Google is investing in clean energy again. This time, instead of buying solar panels to power their operations, or working to make their data centers more energy efficient, they're plowing millions of dollars into the development of clean energy. The goal is to create 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity for less than it would cost to get the same amount of electricity from coal.

The initiative is called Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal (which is a terrible name but is shortened to the txt-friendly RE<C by Google). According to the company, they expect to spend tens of millions of dollars in 2008 "on research and development and related investments in renewable energy." undefined

This is good news, right?

Inasmuch as I appreciate any company willing to spend money to advance almost any non-fossil-fuel source, it is great news. Google has a ton of cash and is a very influential company in the marketplace. When they say they’re going to do something, people listen. So if Google is spending a lot of money on sustainable and renewable energy, it's a good thing.

But that influence also makes me worry because instead of making grants to achieve this goal, Google is hiring its own team of engineers to tackle the problem.

Is it really wise to count on a company like Google which, as great as it is at online tools has no background in energy, to direct our energy future?

For example, Larry Page, one of the company's co-founders, said on the Google blog today, "I believe that solar thermal technology provides a very plausible path to generating cheaper electricity."

I write about energy every day as a reporter for utility-industry trade magazines. We cover energy news in the western US which is arguably the region of the country at the forefront of using sustainable and renewable energy. In the last 15 years, one utility-scale solar thermal installation has been built in the West. That 64-megawatt plant, called Nevada Solar One, covers 350-square acres and cost in the neighborhood of $250 million to construct.

There might be a lot of solar power out there in the Desert Southwest, but how many of these massive plants will get built, really? Consider the land-use issues, environmental issues and the need to run very expensive transmission lines from remote areas to urban centers.

Like I said, I am not against Google spending its money on sustainable and renewable energy, but I would like to see them tackle the energy problem using methods similar to those the Gates Foundation uses to address medical issues around the world: They give lots of money to the people who have the know how do the work.

Unfortunately, Google wants to make a buck and so invests money instead of grants it (to be fair, the Google Foundation is making some grants toward this goal as well). While this course may pan out, it could also fall prey to the Google corporate culture that rewards abject failure as a worthwhile outcome as long as the idea was unique.

Our energy future is too important to count on that kind of system.