Slashdot Mirror
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."
Why is it that the same people wanting IT to be green are the same people that want IT to deliver 5 9's, as well as complete security for anything that could possibly violate the integrity of the personal information that they submit on an inter/intranet? The server and it's software either has to work, or else chaos will move in and take over - what happened to bitching at the hardware manufacturers for their shortfall? Why should hardware and software work less than the brave and pioneering IT's that we have all come to know and love? (and trust with our deepest secrets).
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
Nono, Dry ice is CO2. You have any idea how bad your carbon footprint will look if you use that?
Here's one idea: Upgrade the server room AC to use heat pumps that can put the heat back into the building where it's needed.
Another idea: Upgrade lighting and switching. Do all of the lights need to be on all of the time? Probably not. Add more switches to light only the parts of the room that need it, and occupancy sensors to make sure they're turned off when everyone leaves.
=Smidge=
Yes, fundamental changes in how IT is run will bring changes.
Telecommuting
Lighting changes (as mentioned)
Changing current infrastructure out for energy efficient stuff (also mentioned)
Improved cooling systems (mentioned)
Better power distribution - less point of load conversions
Unified cooling schemes throughout the data center as well as tweak and improve existing schemes. Underfloor cabling blocking forced air system balancing etc.
There are parts of the world where underground heat exchangers could reduce the over-all cost of standard A/C systems - but that means investment.
Compartmentalized data center "closets" - reduce power and cooling needs
Upgrade older equipment for newer, cheaper, more capable hardware
As can be seen, nearly all of this comes with investment costs up front. That will not happen without some form of incentive. Spend short term money to save money in the long run doesn't look good on a quarterly report. When Wall Street or Washington are on the bandwagon and supporting or giving incentives... then it will begin to happen. In the mean time, look for more data breaches, service losses, and general poor performance from companies who continue to squeeze IT budget and demand less expense from them.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Actually, it was mentioned in TFA that having someone remote work doesn't reduce the energy load @ the office unless the office is smart enough to shut down the extra heating/cooling/lighting. Thus the discussion about tying LDAP logins to the heating/cooling/lighting system. When the last person logs out, shut down the AC/Heating, and 10 minutes later have the lights go out - that type of automation is the heart of using IT & it's many tendrils to help reduce corporate energy consumption.
Of course I think that getting people to listen to IT when they say something is overkill would be nice too. I've seen too many high end PC's doing nothing but lightweight WP & Email to think that there isn't substantial savings there. I know of at least 2 quad core systems w/ high end graphics cards that have never done anything harder than open up a webpage.
Go back to the abacus. Computers are overrated. Penthouse can take over the only other computer function.
Actually, I remember seeing a documentary showing kids in Asian countries learning how to perform calculations using an abacus. They become lightening fast with it, some even able to do calculations 'in their heads' using an imaginary abacus. It helps them to visualize numbers and visualize the processes of arithmetic.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
That is your great idea ? That accounts for less than a thousanth of a percent of energy usage.
We actually *use* energy you know. That's not to say we can't use it more efficiently, but stopping any of the really energy intensive processes in civilization is a non-starter.
Think about heating, you can do with slightly less, but not much. Everything above 50-55 degrees north would be utterly unliveable. Most of Europe would have to be abandoned.
Think about transportation, again a *little* less should be liveable. Any real reduction is totally out of the question. Cities 1% of the size of anything remotely resembling a metropolis would be out of the question, for way, WAY too expensive to maintain.
And of course the real energy sponges : The human body is about 6% efficient (energy intake vs energy expenditure), and eats either plants (themselves 2% efficient) but also has to eat meat (eating only meat gets us to about 8-9% efficiency) (and cows are some 12% efficient, eating 2% efficient plants). This is a very, very generous amount of efficiency to give the human body since it counts human body heat as work, and most factory floor supervisors will disagree with that being "useful labour" however if you take it out, even a tenth of a percent would barely be attainable for a human body)
Let's say you're a normal person. You eat 100 grams of meat for 900 grams of vegetables you eat. That means you're 90% * 6% * 2% + 10% * 8% * 12% * 2% efficient.
That means that all the energy you expend, running (200-300 watts), thinking (150-200 kcal/day), keeping your body at 37degrees, which feeds most of your cell processes (2200-3500 kilocalories per day) is 0.10992% efficient.
Suddenly that SUV that is about 12% efficient at 16 miles per gallon doesn't seem at all wasteful anymore. If you could somehow digest oil, you wouldn't be able to run half that distance, and certainly not with 500 kg of load on your back.
And the worst part of the human body. The total amount of human bodies in the world grows at 1.6% per year.
Energy conservation, making stuff more efficient is something we can do *once* and we can't make the human body any more efficient at all, we can only replace it. For everything else there are fundamental limits we cannot cross, any really big differences are either already caught, or will be caught the first time we try to fix things (ie. they've been caught in the last 4-5 years). We're not going to save much beyond that first drive.
Say the wet dream of every environmentalist comes true. God descends from heaven and says that all cars drive on electricity at 90% efficiency from now on. Great ! He's just saved us about 60% on the current energy cost of transportation. That will provide for "normal" economical growth without growing energy levels for ... 10 years. There can be only one reasonable conclusion : we need *more* energy. Not less.
Conservation is hopeless. We need new energy sources (and nuclear will do very nicely thank you), and after that we need nuclear fusion, and move part of the species into space.
Btw, in case anybody likes to think "nature is so much better" well no, nature is actually worse, as in less efficient than civilization, in energy usage (incidentially that is why there is so very much oxygen, a (relatively) unstable chemical in the athmosphere in the first place, and so very, very little co2 (without nature, the "natural" state of the athmosphere would be to be so filled with co2 that humans (or animals for that matter) wouldn't be able to breathe).
Worse, your employer may not pay you for the extra power you use - most won't even consider it.
Stack the additional power you use up against the money you save in fuel and vehicle wear and I'll bet telecommuting comes out ahead for the vast majority of people. Not to mention the time you save.
Plus, you're effectively giving your employer a cube-sized chuck of your house for free, try asking them for rent and I could hear them laughing at you from here!
Most people can move 30 miles further from the office and get 50% more house for the same money.
Even if you don't move, I for one am more than happy to trade a little space in my house* for the flexibility that comes from working at home. I see my kids when they get home from school, and I can pop down to the school whenever there's a program or whatever.
* In the interest of full disclosure, I don't have to give up any space in my house. I like having a den/office, so I'd set that space apart anyway. This way I just use it more, and I've gotten my employer to spring for a better chair, a better phone, etc.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Both you and the PP bring up very good points - energy saving design won't do a damned thing if the building occupants can override them.
I'm a project manager for a Very Large Non Profit, and I build buildings ("Hi, Project Manager"). The absolute, positive biggest challenge I face isn't the contractors, or suppliers, or the local government - it's the end users (IT included) that simply CANNOT accept when they don't get things their way. 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.
As for building controls, it doesn't matter if you have a system set on a timer or occupancy - someone, at some point, will override those controls based on a request from higher, and they will stay that way. Openable windows? They will STAY open, regardless of the temperature outside. Natural light? It's too bright for Ms Delicate Skin - buy some blinds.
Energy conservation is about People Control, not Building Controls.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
You know what else? Many of those people die.
I was watching a History Channel miniseries on the American Revolution the other day, and I was surprised to learn that one of the revolution's greatest Generals Nathanael Greene, died of a heat stroke. But not on the battlefield as one might expect. (Especially during the searing heat of Clinton's retreat from Philadelphia.) He died on his own plantation of a heat stroke.
What I'm getting at is that you should be careful about considering AC a luxury. It may make life more comfortable, but it also saves lives. One only needs to go as far as a major city to find reports of deaths every year from low income people who have no AC.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
We can't save 10%. Even one percent is utterly unattainable except in the extreme short run.
Therefore the smart money is in the expansion of energy generation.
Like another poster said. Nuclear can easily bring electricity down to 1 cent a kwh (for a chevvy volt this would mean 2.5 cents per 100 km)
A prius is currently using about 7cent/mile (and an SUV up to 25 cent/mile). A plug-in SUV would use about 0.4 cent/mile, or about 17 TIMES less than a prius. Any investment that brings electricity down to 1 ct/kwh is going to make the chevvy volt and it's colleagues conquer suburbia faster than bubba conquers the asshole of a 15-year old "peace out y'all" protestor in prison.
Oops. I forgot to mention that I was in Japan at the time.
It helps them to visualize numbers and visualize the processes of arithmetic. Probably an education emphasizing the use of wetware a little more would lead to the creation of more visionaries in the 'Westen World'. Yes, I know, old stuff (Computer Power and Human Reason by Joseph Weizenbaum, 1976). CC.
Not so much. Take young Gauss. Instead of using crazy number crunching skills to add all the integers between 1 and 100, he visualized doubling and reversing the list, noticing that this equals 100(101), coming up with the formula n(n+1)/2 for finding integer sums.
So which has more vision? Crunching numbers, or finding an ingenius shortcut? Seriously, who would have thought of that? Certainly not somebody whose greatest skill was with the abacus. In fact, his daughter famously said that he could only count to 4, "after that came n." Gauss was the greatest mathematician in his era (and some consider him the greatest of all time), and he probably never used (or needed) an abacus. Point is, being a human calculator will give you no more added vision than, well, a calculator.
Disclaimer: This anecdote on young Gauss is mostly apocryphal, though it is widely believed to be true in the mathematical and historical community (although his daughter's quote comes from reliable sources). Opinions may vary.
My preferred name is frazz, but someone keeps taking it. If you see him, tell him I said hi.
I doubt they would save that much energy as it translates to costs. Your right on about everything else but let me tell you about some "energy" conservation issues I recently came accross.
I have a company I administer that was recently told that their electric bills were so high because of the 35 workstation computers and 5 servers they are using. They were told to get something more energy efficient and that would solve their utility bill woes. So I was instructed to purchase 35 new workstations and see if I couldn't consolidate the servers. We rotate half of the computers out every 2 years with the oldest one being about 3 years old at that time. Well, replacing all the workstations at once costs us roughly $30,000. Then you have to figure the 15 to 20 man hours configuring them for the domain, stripping the BS that came with them to lower the price out and adding all the company specific software to them (including the office programs and so on). In the end, I think the bill totaled around $38,000 (including new LCD monitors). They financed that at something like 5% for 3 years because it already blew our IT budget. The net savings in the energy bills were less then 1% of the total energy being used throughout the entire building. It lowered the bill by around $50 per month. Now granted we would have probably spent around $12000 or so of that in the next year for upgrades anyways and finally in the third year of the loan, we would have repeated it, but we wouldn't have been paying interest on it or anything like that. So for a $50 a month savings, or roughly $600 a year in energy use, they spent $38,000 and will end up paying roughly $3000 in interest over 3 years in which the interest alone is about $390 more per year then anything they saved.
At another site, we had this enterprising young go getter who thought he would save some energy by opening the windows and turning the AC off now that it is getting cooler and more comfortable outside. What he didn't plan on is that the server room is a sealed box with no windows and the AC unit specifically for it was the first one he turned off. I started getting calls that things were running slow at about 10 am the next day. This is a small site with only about 20 users locally and around 20 who remote in from either home or satellite offices. After logging in remotely to check out what was going on and finding nothing obvious, I decided to head down and take a look. I was met in the parking lot by a couple of fire engines with lights and sirens going as they pulled in. No, nothing caught on fire but something in the servers was over heating bad and when they opened the door to the server room, they said it felt like it was 200 degrees F in there and the digital thermometer on the AC unit was pegged and reading --- so they assumed it (or something) was on fire. Well, we have a halon suppression system and a couple of Co2 extinguishers and I had to fight with the fire department not to use water and let me open the cases of the servers (which were pretty hot). Then I noticed that the stand alone AC unit was turned off. We use 5 servers in there for normal stuff and two for sans with 3 that do nothing but duplicate everything. There is the one workstation (which was locked up or frozen by the time I got to it). Each of the servers have a raid controller with at least 5 hot swappable SCSI drives and some have as many as 20 if that gives you an idea of how much heat is generated from the electricity used by these things.
Anyways, the fire department used a thermal camera and found hot spots in the walls a