Print 19 comment(s) - last by spillai.. on Jun 27 at 12:26 PM

Google is offering millions in initiatives to help the environment

Using, the philanthropic arm of Google, the Mountain View, California company awarded a $1 million-grant for hybrid electric vehicle development and plans on offering up to $10 million in grants to support the vehicles.  The RechargeIT initiative "aims to reduce CO2 emissions, cut oil use and stabilize the electrical grid by accelerating the adoption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid technology."  

Companies and universities interested in the grant money for alternative transportation research will have to present official proposals to Google later this summer.

"Climate Change:  mitigate the effect of climate change on the poor by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving energy efficiency, and supporting clean energy sources," is published on the front page of the official web site.

The $1 million grant was offered to help support the development and adoption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.  Plug-in cars are different than other clean-cars because regular hybrids use battery power but still rely on combustion engines -- plug-in cars are able to utilize electric power for up to 30 miles before having to rely on a gas engine.

Several companies -- including Toyota, Honda and General Motors -- are actively working on plug-in hybrid vehicles.  

In other environmental news, Google recently turned on the solar panels which cover much of the roof tops on the company's Mountain View corporate campus.  The panels are able to produce up to 1.6 megawatts of energy, which is enough to offer as much as one-third of the entire campuses energy use.  

Google previously announced a coalition of companies and organizations that plan to help save energy and reduce greenhouse gases.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: good effort....
By number999 on 6/21/2007 1:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
The environmentalists would have a fit!

Cheap shot.

In the context that you put it in, you make it sound like environmentalists are neo luddites, opposed to progress while this story takes a different tact.

Google, trying to be progressive, is pushing into the future with these actions such as solar panelling and hybrid cars. Cars with higher tech powertrains. These measures are largely supported by environmentallists. This isn't progress? The only definition of progress is your definition?

As for opposition to hydropower, I'm sure that other people with different agendas (like their own land) will use whatever means (including environmentalism), to oppose this or any other large scale projects or to set their own agendas . Here's an example,

In 1993, a group called Mothers Opposing Pollution (MOP) appeared, calling itself "the largest women's environmental group in Australia, with thousands of supporters across the country." Their cause: A campaign against plastic milk bottles. It turned out that the group's spokesperson, Alana Maloney, was in truth a woman named Janet Rundle, the business partner of a man who did P.R. for the Association of Liquidpaperboard Carton Manufacturers-the makers of paper milk cartons.
Were they environmentalist? Doesn't look like it from the inside does it.

As for the effect of large scale changover to electric vehicles? How fast do you think it's going to happen? Overnight? There is plenty of lead up time considering that they don't even exist on the market yet in large numbers. Given the turnaround rate for durable goods like cars, replacement will take at least a decade even if today every vehicle in the market was to be electric. Given that time period, would you insist on the production of billion dollar investments (for crown corporations at that), that have no market? Very sound.

If necessary, the AECL states that an ACR 1000 (Advanced CANDU Reactor) can be constructed in 5 years. I doubt that a hydroelectric facility and the infrastructure to carry the electricity can be built in a shorter time period. Churchill falls took 5 years and is a 5000 MW facility. How many exploitable sites do you think exist? Ideally the ACR 1000 would be on the Gentilly site between Montreal and Quebec city, the main population centres, and along the highest population density corridor. With the ability to use the present high voltage lines and the nearby population centres, it is the ideal choice if it becomes necessary to add to the baseline power quickly. It would be also easier to add capacity to these lines and it would be far easier to site a new reactor at the site of a present one.

Lastly, if you meter the power correctly, it would have a lower impact on the system. You can easily mandate metering and monitoring upgrades to homes that decide to buy an electric car especially since all electrical work has to be done by professionals in Quebec and I doubt that you are plugging into a 15 amp circuit. By making it expensive to charge your car during peak periods, more people will charge overnight, creating better baseline usage and creating a better market for the building of large base power units such as hydro and nuclear.

Stop spreading this dogmatic stuff around and trolling. So you don't like environmentalists. Big deal. This story would obviously be of interest to those with an environmental bent. You don't like environmentalists, fine. So why bother reading and replying to the posts? Some perverted need? It added a big fat zero to the persons input, while showing a very dogmatic fanatical belief.

RE: good effort....
By rsmech on 6/22/2007 12:11:42 AM , Rating: 2
The environmentalists would have a fit!
Cheap shot.

Hardly, just look to eastern WA. They are removing dams or taking water rights away from farmers for fish. I'm not going to argue on way or the other about the fish, but those dams & water rights have been in place for awhile. Good luck on a new dam.

RE: good effort....
By number999 on 6/23/2007 1:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
In the case of eastern WA, two groups supporting the removal of dams are native americans and fishermen. How about the water rights of the native americans?

The point is, these are stakeholders whose rights are as valid as the farmers. They too have the right to input and they have their own futures effected by any decision. How else are they to couch their arguements? The environment is pervasive and it affects the ability of many different stakeholders and their ability to live and make a living.

It is a cavalier attitude towards the entire environmental movement that I find sort of stupid. Of course an environmental organization is going to put it's arguemnts in it's own terms. I don't expect a nuclear organization to put arguments involving nuclear energy in their opponents terms.

Attacking the arguements that make up opposition or support is far better on an issue to issue basis then generalizations.

For one it shows an open mindedness to both sides of an arguement and the willingness to take facts before feelings and emotions.

Anyway, my point is the negative attitude to environmentalists by some people in this group is overly towards the movement, which makes no sense because of it's pervasiveness and not address arguements to some specific issue, some points of which are valid.

"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 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