could read more about these deadly German fuel balls.

RE: onshore wind is deadly and doesnt make sense
By heffeque on 4/20/2011 6:21:43 AM , Rating: 1
Well... I'm not going to answer to the childish responses above, taking into consideration that when fossil fuels die out they propose to burn liberals (how mature).

As for misguided... how is raising cancer risks a misguidance? (with Asse's statistics in hand) Why is Chernobyl different from the US when Fukushima's nuclear plant is US designed and has already pored as much radiation as Chernobyl? Is poring it into everyone's water less damaging than releasing it to the air? Is having to store and maintain 25,000 years of nuclear waste worth it just so that a few birds don't die? As for Asse's problems, you could just google them, but here you go anyway:

Here's the radiation part:,,14990661,00.h...

Here's the "new inventary" part:

Here's the cancer part:,,6269113,

And here's the "lost nuclear balls" part:

"Also, radiation will not “spread throughout the whole food chain” in a measurably significant way"
Actually it will. Facts are that radiation accumulates on the higher layers of the food chain, and we are actually pretty high in the food chain (unless you are a vegan, which I am not nor most people on earth).

"Finally, you surly know that solar and wind are not the answer."
Why not? They are the answer in other countries like Spain. Why can't they be in the US? Is the US inferior to Spain? In what way?

"They supplement power at best, and we’re left with coal, ng, and nuclear."
It is possible to power a country with clean energy, it's the energy industry that isn't interested in losing power (pun unintended). Actually it's ridiculous that people say that the reason for not using clean energy as a main energy source is its variability when nuclear's invariability (yes, it's also a problem) is solved the same way as clean energy's variability: storing excess energy by for example pumping water, producing hydrogen, etc.

I just don't understand why countries the size of Spain can actually produce cheap energy with clean plants and a country the size of the US can't. I know that the population concentration is higher in Spain than in the US, but still... I'm sure we can do better than what we are doing now.

RE: onshore wind is deadly and doesnt make sense
By heffeque on 4/23/2011 9:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
I'll take a few of the negative votes as a "truth hurts" way of seeing reality, and that reality is that nuclear is neither clean neither safe.

Some people don't like the fact that I actually showed them true cases of why (traditional) nuclear plants should be avoided and phased out.

Some of them might think that by voting down the truth disappears, but the facts are there, you like them or not.

Responsible governments are starting to realize that and are actually going to phase out their nuclear plants (Germany and Switzerland) others that were planing on building new ones are actually taking a step back to rethink if it's actually a good idea anymore (Italy and Spain).

Better safe than sorry, or at least that's what some responsible governments think is best for their country.

It's a brave thing to do: publicly admit that their point of view on nuclear plants was wrong and that they're going to do whatever is possible to keep the country safe and clean.

By heffeque on 4/23/2011 9:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
Also... this goes for the UK too:

Documents show BP's involvement in oil exploration plans in Iraq a year before the invasion:

I'm pretty sure you won't see that on Fox News any time soon.

"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki