Tax law says that if a corporation issues options for employees to buy the company’s stock in the future for its price when the option issued, then if the stock has gone up in value when employees exercise the options, the company gets to deduct the difference between what the employee bought it for and its market price.

When, as Facebook expects, the 187 million stock options are cashed in this year, Facebook will get $7.5 billion in tax deductions (which will reduce the company’s federal and state taxes by $3 billion). According to Facebook, these tax deductions should exceed the company’s U.S. taxable 2012 income and result in a net operating loss (NOL) that can then be carried back to the preceding two years to offset its past taxes, resulting in a refund of up to $500 million.

Facebook’s filing papers with the Securities and Exchange Commission confirm as much:

Option exercise activity would generate a corporate income tax deduction [that] exceeds our other U.S. taxable income [and] will result in a net operating loss (NOL) that can be carried back to the preceding two years to offset our taxable income for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as well as in some states, which would allow us to receive a refund of some of the corporate income taxes we paid in those years. Based on the assumptions above, we anticipate that this refund could be up to $500 million.

“Due to the stock option loophole, Facebook may not pay any corporate income taxes on its profits for a generation,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). “It isn’t right, and we can’t afford it.” The Treasury Department estimates that it loses about $2 billion per year due to companies using this stock option loophole to avoid taxes.

Well, here’s more evidence of Google’s flair for renewable energy deployment. Adding to the $850 million in clean energy deployment investments, Google is putting another $94 million into four solar photovoltaic projects representing 88 MW of capacity around California. The projects will be built by a leading North American developer Recurrent Energy.

(Here’s a little factoid about the relationship: Recurrent CEO Arno Harris is the former general manager of EI Solutions, the company that installed a 1.6 MW PV system on Google’s headquarters. That was back in 2007, when a 1.6 MW system was a huge deal. Now it’s a regular occurrence to quickly install PV projects with tens of MW of capacity.)

This latest round of solar investments brings Google’s total clean energy portfolio to $915 million. Electricity from these installations will be sold to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District under a Feed-in Tariff over a 20-year period. The global financial firm KKR will co-invest with Google in the projects.

This rounds out the year well for the U.S. solar market, which saw 140% growth in the third quarter of this year, bringing installs to over 1 GW.

Developers are rushing to take advantage of the expiring Treasury Grant Program, which provides a 30% cash payment through the Treasury rather than a 30% investment tax credit. That program expires at the end of this month, and Congress does not look prepared to extend it. If the grant is not extended, solar analysts say the market could drop off substantially in 2012 —potentially preventing the creation of another 37,000 jobs, according to a report commissioned by the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Related Posts:

• Solar Industry: Extending the Treasury Grant Program Could Add 37,000 New Jobs by 2013
• Solar is the “Fastest Growing Industry in America” and Made Record Cost Reductions in 2010
• Google Phases Out Clean Energy R&D in Favor of Deployment, Citing the “Compelling” Cost Reductions in Solar PV

Admitting that he knew about the petition effort, Schmidt said that the “Chamber of Commerce has helped us in some areas.” As an example, the Chamber helped him in a dispute over meeting the Chinese prime minister. He said this work was “representing good American values.” With a chuckle, Schmidt said that Google will “see what happens” with the SumOfUs petition:

There are plenty of things we disagree with them on. But I’ll let the petition continue (chuckle), and see what happens.

Watch it:

“Where is Eric Schmidt’s moral compass?” SumOfUs President Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman responded in a statement to ThinkProgress. “The Chamber of Commerce represents the opposite of ‘good American values’ –- not to mention Google’s values. Hundreds of thousands of Google users have made it clear that the Chamber of Commerce’s wars on internet freedom, LGBT and women’s rights, the climate, financial reform, good jobs, and much more are morally incompatible with our own values and with the values of Google’s employees. We call on Eric Schmidt to clarify exactly which ‘good American values’ he believes the Chamber of Commerce represents — and to get Google out of the Chamber immediately. The Chamber’s policies are, frankly, evil. Google, abide by your own principles and don’t be evil.”

Buried at the bottom of an innocuous “spring cleaning” post on Google’s blog yesterday, the internet giant made a very important announcement: it will stop funding its Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal (RE<C) initiative.

But that’s not the whole story. And if you believe the headlines — “Google Abandons Renewable Energy Push” or “Are Google’s Green Days Over?” — you might think this is a negative development. But if you look at the details, it’s a story about how the company is adapting to a changing market and actually increasing investments in renewables.

Announced in 2007 by Google, RE<C was focused on driving down the cost of renewable electricity (mostly solar and geothermal) to meet the cost of generating electricity from coal. The initiative funded R&D in capital-intensive, early-stage technologies that would enable cheaper Enhanced Geothermal Systems and Concentrating Solar Power projects.

But Google says it’s now shifting its focus to project financing rather than R&D, citing the need for more sophisticated research on CSP technologies beyond Google’s scope, and the rapidly changing economics of solar PV:

Over the last few years, we’ve seen a lot of progress in clean energy. We’re excited that some technologies are so quickly approaching cost competitiveness with traditional forms of energy in parts of the US and the world. Power tower technology has come a long way, too. But the installed cost of solar photovoltaic technology has declined dramatically over the past few years, making solar photovoltaic technology a compelling choice for consumers.

At this point, other institutions are better positioned than Google to take this research to the next level. So we’ve published our results to help others in the field continue to advance the state of power tower technology, and we’ve closed our efforts. We will continue our work to generate cleaner, more efficient energy—including our on-campus efforts, procuring renewable energy for our data centers, making our data centers even more efficient and investing more than $850 million in renewable energy technologies.

Although the news was hidden at the bottom of a blog post, this is a pretty important announcement. (Only at Google would they casually “spring clean” millions of dollars in R&D investments for renewable energy).

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Firstly, it shows how capital intensive many of these technologies are. Google invested tens of millions of dollars into R&D for new methods of building CSP plants. Today, we’ve got a number of commercial projects deployed using some of the technologies and methods funded by Google — but even after investing all that money, much of the research is still in the early phases, the company says.

The same goes for Google’s funding of Potter Drilling, a company working on developing a technique for drilling through deep, hard rock called “thermal spallation.” The drill is designed for Enhanced Geothermal projects. Potter has been working on the technique since 2004, with Google investing over $10 million in the company through its RE<C initiative in 2008. But like most development in the EGS sector, progress has been slow and the drill has not been commercialized yet.

Google’s shift away from these projects doesn’t prove whether or not they’ll be successful. It just shows how much money and time goes into bringing new energy technologies to scale.

Meanwhile, the stunning changes in the economics of solar PV have made market conditions far different today than in 2007. Google has since invested more than $350 million into the deployment of distributed solar, investing in SolarCity and Clean Power Finance, and a variety of projects in Germany. (Google also threw $168 million behind the Ivahpah CSP project, showing that it still has a lot of confidence in that technology too).

Wind is a major part of the company’s portfolio as well. It has invested over $250 million in wind projects around the country, including the world’s largest wind farm, an 845 MW project in Oregon.

You can find Google’s full range of investments, totaling $850 million, here.

Even while dropping its high-profile RE<C initiative, Google is investing more than ever in renewables. But it’s choosing deployment over R&D — showing once again that much of the progress in climate solutions will come from actually developing projects.

Research is an extraordinarily important part of building new technologies and making us more competitive. We should never lose sight of that. But we should also recognize the dominant strategy of the largest companies in the world working to bring down the cost of renewables: Deployment, deployment, deployment.

-May 6 will be my favorite day of 2012.

-If I was a star Japanese pitcher, looking at the available evidence, I’d probably want to stay in Japan.

-HBO GO may finally be available to all HBO subscribers.

-Time to start playing with Google Music.

-Really excited for the Star Trek sequel.

Southern Methodist University’s Geothermal Laboratory recently released a map that proves once again how much potential energy is locked beneath America. SMU’s resource map, which took years to develop with funding from Google.org, shows that there are enough technically recoverable resources throughout the U.S. to equal 10 times the amount of coal capacity in place today.

Other maps have shown similar data. Last year, SMU issued a map (also funded by Google) that showed massive geothermal potential under West Virginia, an area not typically seen as suitable for the technology. In 2007, MIT Researcher Jeff Tester analyzed deep “hot rock” resources, showing that the U.S has 100 GW of potential for Enhanced Geothermal Systems [EGS] — an emerging type of plant design in which a developer creates an artificial well by pumping water through deep rocks, rather than using direct steam from hot water reservoirs closer to the surface.

So big deal, right? Another map shows we have tons of resources. Why is this so different from the others?

Well, geothermal exploration can be a very risky business. It’s not uncommon for a developer to spend 3/5ths of capital on the exploration and drilling phase of a project. And if the resources aren’t there, that’s millions of dollars down the…bore hole.

This map and corresponding study gives the geothermal industry another great tool for evaluating resources, particularly in areas on the East Coast where developers haven’t ventured. SMU provides an explanation (and a good video of EGS starring Energy Secretary Steven Chu):

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

In this newest SMU estimate of resource potential, researchers used additional temperature data and in-depth geological analysis for the resulting heat flow maps to create the updated temperature-at-depth maps from 3.5 kilometers to 9.5 kilometers (11,500 to 31,000 feet).

This update revealed that some conditions in the eastern two-thirds of the U.S. are actually hotter than some areas in the western portion of the country, an area long-recognized for heat-producing tectonic activity. In determining the potential for geothermal production, the new SMU study considers the practical considerations of drilling, and limits the analysis to the heat available in the top 6.5 km (21,500 ft.) of crust for predicting megawatts of available power.

This approach incorporates a newly proposed international standard for estimating geothermal resource potential that considers added practical limitations of development, such as the inaccessibility of large urban areas and national parks. Known as the ‘technical potential’ value, it assumes producers tap only 14 percent of the ‘theoretical potential’ of stored geothermal heat in the U.S., using currently available technology.

In other words, this assessment, which shows we have enough recoverable resources to overtake our coal capacity ten times over, is pretty realistic.

Google.org funded this detailed piece of research as part of its suite of strategic investments in geothermal R&D and project deployment. But even with these resources and the high-profile backing from companies like Google, the pace of development in the geothermal industry will still be moderate.

That’s because developers in the sector are competing with oil and gas companies for drilling rigs and workers. Securing capital for projects from the still-tight financial markets has also been tough for companies. And in next-generation EGS, drilling technologies and power plant designs are still in pre-commercial phase. This isn’t an industry that can deploy projects very rapidly.

Even with some constraints, it’s clear that the Americans are blessed with an enormous amount of technically-exploitable resources under our feet. And no, it’s not coal, oil or natural gas.

Here’s a good video of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (and it beats the heck out of gas fracking):

Related Posts:

• Geothermal energy is a core climate solution: Five hot, rockin’ geothermal companies
• Geothermal:  “The US Geological Survey estimates the US could generate 150,000 megawatts.”
• Heat Pumps:  The ‘other’ geothermal

Another interesting result the Google blog found: media coverage of the two movements doesn’t seem to correlate very well to search traffic. Rather, media coverage of the tea party continues to almost match Occupy Wall Street despite the lack of online search interest:

But, what about media coverage? Despite big leads in polls and search traffic for Occupy Wall Street, it is almost in a dead heat with the Tea Party for the volume of news coverage. Using Advanced Search in Google News we found that between October 7 and last week, Occupy Wall Street only barely bests the Tea Party when we examine the number of news pieces covering each movement: 29,000 to 22,000.

As ThinkProgress noted earlier this month, the 99 Percent Movement and the protest and occupations it has spawned have successfully shifted the corporate media narrative away from deficit hysteria, refocusing the national discourse onto jobs and inequality.

Google wants to help homeowners add solar power panels

Google wants to buy solar panels for your house.

The search giant announced yesterday that it will provide $75 million to build 3,000 residential solar electricity systems across the country. Google will own the panels, and get paid over time by customers who purchase the electricity the panels produce.

Google will earn what it calls an attractive return on its investment in two ways. It gets the monthly fee from homeowners, and, as the owner of the systems, Google will get the benefit of federal and state renewable energy subsidies.

Sen. Paul places hold on pipeline safety bill

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is blocking legislation aimed at tightening safety standards for the nation’s oil and natural-gas pipelines, arguing that the bill would create a new layer of burdensome regulations and government bureaucracy.

Paul has placed a procedural hold on the legislation, which enjoys bipartisan support in the Senate. The hold effectively prevents lawmakers from fast-tracking approval of the bill.

The fight over the bill comes amid growing concerns about the country’s pipeline infrastructure, spurred in part by a number of recent accidents.A California natural-gas pipeline exploded last year, killing eight people. And two recent pipeline leaks, one in Michigan and one in Montana, spilled thousands of gallons of oil.

EPA delays auto emissions, mileage rule rollout

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department are delaying the release of proposed regulations establishing the next round of joint greenhouse gas and mileage standards for cars and light trucks.

The agencies plan to issue rules for model years 2017-2025 that establish a standard of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, a plan that has won support from major automakers.

The proposed rule was slated for release at the end of September, but is now expected to surface by mid-November, according to EPA.

The agency cited factors including the time needed to coordinate with the state of California, which has authority to set its own standards but has again agreed to harmonize its rules with the Obama administration standards.

Waxman to Issa: Get Solyndra facts straight

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is rebutting House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) claim that Waxman helped the now-bankrupt solar company Solyndra secure its $535 million federal loan guarantee.

Waxman said in a letter to Issa on Monday that he had no role in the financing.

“I am writing to let you know that I had no involvement in the selection of the Solyndra loan. In fact, the first time I met with representatives from Solyndra was in July 2011, when the company’s CEO, Brian Harrison, informed me — erroneously, it turned out — that the company’s prospects were bright,” writes Waxman, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Issa made the allegation when announcing Sept. 20 that his committee would broadly investigate federal loan support to private companies. His probe joins the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s ongoing Solyndra investigation.

China opposes EU’s ‘unilateral’ airline tax plan

China on Wednesday criticised European Union plans to charge airlines for carbon emissions, accusing it of “unilaterally” introducing the new tax.

Airlines, which contribute 3.0 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, will be included in the EU’s carbon trading market on January 1.

China has said it fears its aviation sector will have to pay an additional 800 million yuan (about $125 million) a year on flights originating or landing in Europe, and that the cost could be almost four times higher by 2020.

“China appreciates the EU’s efforts in climate change but opposes the EU’s forced implementation of unilateral legislation,” foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei told journalists at a briefing.

The tax would affect the country’s major airlines — including Air China, China Eastern and China Southern — which plan to jointly lodge a legal case with the China Air Transport Association (CATA), the group told AFP.

Hainan Airlines, another large carrier, will also take part in the litigation.

CATA deputy secretary general Chai Haibo said “dozens of airlines” would be involved in the lawsuit and it aimed to lodge the case by the end of the year.

Previously, Climate Progress outlined four good reasons why cloud computing is better for the climate:

1. Economies of scale
2. Diversity and aggregation
3. Flexibility
4. Outsourcing

And new data from Google underscores those points: In a blog post yesterday, Google reports that using a service like Gmail is 80 times more efficient than enterprise services.

The analysis from Google shows that the real energy guzzlers (and therefore carbon emitters) are small businesses that can’t capture economies of scale. According to Google, small businesses with around 50 employees typically have to buy servers that are much more power intensive than what they need:

But it’s not just small businesses that have an impact. According to an August report on cloud computing from the Carbon Disclosure Project, large companies that plug into the cloud would have a massive impact on carbon emission reductions. The report found that American companies with revenues over $1 billion could cut CO2 by more than 85 million metric tons by 2020 annually by switching 69% of infrastructure to cloud services. That would equal $12.3 billion in economy-wide savings.

And what about all those YouTube videos of cats flushing toilets and skateboarders breaking bones you’re streaming? How energy intensive are those?

According to Google, not very. The servers required to run a minute of a YouTube video use about 0.0002 kWh of electricity. You’d have to watch those videos non-stop for three days before you’d consume the amount of energy required to produce, package and ship a DVD.

Related Post:

• Ignore the media hype and keep Googling — The energy impact of web searches is very LOW (1/09)
• Debunking the myth of the internet as energy hog, again: How information technology is good for climate (6/10)

Google released an analysis of the economic impact of clean energy innovation today, modeling a variety of long-term scenarios and their influence on GDP growth, a reduction in energy costs and greenhouse gas reductions. They used McKinsey’s Low Carbon Economics Tool, which provides models to assess the macroeconomic impact of climate and energy policies.

Based on our modeling, we estimate that by 2030, innovation in the modeled technologies alone could have a transformative impact on the US, adding over $155 billion per year in GDP and 1.1 million net jobs, while reducing household energy costs by $942 per year, oil consumption by 1.1 billion barrels per year, and GHG emissions by 13% relative to BAU. By 2050, annual gains in GDP increase to $600 billion, net additional jobs to 3.9 million, and emissions reductions to 55%.

But delaying this “innovation arms race” by as little as five years with inconsistent policy that slows private investment (a delay not unlikely in the U.S.) could result in $2.3-$3.2 trillion in unrealized GDP gains — costing the U.S. over a million new jobs and preventing the reduction of up to 28 gigatons of CO2.

This study also highlights another important point: It will take far more than clean energy innovation to substantially reduce GHG emissions. The most optimistic Google models only enable electric vehicles, energy storage and renewables to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 49% compared with 2005 levels. This study doesn’t address some of the other core climate solutions like building efficiency, demand response, advanced materials and agriculture.

The study also makes clear that innovation goes hand-in-hand with smart energy policies, including mandates for efficiency and renewables to accelerate deployment:

Policies can also amplify the economic, security, and pollution benefits of breakthroughs by creating markets, dis-incentivizing the highest-emitting technologies, and leveling the playing field for clean energy, leading to increased adoption.

The bottom line is that innovation plus policy (mandates or a carbon price) “has the best overall outcome.”

Below are the earlier comments from the Facebook commenting system:

Bill Walker

You need to fix the misplaced “could” in the headline.

June 28 at 11:51am

Peter S. Mizla

5 years? from now- think 19 years- go from there.

by 2021 a new dust bowl emerges in the western Midwest and great plains.

calculate that.

June 28 at 12:22pm

John Winer

“Innovation goes hand-in-hand with smart energy policies, including mandates for efficiency and renewables to accelerate deployment.”

I’ve long felt that our economic future is rather bleak without a conversion to clean energy. Nice to now have some company in my corner.

June 28 at 12:29pm

Timothy Hughbanks

It is terribly important to get the message out: a green economy, a functioning EPA, etc. ISN”T a jobs killer for America as a whole. It only threatens the jobs of polluters.

I love this blog, especially for the charts, graphs, and tables – we get real data missing from most of the mainstream media (who can’t even consistently report the Case-Shiller index – look at the conflucting reports today). Having said that, please excuse the minor criticisms from a chemistry professor who has corrected a lot of student-written manuscripts:

First graph: BAU – define it! (Took me a while to realize it is ‘business as usual’ and even that isn’t clearly defined. The horizontal axis is ‘time’, right? (Yes, I know the legend says 2010 – 2050 – still, use an axis!) Please supply and label the vertical axis with a correct scale – like “Increase in annual GDP over GDP assuming BAU.)

June 28 at 12:40pm

Stephen Lacey

Thanks for the criticism Timothy — we’ll be sure to include more data to make the charts more helpful.

June 28 at 12:46pm

mountainlogic

This is outstanding research presented it a great way. All the numbers look very realistic.

I would like to see efficiency added to figure 2 and the other graphs to put it in perspective. While collapsing the whole McKinsey efficiency curve to a single number is a challenge, there is a massive block of avoided generation that can be had for under coal’s $28/MWh with existing technologies that is not being deployed. This block of efficiency is larger than the size of new generation likely to come on line. With BT efficiency technology that value could be greatly expand. Renewables and efficiency are best presented side by side to policy makers, investors, etc. as they all can be measured by similar cost and benefit evaluations. There is no MWh that is more cost effective or greener that the MWh that does not need to be generated.

One other point on figure 2, the big jumps in cost reductions for solar and off shore wind between 2010 and 2020 need a bit more discussion as I suspect that those unfamiliar with the technology may see this as hand waving.

June 28 at 1:38pm

Anne B. Butterfield

Very exciting. Is it true that most readers around the US understand that Google does good analysis? AND is it true that most politicians fear Google’s political clout in elections… now that Citizens United has been decided?

June 28 at 2:23pm

James Newberry

“Delaying-clean-energy-cou​ld-leave-trillions-on-the-​table”

Another perspective would be “Delaying clean energy would leave trillions in the rubble.”

As forest fires approach plutonium storage drums at Los Alamos and epic continental flood surrounds atomic fission reactors, farms and homes while the sane battle against a proposed 1700 mile tar sands oil pipeline from destroyed boreal forest, perhaps we should reconsider letting plutocracy, militancy and extremism govern what’s left of the shining city on the hill.

Sociopaths have assumed control of the nation’s finance, and it is used only for acquisition of private gain at great public cost, including lost opportunities. A veritable “black gold” monetary standard.

Thanks for the study Google.

June 28 at 2:31pm

chas_rasper

Unfortunately the reality of all this is quite different. The reality is now being played out in Great Britain. Between hidden ‘green’ taxes and passed-down costs from existing utility companies paying carbon taxes, the average family of 4 is paying an extra $2000. a year and it’s expected to go up in years to come.

June 28 at 3:38pm

Jmaximus Spartacus

Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized via special tax breaks and trillions in mil spending to protect their ill gotten gains. Then there is all the environmental costs externalized on to society while they internalize the profits. The fossil fuel barons are doing everything they can to make sure the public isn’t made aware of these hidden costs.

June 28 at 8:47pm

Nichol Brummer

I’m very surprised how little the cost of energy per household would increase in the business as usual scenario. I would expect much of our current energy sources to become much more expensive in the longer run. My expectation would have been that we need a lot of energy efficiency just to keep total energy costs per household constant. And quite a bit more to further lower our needs to a level that they can be covered by renewables. Were my expectations wrong? Or are these graphs optimistic about the costs of doing ‘nothing’ (BAU)?

June 28 at 5:10pm

Luly Betancourt

What will it take?

June 28 at 6:41pm

Mike Roddy

I’m glad google is on this, since the effort to overcome fossil fuel propaganda will take money, and Google has lots of it. They don’t know this battle as well as a lot of us do, so they should call on Climate Progress human resources here.

June 28 at 7:32pm

Jmaximus Spartacus

I often hear from Faux News watching family members how investing in wind and solar is a waste of money because it can’t replace coal or oil right now. If we applied this same philosophy to medicine we would be still trepanning people because we don’t have a cure for cancer. Funny how all these climate change skeptics are all funded by big oil or coal, and will anything to stop or slow down their eventual demise to clean energy.

June 28 at 8:41pm

Anumakonda Jagadeesh

Excellent post. When Software and IT Giants like Google are investing heavily in Renewables, how about other major Industries which are in core sector of manufacturing and Infrastructure?

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP), India.
Wind Energy Expert.
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail​.com

June 29 at 12:41am

Angel B. Pal

“Delaying-clean-energy-cou​ld-leave-trillions-on-the-​table”

Worst, it could be the death knell for Climate Change Irreversibility. More than a trillion tonnes of methane can escape with the melting of the Ice in Antarctic and Siberia.

www.urworldindustry.com

June 29 at 8:37am

Marc Dreyfors

Polar Bears agree, “shock”opaths are in control. These estimates are conservative. If we put a price on carbon (tax and rebate), it will transform our economy top to bottom. Sadly it is unlikely even the largest ramp up in history of green “technology” won’t avert worst case scenarios, carbon emissions approaching 400PPM has likely reached tipping points. Technology is one part of the solution, throughput is also a major issue, which means reduction in consumption across the board, then social justice needs to be addressed, the billions who are left out of sustainable development and impacted most by climate disruption. We need to get busy.

June 29 at 10:17am

Richard Brenne

A few trillion here and a few trillion spent on our wars and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

July 1 at 3:09pm

Leif Erik Knutsen

Delaying the clean energy transition 10 years could leave humanity holding the smelly end of the stick.

July 1 at 8:58pm

Emma Egan

no matter what your belief is on ‘climate change’ if we keep denying the need to change what will our economy be like for us…our children…grandchildren!

July 5 at 12:57am

Overnight, Google announced the latest element of its drive for world domination, a new open source operating system aimed at the netbook market:

Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. Later this year we will open-source its code, and netbooks running Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010. Because we’re already talking to partners about the project, and we’ll soon be working with the open source community, we wanted to share our vision now so everyone understands what we are trying to achieve.

Speed, simplicity and security are the key aspects of Google Chrome OS. We’re designing the OS to be fast and lightweight, to start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds. The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web. And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don’t have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.

I have to say that I’ve never totally understood the appeal of the netbook concept. The low cost is nice, but you can’t use it as your main “go to” computer. So if you have to buy another computer anyway, you may as well invest in a decent laptop. It’s not as if my 13 inch MacBook Pro is so crippling heavy I can’t take it around with me. And I get around town by walking/biking—what does America’s car-dependent majority need with an ultra-light computer?

Meanwhile, on substance I gather it’s not really clear how much this differs from just adding a new Linux distribution. At the same time, I think you could imagine the Linux world having much greater mainstream appeal with a strong brand and a deep-pocket company like Google behind it even if on substance Google doesn’t add a great deal. Marketing matters a lot in life.