Specifically, Google purchases 3 GW of renewable energy and sells it to the grid at a loss.[1] This isn't the same as being directly powered by renewables because they don't have to worry about time shifting supply and demand, which is often done using natural gas.
[1] cloud.google.com/environment/
But it's still a very good thing and others should follow suit.
Also, can you show your working for them "selling at a loss". They generate renewable energy then sell the energy and keep the certificates that say it's renewable, those are both worth something. Are you saying they could have bought the certificates on the open market for less, because I don't think that's the case.
I didn't compare to buying RECs. The point is that Google is 100% renewable voluntarily. While RECs may be worth some tax credits, it's obviously a net cost or else Facebook would also be 100% renewable.
That said, I'm fairly confident that Google's approach is more costly than just buying RECs because demand for RECs is not very high. Google doesn't buy RECs directly because they want stronger guarantees of additionality:
"Buying a few years’ worth of RECs from a renewable project does not provide the stable and sizable cash stream that a renewable project developer needs to get financing to build new green power projects. In a PPA [power purchasing agreement], Google is agreeing to buy all the power from a project for many years. Google has, in effect, totally accepted the power price risk that the project owner would otherwise face—instead of taking the risk of selling into the power market on a short-term basis, Google is providing the seller with a guaranteed revenue stream for 20 years. This is something the developer can literally take to the bank. If we were to buy only the RECs, this would represent a fraction of the value of a typical power project,5 and would still leave the renewable developer to face the market risks of future energy prices, making it much harder for them to obtain financing for projects.
[1] http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrust...
BTW there's a big difference here between GW (power) and energy - do they contract 3 GW 24/7 or are they buying 24*3 GWh per day whenever the spot prices are lowest, or are they paying companies to average 3 GW per day over a multi year contract? In the first scenario there will be surplus over 3GW for most of the day.
Since global warming is a global problem (and other forms of pollution from burning coal or gas can travel long distances) it doesn't matter where the carbon is saved, it's basically equivalent, so they're just being pragmatic in their philanthropy.
This could be thought of as a subset of their wider goal to be carbon neutral (which again, could be described as philanthropic in nature), presumably funding the roll out of renewable energy seemed like a cost effective way to work towards that goal.
TIL this is called "Corporate Renewable Energy Procurement". https://www.google.com/search?q=Corporate+Renewable+Energy+P...
PPA: Power Purchase Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_purchase_agreement
Does Amazon have a similar initiative? Given their market share in the cloud and their widespread AZ's I imagine it'd be tricky.
edit: jk, apparently their energy needs are half that of Google and they're making headway. (https://electrek.co/2017/10/19/amazon-wind-farm/)
A tad misleading, they are still reliant on fossil fuels but are offsetting it elsewhere. That said I think the congratulations are well deserved.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bitcoin-mining-energy-consumpti... says miners use 29.05TWh annually, so [29.05TWh / (365 * 24)h] = 3.3GW
And do they just make an exchange with the grid for the same amount of energy?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601221/texas-and-californ...
I wonder how much power the 50 pounds of JS on Youtube costs.
