Slashdot Mirror


Google's Chiller-Less Data Center

1sockchuck writes "Google has begun operating a data center in Belgium that has no chillers to support its cooling systems, which will improve energy efficiency but make weather forecasting a larger factor in its network management. With power use climbing, many data centers are using free cooling to reduce their reliance on power-hungry chillers. By foregoing chillers entirely, Google will need to reroute workloads if the weather in Belgium gets too warm. The facility also has its own water treatment plant so it doesn't need to use potable water from a local utility."

30 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. What's next? by ickleberry · · Score: 5, Funny

    If it wasn't for the required internet connectivity google could go off the grid completely. But they already own so much fibre and the public internet seems to need google more than they need it.

    Soon they will generate all their own power from wind and solar, convert all their employees shit to power so they don't need the sewerage system either, send all their traffic through the network of low earth orbit satellites they are about to launch which also conveniently beam solar power back down to them.

    So basically at the end of the day they will be able to buy or swindle a plot of land from some country with low tax, bring in all their own employees, contribute absolutely nothing to the local economy and leave when the sun goes down. It's great really, saves them on lawyers that would otherwise help them pussyfoot through the swaths of modern over-regulation and the satellites will help them get past any censorship / connectivity problems.

    And if China start shooting down their satellites, Google will make satellites that shoot back

    1. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am totally buying Google stock if they do this.

  2. Unreliable... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So basically everything gets rerouted on a hot day. Ok, that sounds fine until you realize that most of the outages of Google's products were due to, rerouting. And also, it seems odd that the cost of building a (hopefully redundant) datacenter that is this unreliable would be less than consolidating it with another one and using electrical cooling.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Unreliable... by martas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      well, it might be unreliable, but i think you're overestimating the reliability of normal data centers. even if failure is twice as likely at this data center than others, i think it still improves overall performance and reliability enough that it's worth building. or at least google seems to think so.

    2. Re:Unreliable... by j79zlr · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you have chilled water, you have a chiller, which means you have compressors. Process water or ground source water usually is not cold enough to be an effective cooling medium. You want a high delta T between the entering air temp and the entering water temp to induce heat transfer. Closed loop ground source water is extremely (prohibitively) expensive and open loop is quite a maintenance hassle due to water treatment. High efficiency chillers paired with evaporative cooled water towers with economizer capability is very efficient and reliable. Usually you can get down to around 0.5kW per ton with high efficiency chillers at full load and with multiple staged compressors you can do even better with part load conditions. The cooling towers are usually pretty low with around 0.05 to 0.15kW per ton. Use VFD's on the secondary pumps and cooling tower fans, and you can get cooling in at 0.75kW per ton for the whole plant at peak and even lower and part load conditions (95% of the time).

      I just designed a data center for a large Big Ten univeristy and there were no large air handlers involved at all. The system had two 400-ton chillers with the chilled water piped directly to rack mount APC fan coils. Without "green" being the basis of design, the chiller system still operates right at about 1kW/ton.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
    3. Re:Unreliable... by SlashV · · Score: 3, Funny

      So basically everything gets rerouted on a hot day.

      Exactly, and you can stop googling, get out of the basement and go to the beach. How bad is that ?

    4. Re:Unreliable... by Xiterion · · Score: 3, Informative

      A ton is a measure of the amount of heat transferred. See this for more details. It's also worth noting how much of the heat transfer is done by way of allowing the water in the system to evaporate.

    5. Re:Unreliable... by j79zlr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1 ton is a unit of cooling equal to 12,000 BTU/hr, not weight. The typical rule of thumb is 2.4 GPM per ton which is based on a standard 10degF delta T, usually 44degF to 54degF. Assuming 100 feet of head and 50% mechanical efficiency, 1 BHP will move about 20 gallons of water per minute. 1 BHP is about 0.75kW.

      I am kind of confused about how many kW of power it takes to transfer heat. Heat moves from high to low, you have to pump cold water through a coil and force warm air across that coil. The amount of heat transferred is a function of the face velocity and temperature of the air across that coil, the amount of fluid moved and temperature through the coil and the characteristics (fin spacing, fin size, material) of the coil.

      The temperature of the computers isn't really the important factor, it is the heat rejected. Again using rules of thumb, you can assume that 80% of the electrical power delivered to the computers will be dissipated as heat. The total of that heat rejected along with the other heat inputs to the space, e.g. lighting, walls, roof, window loads, etc., will determine your cooling load. Almost all of this load is sensible, meaning heat only, for other occupancy types you would also have to consider latent (moisture) loads as far as people and ventilation air in determining the amount of cooling needed.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
    6. Re:Unreliable... by jhw539 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You do not need a chiller to operate a datacenter in many environments at all. Based on the 2nd edition of ASHRAE's Thermal Guidelines for Data Processing Environments (which was developed with direct input from the major server providers), you can run a datacenter at up to 90F. Seriously, 90F into the rack. When it comes out the back of the rack, you collect the heat exhaust at 100-110F. "Chilled" water at 81F is more than enough to knock that 110F down to 90F- ready to go back into the front of the rack.

      The 81F water can be produced directly from open cooling towers (direct evaporation) whenever the wetbulb is lower than 76F (4 degree approach plus a 1F on your flat plate that isolates the datacenter loop from the open tower loop).

      You designed an efficient datacenter, but you're five years behind cutting edge (not actually a bad thing for most critical environment clients). The next wave of datacenters will have PUEs of 1.2 or less and redefine the space from a noisy but cool space to hang out to a hot machine room with industrial heat exhaust design.

      I actually just finished a chiller less 8MW schematic design and analysis for a bid. It was my second this month (the first was a cake walk - an extreme Twb of 67F, the second was west coast light conditions).

      PS: Secondary pumps? Seriously? Unless you have to boost up to 25 psi to feed a Cray or some other HPC I thought everyone who cared had moved onto variable primary-only pumping. (Sorry, feeling a bit snarky after hitting a 40 hour week on Weds...)

    7. Re:Unreliable... by jhw539 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Again using rules of thumb, you can assume that 80% of the electrical power delivered to the computers will be dissipated as heat."

      ? 100% of the electrical power delivered to the computer is dissipated as heat. It's the law. It will be far less than the nameplate power (that electrical uses), and perhaps 80% of what is delivered to the building (after transformer, UPS, and PDUs), but it all ends up as heat (unless you're splitting hairs about the acoustical energy emissions and velocity pressure in the exhaust, which is small and quickly converted to heat).

    8. Re:Unreliable... by j79zlr · · Score: 4, Informative

      The units were mounted on the roof, but were packaged AAON 2 x LL210 chillers (and a full 400 ton backup) with no exposed exterior piping. Glycol reduces the specific heat of the fluid and increases the specific gravity, so it can move less heat and takes more power to move. I only add glycol to the system if freezing is an issue.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
  3. Worth the tradeoff? by Clockowl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it really worth to be dependent on the weather in exchange for a lower energy bill?

    1. Re:Worth the tradeoff? by symbolset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're Google? Apparently the answer is "yes."

      More people can and should do this. 27C is plenty cool enough for servers. It annoys me to go into a nipple crinkling datacenter knowing they're burning more juice cooling the darned thing than they are crunching the numbers. A simple exhaust fan and some air filters would be fine almost all of the time, and would be less prone to failure.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  4. Reroute the weather instead by basementman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why not just reroute the weather? Once google gets into cloud seeding and all that they really will be SkyNet.

    1. Re:Reroute the weather instead by e9th · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bill Gates is already working on that. Google could send hurricanes his way, and Bill could try to kill them.

  5. Re:Unreliable...Probably not by Banzai042 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember that even on hot days not all of the traffic through the datacenter needs to be rerouted, and I'd imagine that a location selected for a datacenter like this was chosen for the infrequency of days that will require rerouting. Do you know how much it costs to cool a datacenter, and how much this will save? I don't, but Google probably does, and they probably wouldn't make a decision to do something like this without comparing the savings with the potential cost from decreased lifespan of computers running hot and losses due to downtime. I would also imagine that Google will be working to greatly increase stability during rerouting, given the comments from the end of TFA about other power saving uses, such as routing traffic to datacenters where it's night, meaning "free cooling" can be used since it's colder outside, and off-peak electricity rates are in effect.

    I think the concept is interesting, and it makes me wonder if we'll see more datacenters built in areas of the world more conducive to projects like this in the future.

  6. Re:Global warming by frosty_tsm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have to back this up. TFA says the maximum temperature in Brussels is 66 to 71 degrees. I recall it being warmer than that during the summer I lived there. I can't quite remember the temperature, but 24 or 25 C (which is in the mid to upper 70s F) comes to mind.

  7. Re:This might be a dumb question by LoRdTAW · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't know about natural lakes but man made ponds have been used for just that purpose.

  8. Yakhchal by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The ancient Persians had a passively cooled refrigerator called the yakhchal which "often contained a system of windcatchers that could easily bring temperatures inside the space down to frigid levels in summer days."

    Perhaps the Google datacenter could employ some variation of their technique.

    1. Re:Yakhchal by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You need both windcatchers and an underground water reservoir (a quanat). The windcatchers create a lower pressure zone which pulls air in through the quanat. There is evaporative cooling in the quanat. I don't think this would get near freezing temperature unless your water source is really cold.

      There is a way to make ice in a dry environment by exposing water to the coolness of the night sky and insulating it during the day.

  9. Re:This might be a dumb question by Five+Bucks! · · Score: 3, Informative

    They do! Well... not Superior, but Lake Ontario.

    Toronto has a rather large system that uses deep, cool water as a heat sink.

    Enwave is the company that provides this service.

    --
    52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
  10. More interesting than we think... by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So the fundamental upshot is that the point to point speed of the internet will be directly correlated to the average temperature of various cells, on a large scale. The statistical effect will be there. I'd wager this will be a remarkably accurate and near real-time barometer of global temperature.

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  11. Good to see. by Sir+Hossfly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's good to read some good news for a change...but it wont hit too many headlines..."Giant Googlebillion-dollar Company Doing Something Good" This "good" I speak of is someone with means and vision getting out there and just doing something. I still think Google could easily turn to the darkside...but is a whole different post ;)

  12. Re:This might be a dumb question by david.given · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The short answer is yes --- water takes a staggering amount of energy to change temperature (it's one of the many properties the stuff's got that's really weird). A big lake makes an ideal dumping ground for waste heat. What's more, the environmental impact is going to be minimal: even the biggest data centre isn't going to produce enough waste energy to have much effect.

    (A big data center consumes about 5MW of power. The specific heat capacity of water is about 4kJ/kg.K, which means that it takes 4kJ to raise the temperature on one kilogram of water by one kelvin. Assuming all that gets dumped into the lake as heat, that means you're raising the temperature of about 1000 litres per second by one kelvin. A small lake, say 1km x 1km x 10m, contains 10000000000 litres! So you're going to need to run your data centre for ten million seconds, or about 110 days, to raise the temperature by one measly degree. And that's ignoring the cooling off the surface, which would vastly overpower any amount of heat you could put into it.)

    (The same applies in reverse. You can extract practically unlimited amounts of heat from water. Got running water in your property? Go look into heat pumps.)

    In fact, if you were dumping waste heat into a lake, it would make sense to try and concentrate the heat to produce hotspots. You would then use this for things like fish farming. Warm water's always useful.

  13. Re:This might be a dumb question by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know about natural lakes but man made ponds have been used for just that purpose.

    Man made ponds are used because the EPA crawls up your ass if you want to use a natural body of water for any commercial/industrial output.

    Note: I'm saying that's a bad thing. I'm glad the "good old days," when chemicals, raw sewage, and cooling water were dumped willy nilly into the waterways and drinking supply, are gone. You warm up an area of water 10 or 15 degrees farenheit and you'll kill most everything living in it but algae.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  14. Re:This might be a dumb question by CAIMLAS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At those latitudes the ambient subterranean temperature remains pretty ambient all year long. Drill into the side of a mountain or hill with a boring tool, leave the edges rough (with a smooth poured/paved floor for access) and just drop your server containers in there with power coming in. If you go all the way through the hill you can use the natural air currents to push/pull air through the tunnels, and the natural heat absorption qualities of stone will keep the temperature down. I'd be surprised if any active "cooling" were needed at all.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  15. Re:This might be a dumb question by dlevitan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Cornell University actually did this exact thing to cool a good chunk of the campus. It's called lake source cooling. While there will of course be some environmental impact, the energy usage is 20% of normal chillers and thus is, I'm sure, an environmental net gain.

  16. Re:Unreliable...Probably not by j79zlr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That is where the ice storage systems become interesting and cost effective. In the states, usually half of a commercial energy bill is peak demand. If you can transfer that energy usage to night time to build up your ice storage and transfer your main power draw to off peak the savings can be very significant and create payback times in months not years.

    --
    I'm not not licking toads.
  17. Just being lobby-savvy... by PensivePeter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how much this is a cynical marketing and public policy exercise. A few months ago, the European Commission announced an ambitous programme to the IT industry for European energy conservation targets to be met by 2012 and lo and behold, look who's here preening its feathers?