IT Vs. the Permanent Energy Crisis

snydeq writes "Organizations looking to remain profitable in the face of escalating energy costs may lean even harder on IT to achieve energy efficiencies in the years to come, InfoWorld reports. But instead of limiting IT's efficiency role to the datacenter, companies will tap IT's vast knowledge of company networks, equipment, and work processes to uncover efficiencies across the organization, in some cases tipping facilities management into IT. 'There is a lot IT can do to fix its own 2 percent [of the company's carbon emissions] and make it more efficient, but the big opportunity for IT is to take a leadership role in tackling that other 98 percent across the business,' says one analyst. And by taking charge of the organization's energy strategy now, IT will be in prime position to alter its relationship with management and reap benefits in the boardroom in the years ahead, analysts contend."

Comments

IT Wins?

[Dan East]

"IT will be in prime position to alter its relationship with management and reap benefits in the boardroom in the years ahead, analysts contend."

Ahh, more responsibility, additional liability, same pay scale.

Re:IT Wins?

[EvilIntelligence]

I agree. This will be just another way for executives to tell IT to do "more with less", or sometimes "everything with nothing". It's bad enough that people want IT to stuff 100gb of data into 10gb of storage, but now you have to do it eco-friendly, too. The problem is that getting more eco-friendly means changing out some fundamental infrastructure, such as the air conditioning to keep the server room cool. How do you get rid of that? Buy a big block of dry ice and run a fan over it? Or do you get an air conditioner that runs on... what, wind power? Hydrogen? Fine, but that will cost some investment in research, which companies will NOT do.

Re:IT Wins?

[Vellmont]

  I've had entire departments threaten not to move in because their space was laid out the way the *previous* director wanted it. I've had VP's in a tizzy over the fact that they had to tell their people they could not bring their fans, space heaters, and coffee makers to the new buildings and plug them into their cubicles.

You mean people are sensitive to an environment they spend 8 hours a day in, and don't want to accept what you've given them without talking about it? Do you really find that all so surprising? I'd find it odd if people weren't sensitive about those kind of things.

Energy conservation is about People Control, not Building Controls.

Nonsense. Energy conservation is largely about economics. You've got the wrong mentality entirely. If it's really too expensive to drive the gas-guzzling SUV to work every day, the SUV will get ditched fairly soon. The only reason you've got this fight between "the controls" and "the people" is the people aren't paying the energy bill directly.

Let IT go nuclear

[cryfreedomlove]

Using conservation to reduce carbon emissions assumes a carbon based power source. Why not take all the brain power you are going to throw at conservation and throw it into developing wind, solar, and nuclear as power sources?

Re:Let IT go nuclear

[Ambitwistor]

Because there's a lot of immediate low hanging fruit to be had from simple conservation and efficiency measures, because it will take decades to seriously ramp up our non-fossil power infrastructure, and because conservation+alternative energy is achieves more than alternative energy alone.

Most obvious thing any business could do

[Moryath]

Quite seriously - run some optical tube skylights (like this, they come in a wide variety of options) into your working areas. FAR too many companies are wasting energy powering internal lighting when the sun's out. You can always turn on the lights *if* you need them due to a storm.

As an added bonus, you'll start to eliminate health problems - daytime-constant lighting has been proven to mess with your internal cycles and messes up peoples' sleeping patterns, a large part of why sleep disorders are so prevalent in developed countries.

Telecommuting

[AmericanInKiev]

Surely the largest energy gains would come from telecommuting.

I submit that the shift to telecommuting will look less like the current employee group working out of their home, and more like companies increasing relying on "outsourcing", and out-sorcerers increasingly consisting of people who work in low-marginal-energy environments - whether their own college dorm, some un-cooled sweatshop in Thailand.

It bears mentioning that working from home reduces the AC energy for life-work by 50% while reducing the transportation energy by 80%. It also reduced healthcare costs by reducing viral exposures.