Slashdot Mirror


Data Centers Expected to Pollute More Than Airlines by 2020

Dionysius, God of Wine and Leaf, writes with a link to a New York Times story on a source of pollution that doesn't leave contrails: "The world's data centers are projected to surpass the airline industry as a greenhouse gas polluter by 2020, according to a new study by McKinsey & Co. ... [C]omputer servers are used at only 6 percent of their capacity on average, while data center facilities as a whole are used at 56 percent of peak performance." Data centers, though, might have more options for going green than airlines do, given present technology.

7 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. More Options? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hardly.

    Most datacenters are contracted out. The companies hiring the datacenters do so based on price. And clean fuels have an enormous amount of catching up to do if they ever want to compete with coal. But let's say that a carbon tax is applied. Then these datacenter contractors will simply move their operations to somewhere that doesn't have these taxes. Heck, why do you think there are so many datacenters in the US?

    But what if the companies hiring these datacenter contractors decide that they want to be green? Then these datacenter contractors will simply do some half-assed unproven carbon-offset like dumping iron into the oceans or planting trees in a place that can't support them (cheap real estate like tundra or desert wins here--especially if it is done in the 'future' while the offset company is preparing its sites).

    The only real solution is the one that applies to the entire electricity grid. Either you need to massively subsidize renewable fuels or slightly subsidize nuclear power to deal with your entire electrical grid carbon problem. You have to do subsidies because you are competing with the energy prices with places like China.

    1. Re:More Options? by WaltBusterkeys · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not just the building and server hardware, but local infrastructure, too. More importantly, it's where the big network connections intersect. A big data center in the middle of nowhere (with only 1 route to the outside world) is slow and vulnerable to backhoes. A data center near a major network interconnect (think west side of NY, or One Wilshire in LA) is somewhere useful -- data is close to the major lines and can be routed redundantly.

      Until they move the large cross-Pacific network connections to the Hoover Dam, it's going to make sense to keep data centers near network lines.
  2. Excellent by Plazmid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Excellent, the faster this planet's resources are used up the faster we start using other planets resources.

  3. Which is why a GOOD hosting business uses SOLAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Aiso.net is a smallish hosting provider utilizing ACTUAL SOLAR to power their datacenter,

    NONE OF THIS CARBON TRADING MALARKY. And they're super flexible because they're not huge yet.

    Located in San Diego I believe. Phil, their big tech cheese, is VERY generous with his time.

    Vote with your feet, clean with your wallet, live by your choices.

  4. false economies by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I love it when they trot out these old war horses.

    let me ask you this - what resources would be consumed if we DIDN'T use computers for these jobs? how many forests would we cut down to store the data in the worlds data centers?

    i think people who write this kind of dribble lack any perspective. computers are energy savers, not wasters.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  5. Nuclear Powered Aircraft by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or we could go back to trying to do nuclear powered aircraft. This image depicts a single prototype engine--its resting place is in southern Idaho.

    --
    We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
  6. Re:Anyone else remember... by evanbd · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some of us define pollution as "anything that causes severe enough damage to our environment to make life difficult for us humans." And guess what, low-level ozone, ozone layer depleting compounds, acid rain precursors, CO2, volatile hydrocarbons, fertilizer runoff, and a variety of other things all count under that definition.

    I can be really selfish and even somewhat short-sighted and still come to the conclusion that there is a problem on a massive scale. I have no particular need for us to not create any CO2, but it should be obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the data and the studies that we can't continue on our current pace.