Google invests $200M in Texas wind farm | Hacker News Reader

Google invests $200M in Texas wind farm

techcrunch.com

50 pointsakos12 comments

Just another way that government subsidies help the rich get richer.

AFTER EDIT: Yes, I see the downvote, and I'm willing to discuss the facts with you. Do you seriously think Google or anybody would invest in that wind farm without serious government incentives behind the investment? And if the tax-policy-favored investment is in a high-capital physical plant like a wind farm, isn't that an investment that's not easy to make for investors who have little capital? A big wind farm is inherently linked into the power grid, and doesn't help you or me get off the grid.

Some sources that prompt my curiosity about these policies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/business/energy-environmen...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/news/economy/energy-subsidie...

http://www.economist.com/node/21556904

http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/217

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044365920457757...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044403240457800...

For balance, critiques of other government subsidies for other industries (surely disfavored by Google):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=making-rene...

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-21/when-it-come...

The subsidies aren't there to make anyone richer/more equal/etc... They are there to get scales of economy developing in Renewable Energy such that the price comes down.

It's been extraordinarily effective in Solar.

The only rational reason to make these investments as a society is if we believe that Petroleum/Coal/Nuclear based energy has externialities (or present-value-risk-adjusted externialities) - I.E. Climate Change, Pollution, Nuclear Disaster, etc... that exceed the cost of these subsidies.

I've often wondered whether the deaths of Solar Panel installers, Visual/Noise polution of Wind Farms, and environmental havoc resulting from hydro electric facilities are factored into these equations when subsidies are being handed out.

Motives aside, I'm glad to see more power coming from solar and wind.

These guys are really betting against dirty energy.

Google could eventually become the Rockefeller of renewable energy.

Where else has Google bet on renewable energy/against dirty energy?

-$200 million in a 161 MW wind farm in Oldham County, Texas

-$75 million in a 50 MW wind farm in Rippey, Iowa

-$94 million in a portfolio of four solar photovoltaic (PV) projects being built by Recurrent Energy near Sacramento, California

-$75 million to create a fund with Clean Power Finance that will help up to 3,000 homeowners go solar

-$280 million in SolarCity for residential solar

-$168 million into Brightsource's solar project, Ivanpah, in California’s Mojave Desert

-37.5% equity stake in the early-stage development of the Atlantic Wind Connection backbone, a project to build a superhighway transmission infrastructure for clean, reliable energy off the Mid-Atlantic coast

-$157 million in two projects totaling 270 MW at the Alta Wind Energy Center

-$100 million into Shepherd’s Flat, the world’s largest wind farm at 845 MW

-$38.8 million in two wind farms in North Dakota that generate 169.5 MW of power

-€3.5 million (approximately $5 million for a 49 percent equity stake in the project) in a recently completed solar facility in Brandenburg, Germany

http://www.google.com/green/energy/investments/

This is not a bet for / against anything. This is an investment into tax equity. Because Google has large tax liabilities, they can deploy tax equity more efficiently than most investors. That's why they're in this game -- and I'm glad that they are.

Then why specifically renewable energy and not, say corn?

I'm not sure about investing in corn, but these are the credits that i'm speaking of -- and they apply to renewable energy.

http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=...

Me too. And I think there is a marketing angle to it. When their green energy output rises to the point of their search infrastrucutre consumption level, they can use that as marketing ammunition. Would you rather search on carbon-powered search engine or green-powered Google search? At their scale, even a tiny percentage point rise / defended in market share will add up over time to recoup (part of) the investment.

Vertical integration at its finest.

Please don't invest money in this hellhole.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com