
Google has just switched on it's gigantic solar project and, in traditional Google fashion, has an excellent web-based application tracking its progress. Anyone familiar with Google's stats package will recognize the software used here, but it's really cool to see the actual amount of power being generated by the panels at any given time.
And, of course, we have the obligatory "this would power 41,000 alarm clocks for one year" math going on at the bottom of the page.
Category notably not included? "This would power X number of Googleplexes for 24 hours", as that number is unfortunately still less than one.
Nevertheless...props to Google...keep up the good work.
See Also
-Google Follows Yahoo Into Carbon Neutrality-
-Solar Powered Google-
-Our Newsletter-
Hits: 20563
Comments (5)

written by Jay Wollmann, June 21, 2007
This is great progress no doubt, I just want someone to develop a way to take the energy harnessed by these panels and power my car.
written by GTW, June 22, 2007
Must be some special kind of alarm clock that slows down time itself or something!
written by GTW, June 22, 2007
My bad earlier... I didn't realise it should be 41129x24...
I've been doing some calculations to check see if these numbers are consistent and I came across the following article by CNET, which gives average power consumption amounts for LCDs, Plasmas, CRTs, PS3, etc.:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-2.html
According to them, the average TV power consumptions for each type is as follows:
Average plasma: 328 watts
Average rear-projection: 208 watts
Average LCD: 193 watts
Average CRT: 146 watts
Did you see how CRTs consume less power than LCDs? I have a bad feeling that this might be true. Although LCDs might be more efficient when compared to CRTs of the same size, people buy much larger LCD TVs.
After checking Amazon I found the most popular flatscreens are LCDs so if CNET's figures are right, Google should be claiming:
9871kW hours / 193W = 51145 hours of "flat screen TV watching" (not 82258)
If anyone didn't notice, Google estimated flatscreens as consuming 120W.
I hope bloggers who're seeking credibility do at least some partial analysis/verifications of information they pick up from here and there before posting on their blogs.
I've been doing some calculations to check see if these numbers are consistent and I came across the following article by CNET, which gives average power consumption amounts for LCDs, Plasmas, CRTs, PS3, etc.:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-2.html
According to them, the average TV power consumptions for each type is as follows:
Average plasma: 328 watts
Average rear-projection: 208 watts
Average LCD: 193 watts
Average CRT: 146 watts
Did you see how CRTs consume less power than LCDs? I have a bad feeling that this might be true. Although LCDs might be more efficient when compared to CRTs of the same size, people buy much larger LCD TVs.
After checking Amazon I found the most popular flatscreens are LCDs so if CNET's figures are right, Google should be claiming:
9871kW hours / 193W = 51145 hours of "flat screen TV watching" (not 82258)
If anyone didn't notice, Google estimated flatscreens as consuming 120W.
I hope bloggers who're seeking credibility do at least some partial analysis/verifications of information they pick up from here and there before posting on their blogs.
written by energy garcon, May 12, 2008
I think you mean 9,000 kWh. And yes, it is a big deal.
Think of kW (or kilowatt) as miles per gallon. It is the capability of the system. kWh (kilowatt-hours) are like the miles driven. :o
Think of kW (or kilowatt) as miles per gallon. It is the capability of the system. kWh (kilowatt-hours) are like the miles driven. :o
written by Leon, December 22, 2011
Unfortunately the article title states kW and the first line states kWh. Most likely they mean kWh because it says "in the last 24 hours" ... This amount of consumption would be similar to what nine or ten homes consume in one month's time. ... On the other hand, 9000 kW is simply 9000000 Watts, and generally refers to capacity.
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
JUN 21
"Unfortunately the article title states kW and the first line states kW..."
View all Comments