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?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

great, now I'll need to flap my arms every 5 minutes in my office.

Re:IT Wins?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

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).

Re:IT Wins?

[R2.0]

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.

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.

Why IT shouldn't get into facilities management

[Thelasko]

Ever see Jurassic Park?