marijuana | Law | Economy | Investing | Marketing | Entrepreneurship | Economic Policy | Globalization | Emerging Markets

Eric Schmidt: Where Would Google Drill?

More from this series:

Commonwealth Club of California

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 7 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
buoy Avatar
Posted: 01.16.10, 06:10 AM
not really worry over waste, worry over intentional destruction and economic neglect. i have full confidence in nuclear not succumbing to natural disaster or planes flying into buildings or it's immunity to human error. they are all well and good. i think the only issue that is real is the geopolitical instability of the world. a country with nuclear reactors is a country that can be brought to its knees relatively easily upon 1st strike. if nuclear reactors could be built and maintained, say, by a united world independent organisation that did not make them strategic targets during war, i'd be much more inclined to side with nuclear. also, if we have nuclear reactors in countries that don't exactly tick all the boxes in safety standards etc and their value of human life is mediocre at best, it may cause problems due to human error / neglect that we see so often in other types of manufacturing plants and power plants. things just get old and run down and in many countries they just run it into the ground until it breaks. that end game and nuclear don't go together very well.
buoy Avatar
Posted: 01.16.10, 05:59 AM
there is an upper limit of 25TW that can be extracted from geothermal. this is the rate that it naturally expels itself. if extracted at a rate above this, it will cause the earth to cool. thus it can be extracted in a sustainable way.
Moshasha Avatar
Posted: 08.27.09, 03:37 PM
I applaud Google for its good intentions, really, but I do not believe they understand the repercussions of their actions. the man is ignorant to say the earth doesn't lose heat. The earth has been cooling down since its creation. Taking away heat from the earth will just catalyze the process. Yes, oil companies are awful because they're stealing Earth's reserve resources to heat itself, but this new type of energy will be robbing the earth at its core. And with access to this new incredible energy source, you know technology will do its job of trying to use it up as "efficiently" as possible- not wanting to waste a bit of that gift. The acceleration of the heat utilization will be so great that before imaginable, we'll be facing a situation like Mars. Instead-use what our beautiful earth has delivered to us through the countless millennium of trial and error. The need to discover and invest in biotechnology has never been so pertinent as now when we're facing the smile of the low interest, no money down, no papers mortgage lender that is geothermal energy. They do not realize what they're getting themselves in to.
mszlazak Avatar
Posted: 08.25.09, 11:18 PM
Geothermal is in the experimental stages, there is no real world demonstration but I do hope it pans out. It has good potential even though it's geographically restricted.
joemurrayaz Avatar
Posted: 12.15.08, 10:36 PM
Thank goodness
This is quite honestly some of the most intelligent thinking I have heard in a while. While the Republican's are chanting "Drill Baby Drill" for carbon and revenue producing oil, I am glad than we have people like this that are thinking about the good of man-kind and the future of this very small planet. I applaude Google for thinking about this kind of stuff and their vision of how we can manage future energy demands thru the use of energy efficiency and alternative energy. Have you ever seen Steve Ballmer, Rex Tillerson, George W. come out and say anything close to this level of intelligence?
Jon Irenicus Avatar
Jon Irenicus
Posted: 10.10.08, 01:55 PM
I detect quite a bit of dishonesty here in the wanton anti nuclear sentiment. I have seen widely varying reports of the cost of nuclear, not surprisingly it is reported as much higher from sources against nuclear power for any reason. Saying something is more expensive is not enough, I need numbers, from multiple sources. The dishonesty I see is that I suspect that even IF this guy agreed that nuclear was say half the price of wind or solar, I think he would STILL be opposed to it on general principle based on the irrational worry over waste. But lets give him the benefit of the doubt on the numbers in terms of the relative cost of nuclear compared to solar lets say solar was cheaper today, you still have the issue largely ignored with baseline power generation when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine, some interesting battery storage options like flow batteries are coming into the fray, but that does not eliminate the problem entirely even IF such storage devices were put in place. Often times the best places to put solar or wind farms is away from larger city clusters and even states, how will the power get to where it needs to be? Last I checked, we have yet to achieve room temperature superconductivity, there will be energy lost in the transmission so you will have to produce even more to compensate. A nuclear plant can be placed virtually anywhere, often times very close to the places where its power will serve, and it provides non volatile power independent of weather conditions. And again, we have three sources of non volatile power generation. coal hydro nuclear radical environmentalists have issues with all three, the first is emissions, the second ecosystem damage, the last waste. But the last two produce virtually ZERO carbon emissions. But apparently that is not enough for the utopia energy production some are going for.