Would "Drill, Baby, Drill" be part of Google's vision for green energy? Yes, but not drilling for oil.
CEO Schmidt says punching down into the Earth to capture natural and clean geothermal energy could help move the United States away from its dependence on petroleum. Google's new energy plan also calls for a bold move into solar and wind power.
It would cost $2.7 trillion through 2030. However, Schmidt says it would generate $2.1 trillion in energy savings. It would also create hundreds of thousands of jobs. And help fight global warming- The Commonwealth Club of California
Gregory Dalton is chief operating officer at the Commonwealth Club of California and Director of The Club's Climate 1 Initiative. He previously was international editor at The Industry Standard magazine, an editor for the Associated Press in New York, and a correspondent in China and Canada for the South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong newspaper.
Proficient in both Mandarin and Cantonese, he is a former term member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Eric E. Schmidt is executive chairman of Google. Since joining the startup in 2001, Schmidt has helped grow the company to be a global leader in technology. As executive chairman, he is responsible for the external matters of Google: building partnerships and broader business relationships, government outreach and technology thought leadership, and advising the CEO and senior leadership on business and policy issues. From 2001 to 2011, Schmidt served as Google’s CEO, overseeing the company’s technical and business strategy alongside its founder. Under his leadership, Google dramatically scaled its infrastructure and diversified its product offerings while maintaining a strong culture of innovation. Schmidt is a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council in the UK. He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 2006 and inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences as a fellow in 2007.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt hypothesizes the effect the financial crisis and bailout will have on green technology investment. Schmidt sees an economic stimulus package directed toward the green sector in the near future.
Energy released from atomic nuclei in significant amounts. In 1919 Ernest Rutherford discovered that alpha rays could split the nucleus of an atom. This led ultimately to the discovery of the neutron and the release of huge amounts of energy by the process of nuclear fission. Nuclear energy is also released as a result of nuclear fusion. The release of nuclear energy can be controlled or uncontrolled. Nuclear reactors carefully control the release of energy, whereas the energy release of a nuclear weapon or resulting from a core meltdown in a nuclear reactor is uncontrolled. See alsochain reaction, nuclear power, radioactivity.
not really worry over waste, worry over intentional destruction and economic neglect. i have full confidence in nuclear not succumbing to natural disaster or planes flying into buildings or it's immunity to human error. they are all well and good. i think the only issue that is real is the geopolitical instability of the world. a country with nuclear reactors is a country that can be brought to its knees relatively easily upon 1st strike.
if nuclear reactors could be built and maintained, say, by a united world independent organisation that did not make them strategic targets during war, i'd be much more inclined to side with nuclear.
also, if we have nuclear reactors in countries that don't exactly tick all the boxes in safety standards etc and their value of human life is mediocre at best, it may cause problems due to human error / neglect that we see so often in other types of manufacturing plants and power plants. things just get old and run down and in many countries they just run it into the ground until it breaks. that end game and nuclear don't go together very well.
there is an upper limit of 25TW that can be extracted from geothermal. this is the rate that it naturally expels itself. if extracted at a rate above this, it will cause the earth to cool. thus it can be extracted in a sustainable way.
I applaud Google for its good intentions, really, but I do not believe they understand the repercussions of their actions. the man is ignorant to say the earth doesn't lose heat. The earth has been cooling down since its creation. Taking away heat from the earth will just catalyze the process. Yes, oil companies are awful because they're stealing Earth's reserve resources to heat itself, but this new type of energy will be robbing the earth at its core. And with access to this new incredible energy source, you know technology will do its job of trying to use it up as "efficiently" as possible- not wanting to waste a bit of that gift. The acceleration of the heat utilization will be so great that before imaginable, we'll be facing a situation like Mars.
Instead-use what our beautiful earth has delivered to us through the countless millennium of trial and error. The need to discover and invest in biotechnology has never been so pertinent as now when we're facing the smile of the low interest, no money down, no papers mortgage lender that is geothermal energy. They do not realize what they're getting themselves in to.
This is quite honestly some of the most intelligent thinking I have heard in a while. While the Republican's are chanting "Drill Baby Drill" for carbon and revenue producing oil, I am glad than we have people like this that are thinking about the good of man-kind and the future of this very small planet. I applaude Google for thinking about this kind of stuff and their vision of how we can manage future energy demands thru the use of energy efficiency and alternative energy. Have you ever seen Steve Ballmer, Rex Tillerson, George W. come out and say anything close to this level of intelligence?
I detect quite a bit of dishonesty here in the wanton anti nuclear sentiment. I have seen widely varying reports of the cost of nuclear, not surprisingly it is reported as much higher from sources against nuclear power for any reason. Saying something is more expensive is not enough, I need numbers, from multiple sources. The dishonesty I see is that I suspect that even IF this guy agreed that nuclear was say half the price of wind or solar, I think he would STILL be opposed to it on general principle based on the irrational worry over waste.
But lets give him the benefit of the doubt on the numbers in terms of the relative cost of nuclear compared to solar lets say solar was cheaper today, you still have the issue largely ignored with baseline power generation when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine, some interesting battery storage options like flow batteries are coming into the fray, but that does not eliminate the problem entirely even IF such storage devices were put in place. Often times the best places to put solar or wind farms is away from larger city clusters and even states, how will the power get to where it needs to be? Last I checked, we have yet to achieve room temperature superconductivity, there will be energy lost in the transmission so you will have to produce even more to compensate.
A nuclear plant can be placed virtually anywhere, often times very close to the places where its power will serve, and it provides non volatile power independent of weather conditions. And again, we have three sources of non volatile power generation.
radical environmentalists have issues with all three, the first is emissions, the second ecosystem damage, the last waste. But the last two produce virtually ZERO carbon emissions. But apparently that is not enough for the utopia energy production some are going for.