The Googleplex

[BTinSF]

Check this out for a solar roof:

Google has completed what now stands as the largest single corporate solar project in the world. (Sorry, PG&E.) The Googleplex-opolis claims to have slashed its energy bill by 30%; the roof will pay for itself within 7 years, says the word on the street.

Source: http://sf.curbed.com/

[Zerton]

we need to see this everywhere.

[Dr. Taco]

^ read up on "nano-solar". We might see it pretty soon, and it won't take seven years to recoup the costs

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Zerton

we need to see this everywhere.

This should help:

S.F. proposes subsidy program to encourage solar panel installation
Charles Burress, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Companies and homeowners who pay to install solar panels in San Francisco could save over 50 percent with help from an ambitious subsidy program, according to city officials who will announce the plan today.

Some experts say the effort is groundbreaking and, if implemented, could be the nation's biggest such program. The proposed subsidy would be $3,000 and $5,000 per residence and up to $10,000 for businesses. City officials are also proposing a low-interest financing program that would allow residents to incrementally pay back money borrowed for solar installations at below-market rates, possibly via charges on their property tax bills.

When combined with the state's solar rebate program and federal tax credits, the cost of installing solar could be cut in half for San Francisco residents and businesses, officials said Monday. With all those incentives, a typical 3-kilowatt residential system would cost between $16,370 and $18,370, based on current San Francisco installation costs.

"The type of leadership that San Francisco is demonstrating is probably unparalleled," said John Stanton, spokesman for the national Solar Energy Industry Association. "We haven't seen this type of local government commitment and initiative for a carbon-free future."

Claudine Schneider, president of the Solar Alliance of solar businesses and a former five-term congresswoman from Rhode Island, said her organization is excited about the program.

"We only hope that many other cities follow course," she said.

The subsidy and loan plans are separate programs and each must still be approved. The subsidy program needs support from the city Public Utilities Commission and the Board of Supervisors; the loan program needs the approval of both the Board of Supervisors and voters. Supervisors Tom Ammiano and Jake McGoldrick are co-sponsoring the subsidy ordinance.

The target start date for the subsidy program is July 1, and the end of next year for the loan program.

The cash-incentive is the centerpiece of 10 months of work by the city's Solar Task Force, city Assessor Phil Ting said Monday. Ting co-chairs the task force with PUC Commissioner Doug Hochschild.

"We think this is the largest local incentive program of its kind," Ting said.

A few other cities offer rebate programs. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power offers one of the most generous, amounting to about $4.50 per watt, or about $13,500 on a typical 3-kilowatt home solar system. However, Los Angeles customers aren't eligible for the state rebate available from Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which is $2.30 per watt, or $8,900 for a 3-kilowatt solar installation.

Under San Francisco's new cash subsidy, the city's PG&E customers would also receive a base subsidy of $3,000, plus an additional $1,000 if they use a San Francisco installer. Another $1,000 would be provided for customers residing in an "environmental justice district," meaning a neighborhood next to one of the city's two power plants. Solar systems cost an average of $9.99 per watt in San Francisco, meaning $29,970 for a 3-kilowatt system.

The commercial subsidy would be $1,500 per kilowatt, up to $10,000.

"There's no increase in property taxes and no increase in electricity rates to pay for this new program, which is really good news for San Franciscans," Hochschild said.

The cash incentive would be funded by city PUC renewable energy funds, which come from sale of power generated by Hetch Hetchy dam. Between $2 million and $5 million of those funds would be pledged per year for 10 years. The renewable energy funds now provide for solar installation on city buildings, a program that will continue, said PUC General Manager Susan Leal.

"It's another way to make renewable (energy) work in the city," Leal said.

The new loan program would apply not just to solar panels but also to other forms of renewable energy such as solar thermal and wind, Hochschild said.

The program's goal: Grow by 10-fold the amount of solar power produced in the city. Currently, the city produces roughly five megawatts of solar energy from solar panels placed on 666 rooftops, Ting said.

"San Francisco now ranks last among the Bay Area counties in solar watts per capita," Hochschild said. "You're going to see the volume of solar skyrocket."

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

[rapid_business]

Where we need it most is on commercial and industrial buildings. Despite what efforts the residential tries to make, industrial and commercial are responsible for 70% of the energy consumption in North America.

[PeterG]

Originally Posted by onishenko

Where we need it most is on commercial and industrial buildings. Despite what efforts the residential tries to make, industrial and commercial are responsible for 70% of the energy consumption in North America.

yes, but which money grabbing corporation is going to voluntarily spend money on things which aren't compulsory.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by PeterG

yes, but which money grabbing corporation is going to voluntarily spend money on things which aren't compulsory.

Besides Google, Wal-Mart, since you asked.

Is Wal-Mart going green?
CEO vows to be ‘good steward for the environment’ in announcing goals
April L. Brown / AP file
MSNBC News Services

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has unveiled an environmental plan to boost energy efficiency, cut down on waste and reduce greenhouse gases tied to global warming as part of a wider effort to address issues where it has been pummeled by critics.

Wal-Mart Chief Executive Lee Scott said the world’s largest retailer wants to be a “good steward for the environment” and ultimately use only renewable energy sources and produce zero waste.

“As one of the largest companies in the world, with an expanding global presence, environmental problems are our problems,” Scott said in a transcript, released Tuesday, of a speech he gave Monday to employees titled “21st Century Leadership”.

Targets include spending $500 million a year to: increase fuel efficiency in Wal-Mart’s truck fleet by 25 percent over three years and doubling it within 10 years; reduce greenhouse gases by 20 percent in seven years; reduce energy use at stores by 30 percent; and cut solid waste from U.S. stores and Sam’s Clubs by 25 percent in three years.

He said improving fuel mileage in the trucking fleet by one mile per gallon would save more than $52 million per year. The company also aims to cut energy usage at its stores by 30 percent.

Wal-Mart recently opened an experimental store in McKinney, Texas, to study environmental efforts such as heating the store with used cooking and motor oil. Scott said the savings so far were not enough to cover the cost of building the store, but that it may be economically feasible if Wal-Mart takes advantage of its size and rolls out such changes across the chain.

Scott said the plan was part of goals set after a year of talks with Wal-Mart’s employees, suppliers, critics and customers that he said showed many of the issues where the company was on the defensive could be opportunities instead.

The speech follows a volley of announcements by Wal-Mart since last week outlining responses to critics on issues such as pay, and comes ahead of a two day annual conference for financial analysts who follow the retailer.

Activists react
One Wal-Mart critic dismissed the green targets as a diversion, saying Wal-Mart has declined to raise wages that labor groups and others criticize as being at or below the poverty level.

“They are digging in their heels over wages,” said Tracy Stefl from Wal-Mart Watch, a coalition of union, environmental and women’s rights groups and other activists.

“Wal-Mart seems rightly sincere in their efforts to be the best company they can be. So to completely dismiss the notion of raising wages for its workers constitutes a failure of their goals,” Stefl said.

The Sierra Club, for its part, welcomed the news but added a caveat.

“Wal-Mart's new commitments to increase efficiency and reduce pollution and waste are important first steps for a company that has such a profound impact on our environment,” Director Carl Pope said in a statement.

“While this announcement shows that Wal-Mart can be leader, it also demonstrates that they should be able to take equal steps to protect workers,” he added. “Wal-Mart should also include in their plans an effort to more responsibly site their stores, obey our nation's clean water laws, which have been violated in the past, and address community concerns at all of their locations.”

And quite a few more.

PS: It is awfully tiresome to refer to corporations, which exist for the purpose of making money, as "money-grubbing."

[al2six]

Originally Posted by PeterG

yes, but which money grabbing corporation is going to voluntarily spend money on things which aren't compulsory.

and general motors:

Fontana Solar Array

Rancho Cucamonga Solar Array

[rapid_business]

In the end, it's all a PR stint though. Good press.

[andrewkfromaz]

Yeah, it could never be that perhaps, just maybe, conserving fuel and reducing waste could actually help a company (like Wal-Mart or UPS) save money, therefore increasing profit. Nope, not a chance.

[rapid_business]

/\ come on, if that was the case and the true single motive, we'd see all of these stores doing this. Not just half a dozen out of 200 new stores like this year at Walmart for example. Why wouldn't every company in North America do this then? It's because, as it stand right now, the cost/benefit is spread to thin over too long a period of return. Like any public company, Walmart has to report to their shareholders 4 times a year. (Who like to see quick results, and aren't usually interested in gradual, long-term results.)

So this is where the pressure of PR and the 'greening' of companies comes in. If they can get good press about the 'green' things their doing, it in turn draws more 'green' conscious shoppers, and thus the rate of return on their investment is exponentially increased. Therefore, it makes financial sense to do this to a small extent as it gives them good press, draws in more shoppers and keeps their shareholders happy because their small investment is seeing quick returns.

[roadwarrior]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Or maybe we will get a democratic president in 2008, who actually understands that the goodwill of the environment is much more important than a few extra dollars in corporate profits. If this occurs, perhaps the government will make it required by corporations. Requirements are much stronger vehicles for driving compliance.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by onishenko

/\ come on, if that was the case and the true single motive, we'd see all of these stores doing this. Not just half a dozen out of 200 new stores like this year at Walmart for example. Why wouldn't every company in North America do this then?

I think a lot of companies including Wal-Mart are experimenting. They want to "do the right thing" because, yes, it's great PR, but they want to do it in a way that is at least cost-neutral over some reasonable period of time. I see nothing wrong in that, especially because I think over time we will find ways to make going "green" a money-saver.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior

perhaps the government will make it required by corporations. Requirements are much stronger vehicles for driving compliance.

Sometimes. But the most effective thing about requirements can be that they even the playing field. If all your competitors have to do it, you aren't placing yourself at a disadvantage by doing it (if it ISN'T a cost-saver).

[verticalextropy]

If it is a disadvantage you shouldnt do it. Coertion just doesn't work and is unfair.

I think companies are experimenting with solar panels now but they will be benefitial in a nano-future.
Right now companies are pressed to save energy or else they get outsourced. That is a more organic incentive.

[worldwide]

how ironic. a green building in the middle of nowhere with... you guessed it, a big parking lot

[verticalextropy]

lol, I've heard page and brin actually bike to work

[peanut gallery]

Mountain View is not the middle of nowhere.

[oracle]

This generates only 30% of their power, that's not much at all...especially since they run giant computer labs that consume hundred times over that.

[BTinSF]

^^^We could all just become hunter-gatherers.

The goal I prefer is to continue as a technological society while cutting the carbon footprint and a 30% reduction is important, especially if you consider that a substantial part of the power they do have to buy from PG&E is also generated from CO2-free sources (geothermal, hydro, nuclear, wind).