Alan C. Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Facebook Wants More Green Energy. But Red Tape Is in the Way Facebook's new data center center will run entirely on wind power. This means three of the five massive computing facilities that will drive the company’s worldwide social network in the years to come will run use only renewable energy. But Peter Freed, who helps oversee renewable energy efforts at Facebook, isn’t entirely pleased. Buying clean energy, he says, remains far too difficult.“It should be easier to get these kinds of things done,” he says, “and we’re seeing an increasing number of companies that want to do them.”According to Freed, it took Facebook more than a year to arrange a wind power deal for the new data center slated to open in Fort Worth, Texas, next year. And making this kind of thing happen in Texas is far easier than in most other states. Texas is a deregulated energy market, where companies are free to chose their own power provider. Many other states are still regulated, meaning companies have no choice but to acquire their power through what is essentially a state-sanctioned monopoly.. . ....in regulated states such as Iowa and North Carolina, where Facebook operates additional data centers, the hassle is far greater. The company must move any renewable energy, including wind power, through the state-sanctioned power company. Regardless of your opinion of wind power and Facebook, here's an example of a company trying to do the right thing, and government getting in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Facebook Wants More Green Energy. But Red Tape Is in the Way Regardless of your opinion of wind power and Facebook, here's an example of a company trying to do the right thing, and government getting in the way. There's a bunch of companies that have data centers powered by dams, not because it's the green thing to do, but because it's cheaper year round due to subsidies (or tax breaks). Facebook is asking for a handout, because others have received them for similar public relations activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 I often wonder if people have ever seen a wind turbine, how they are transported and built, but it's far from "green". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Green Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Hydroelectric might not cause pollution but it's far from friendly to the environment (according to the doc. linked below at least). http://damnationfilm.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobra2411 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 When you look at the cost of wind power in economic and environmental costs from raw material to installed wind turbine, without subsidies and looking forward to later dismantling, maintenance and threats to the environment, these so called "green" energy machines are anything but and will never return the energy invested in terms of energy output. Solar is in the same boat. I agree, FB is looking for a handout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Green Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 When you look at the cost of wind power in economic and environmental costs from raw material to installed wind turbine, without subsidies and looking forward to later dismantling, maintenance and threats to the environment, these so called "green" energy machines are anything but and will never return the energy invested in terms of energy output. Solar is in the same boat. I agree, FB is looking for a handout. According to these metrics, what's the most green method of power generation with all these things considered? Coal/Oil fired plants are still even worse, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 According to these metrics, what's the most green method of power generation with all these things considered? Coal/Oil fired plants are still even worse, right? Modern nuclear power, which we don't even have in the United States, is far better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobra2411 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 My favorite is the Thorium-Cycle type reactor. They're incredibly safe, use thorium off existing coal which can later be used in a fischer-tropsch reaction to make liquid hydrocarbons - i.e. gasoline and they don't need to be near large sources of water. The reaction slows down at high temperatures and "freeze" plugs can be added that would drain the system in the event of a power failure. The technology has been around for 50+ years. They suck for refining weapons grade nuclear materials... So... I'll leave others to ponder the US's choice in nuclear power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Green Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Got any 'tangible' info on which is greenest out of all of them given their total impact to the environment throughout their life cycle? (I feel this is a rhetorical question as it's impossible to tell what all this would be like without gubmint and subsidies involved in everything) I've watched a few doc.s on nuclear (both for and against) so I'm practically an expert. Scalability is a factor (for what's currently available as far as I know) so we'd still need something a single home or tiny village could use in a remote area. As usual in reality, there's no one universal best for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green banana Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 they don't need to be near large sources of water. Because they use liquid Sodium. And when you paid attention in chemistry, you know what happens when Sodium reacts with water, let alone liquid Sodium. The technology has been around for 50+ years. The technology is fundamentally flawed. After they built test reactors, it was found out that the pebbles get damaged by the Neutron moderators at a high percentage. So you would have to run the reactor and then turn it off again to remove the damaged pebbles. There are more fun ways to waste energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncapFTW Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Because they use liquid Sodium. And when you paid attention in chemistry, you know what happens when Sodium reacts with water, let alone liquid Sodium. The technology is fundamentally flawed. After they built test reactors, it was found out that the pebbles get damaged by the Neutron moderators at a high percentage. So you would have to run the reactor and then turn it off again to remove the damaged pebbles. There are more fun ways to waste energy. I thought they used fluoride, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannahbanana Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I'm pretty sure wind is worse than solar, since turbines are so massive and made of steel which needs to be treated at ridiculously high temperatures, as well as concrete...solar could be better, but the lifespan of current solar panels is not long enough to make up for the energy cost of production. I'm pretty sure geothermal is the best method right now, but or course not everyone has a lava vent in their back yard. I think it would be a great engineering problem to design cheaper and more efficient turbines and solar panels, which seems entirely possible. I've even seen a few turbine designs that are less invasive to the airspace and uses wind more efficiently, but I am not sure why they aren't being widely used yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green banana Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Fluoride has similar problematic properties as Sodium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertarianSocialist Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 It's not so much the panels/turbines are bad it's the massive battery bank (or alternate method of energy storage) that needs to be replaced every ten years. Batteries are the real resource hogs. This is why I think co-generation is a great idea. Nuclear does seem the cleanest and most flexible, but as mentioned scalability is an issue, it's just too much power to give into so few hands. Even my sustainable and decentralized energy generation of choice, wood gasification, (not that it's working yet!) is too inconvenient at anything less than 100 kW/h/day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobra2411 Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I was referring to the liquid floride thorium reactor. There are versions that use graphite rods vs pebbles. The technology isn't without its obstacles, but I feel they're easy enough to overcome and that the LFTR reactor is the best source of base power we have available at the time in terms of available fuel, safety and output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts