Congress Passes Energy Efficient Server Initiative

Krishna Dagli writes to mention a News.com article about a just-passed Congressional initiative. On Wednesday the House passed legislation instructing Americans to make energy efficiency a priority when purchasing computer servers. From the article: "Washington politicians voted 417-4 on Wednesday to tell American purchasing managers that it's in their 'best interests' to pay attention to energy conservation. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, also directs the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a three-month study 'of the growth trends associated with data centers and the utilization of servers in the federal government and private sector.'" Well, at least if they're doing this they're not passing 'real' laws, right?

Comments

I'm all for being an earth concious consumer...

[Beatbyte]

...but why is this something our Congress is focusing on? How much time and money was just spent ignoring all the other needs so an oddball like this could get through?

Why don't they start pushing to have government offices 50% reliant upon solar (or other green power) by 10 years from now?

Re:I'm all for being an earth concious consumer...

[kjorn]

Why don't they start pushing to have government offices 50% reliant upon solar (or other green power) by 10 years from now?

Better yet, powered by hot air?

Re:I'm all for being an earth concious consumer...

[grimwell]

President Jimmy Carter did install Solar Heating Panels on the White House in attempt to lead by example. President Ronald Regan removed them when he took office.

White House history

Re:I'm all for being an earth concious consumer...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The problem is our attitude. Here in FL, most solar installs are not to heat domestic water, but to heat the pools. We need to be a little less decadent. When I talk to people about these issues, they really don't give a hoot about polution and energy consumption, despite the people being well edumucated and having a good income. Even our power bill being around half of theirs for the same size family and house doesn't make them think that maybe they could actually do something about their consumption.

Here's the thing: I do give a hoot. A lot of people do. I really want cleaner air and water, a stable climate, and oh yeah, the world economy not to collapse on account of running out of the resources that keep it going. And in fact, I'm willing to make some changes to contribute, no matter how slightly, to these goals.

But I also really like to swim.

"Decadent?" Screw that. The whole purpose of civilization is to make people comfortable; else we'd all still be living in caves and scratching for roots and berries. And you can rail against it all you like, but in the absence of an apocalypse, you will never make people give up the creature comforts they feel they've earned. Oh, they may make some changes -- say, walking a little farther instead of driving now and then, or paying a couple cents extra per kilowatt-hour on their electric bill for power generated from renewable sources -- but asking them to give up their cars and swimming pools and big houses entirely? Forget it. It is just not going to happen, nor should it.

The only way out is through. Better power generation sources, better use of the ones we already have, bits and pieces of conservation here and there (which can add up to a whole lot) ... that's the only way it's going to work. North America, Europe, and Pacific Asia are not going to climb down from their thrones voluntarily; nor are central Asia, South America, and eventually Africa going to surrender the idea of trying to climb up. That's the reality, and I'll say it again, that is as it should be. People want to lead comfortable lives, and the definition of "comfort" keeps getting revised upwards, and it's easy to sneer at this impulse, but honestly I think it's done more for the welfare of the human race than any ideology ever has.

Maybe instead of criticizing your neighbors as decadent, you could say, "That's a cool heating system you've got for your pool. Ever thought about using it for your house water, too? Here's a Web site ..." Just a thought.

What about cars?!?

[Shisha]

Maybe someone should try telling Americans the same thing about cars. To paraphrase the legislation "give high priority to energy efficiency as a factor in determining best value and performance for purchases of cars."

Re:What about cars?!?

[lbrandy]

Maybe someone should try telling Americans the same thing about cars. To paraphrase the legislation "give high priority to energy efficiency as a factor in determining best value and performance for purchases of cars."

I know yours is a bit tongue in cheek, however I still must comment on this concept. This is so offensive to me. Don't ASK people to do things that are non-optimal. Don't ask people to make themselves and their business less cost effective. You don't set up a free market, and then ask people to work outside of the equilibrium points "because". Money is just the metric by which we choose to optimize the system. Taxes and tax breaks on things like this exist for a reason... to help account for hidden costs to make the optimal point... actually.. you know.. optimal.

Congress has the power to move the cost equilibrium (taxes). They don't. They choose to ask you operate to your own disadvantage for the good of us all. Why? Because they are bought and paid for. There are lobbies that prevent them from doing it. So they resort to this seriously ridiculous concept. If you want us to use more energy effecient $THINGS then use TAXES and TAX BREAKS to move the market. Move the god damm equilibrium point so it's cost effective for us to do so. Asking me to operate outside of the cost equilibriums of a free market is basically asking me to risk my own fincial health because you don't have the willpower to risk things yourself. I'm sorry but my retirement/business/kids-college is more important than your re-election. Therefore your "instructions" on how I should spend my money are of no meaning to me. Stand up and make buying energy effecient things cost-effective, and then we'll talk.

Virtualization==Efficiency

[quokkapox]

A saavy hosting company can virtualize multiple machines into one physical box. The companies who can do this well enough so that their customers cannot tell the difference will operate more efficiently. Power isn't going to get cheaper, until we figure out how to stop burning what's left of our fossil fuels.

This goes for home too.

[ShyGuy91284]

You know how much it costs to keep a computer running 24/7? If you look into it, you'll see it's usually at least a couple hundred dollars a year (if not more depending on energy cost, peripherals, and stuff like that.) Yeah, you have a huge server case, and penis envy might make you want to pop in a huge 600W power supply with a huge power-hungry CPU, and lots of high end and extra stuff that you don't actually need. I recall harddrives, as the main part of most home servers, do not take too much power (a couple dozen Watts i think). I used to leave my desktop on all the time and let it act as my file server, but am now using an older computer with a 250W power supply and a minimialist configuration, and let my desktop suspend to ram most of the time. Yeah, some may need that 600W for a home server if it's acting as a mythtv server/web server/media reencoding server, but most probably do not.

Re:Blame Bush?

[krell]

"Jews are people of the book according to Islam - they're to be treated with more respect than most other religions, actually."

During the height of the rule of Islamic law (middle ages), this meant that Jews in Muslim-occupied lands were forced to pay a special tax for being Jewish, forced to obey many laws of a religion they did not agree with, and they were also denied participation in government. It was a second-class citizen status very roughly equivalent to blacks in the Jim Crow south.

"Their problem is the Jewish occupation of Israel"

More specifically, they have a problem with anyone who lives in what they consider conquered Muslim land without being subject to Muslim law. This is coupled with old fashioned Islamic antisemitism and Arab imperialism/nationalism (the Arabs conquered this place and, by Allah, we won't be turned back!). It must be added, however, that it goes beyond this. Hamas, Hesbollah, and Iran consider Jews everywhere to be the enemy. Not just in Israel.

"The state of Israel is a symbolic crutch that isn't needed and will just cause problems for Judaism in the long term."

So, a nation "isn't needed". That sounds almost like a code word for justifying genocide against that nation.

"Far better to put Israel under a multinational mandate"

Under whose authority? The UN, which is well-known for a very long list of antisemitic mandates? The same UN that had an actual card-carrying Nazi (tm) lead it for a long time? Why not instead put the territories held by Hamas, Hesbollah, and Iran under such a punitive mandate? They are the ones causing the problem here.

Re:And?

[cayenne8]

"It might save the government money and we have to pay for iraq somehow."

Actually, it seems fuel efficiency hurts the govt. coffers. Less fuel produced and consumed...less taxes collected on it.

We've already seen this happening in the western states like CA, and Oregon. Lots of people using less gasoline...and now the states are trying to come up with imaginative new ways to collect lost tax revenue to keep the roads up...like the trials of cars that had computers and GPS systems that tracked the miles you traveled in the state (and God knows what other information, like if you were speeding any)...and would report this to the state at the gas station or maybe annual tag renewals..and you got charge on that data.

If you wanted to see a sharp drop in gas prices...get the fed and state taxes lifted for a day..and see what the price would really be.

No...the govt gets a LOT of revenue on fuel production and consumption.