Data Centers Prepare for a Renewable Future

miller60 writes "A small but growing number of data centers are generating renewable energy at their facility, despite challenges with cost and scalability. In a special report, Data Center Knowledge looks at data centers implementing on-site solar power, wind energy, geothermal cooling and recycling waste heat from their hot aisles. Even as some projects choose to go green, other data center operators insist that improved power efficiency offers a far better return and carbon impact than pursuing on-site renewables."

Comments

Computing power per watt

[Yvan256]

Use the hardware that give you the most "computing units" (targeted to your computing needs, i.e. floating-point, database access, etc) per watt. That should automatically take care of not using wasteful (heat-producing) hardware.

Re:Computing power per watt

[girlintraining]

Use the hardware that give you the most "computing units" (targeted to your computing needs, i.e. floating-point, database access, etc) per watt. That should automatically take care of not using wasteful (heat-producing) hardware.

There are trade-offs there as well. -_-

Re:Computing power per watt

[skids]

I'm all for more efficient hardware systems. They definitely, definitely should be done, as long as the efficiency gain is more than incremental. However the danger with taking that approach only is that it encourages rampant expansion as software engineers hear stuff like "we can do twice as much per watt now" and think "goody, I can save several man hours by not compiling out the debug code and re-testing the optimized code."

Same goes (kinda) for virtualization. It's a great technology, very smart, and definitely should be done, but it needs to be kept in mind that in the majority of cases the core reason behind doing virtualization is that you need to run software that is too crummy to share a machine with other software. Virtualization's downside is it becomes an excellent excuse for not applying pressure to your software vendors to get their product up to snuff.

Recycling waste heat is a very good thing. Solar and wind need to be grid tied for IT use because they are intermittent. If the IT staff is actively involved in the energy system, it can offer an incentive to optimize systems and software -- the same way the instant-mileage meter on newer dashboards encourages leaner driving. However if the IT staff isn't invested in the idea they don't really care whether they can stay within the power budget. In fact in most cases, they never see the electricity bill themselves -- it isn't an IT budget item.

So the reasons to "go green" on a data-center level (as opposed to the whole office space) is purely psychological. Not that it isn't a good one, just it merely serves to psychologically invest the IT team.

hrm.

[Anonymous Coward]

"other data center operators insist that improved power efficiency offers a far better return and carbon impact that pursuing on-site renewables."

These are not mutually exclusive.

Re:hrm.

[eln]

Exactly. Any data center engineers running into issues with the cost of power and cooling (ie, all of them) should be exploring both of these options. Whatever solutions we come up with, be they efficient machines or renewable on-site energy or both, are destined to become inadequate at some point as our computing needs inevitably expand to fill the available capacity. The more additive solutions we can pile on, the longer the time horizon before we end up in another crisis where we have to find yet another innovative solution.

Re:hrm.

[Monkeedude1212]

While true, the limitting factors usually boil down to either apathy for the problem, not enough money to deploy all solutions, or the profit motive.

Re:hrm.

[Kjella]

are destined to become inadequate at some point as our computing needs inevitably expand to fill the available capacity.

Which is why you can question how "green" these projects really are, what's the point to reduce consumption if it's immediately offset by an equal and opposite increase in consumption? It's as if we made cars with twice the MPG and everybody decided "cool, then I can make my commute twice as long and really get out of the city". Green projects are those that reduce aggregate consumption, sure it's nice if people get more for each watt or more people are able to participate in the wealth, but it doesn't do the environment any good if the total stays the same or goes up.

Re:hrm.

[XanC]

Not, gasp, the profit motive! The only good datacenter is the one in business to NOT make money, that's what I always say.

This obseesion with efficiency

[countertrolling]

It makes for very delicate, frail, some times dangerous products. Stone age equipment running on renewables is much more robust on the long term.

been there, done that

[Anonymous Coward]

My (small) datacenter is 100% off-the-grid solar powered (with redundant power feeds from two PV systems), and I recycle the waste heat.

It wasn't particularly "difficult" or "expensive", but a good example of what's possible when you *really* care about solving the problem.

id like to see

[nimbius]

exactly how much in the office, not the datacenter, we're failing to "go green." I know its off topic but aside from the lights-out datacenter not much has really been done for large datacenters like the one i work in, while the office seems like an energy hog with no end in sight

I do hear constantly however of minimum light levels that must be maintained in offices, and the temperature in a cube farm being forcibly maintained at 72 degrees. the vending machines run 24/7 when nobody is around, and the parking lot is constantly lit up like a runway.

Re:id like to see

[jridley]

I agree, it's pretty damned inefficient here. They build buildings with the cheapest construction techniques available, just basically a big metal semi-insulated crackerbox, then put 10,000 tons of A/C on the roof. There are 45,000 watts of fluorescent tubes just on this floor of our office building, and they're on for hours a day that are not necessary. I'd like to be able to turn my computer off, but every few days I need to access it remotely. I could do both if they'd deploy a little 50 watt wake-on-lan box, but nobody cares. I have asked about 10 times over the last 5 years for the "green team" to push for "put the monitors in power save mode after 30 minutes" to be the default on the standard desktop, but though they always say "that's a great idea" it never happens.

Re:id like to see

[Bryansix]

Effecient Office design can be good but it can have it's drawbacks. For instance, we are in a suite of a larger office building that was once part of another suite. They built walls but they did not install a 24/7 A/C unit for our server rack. Instead we operate a floor model which emits it hot air into the drop ceiling thereby causing further ineffeciencies. So yes, effeciency is good but good planning and scalability and flexability are sometime more important.

Re:id like to see

[icebraining]

Wake on Lan doesn't work remotely, because it works below the IP layer (a disconnected computer can't have an IP address, since the TCP/IP stack isn't running).

Re:id like to see

[Wiarumas]

Be careful what you wish for. I worked in a building where the client refused to turn on the lights on a floor that had contractors. That was miserable - especially in the winter when I went to work, it was dark, dark all day long, and went home and it was dark. Green, but miserable.

On a more positive note, they also promoted working remotely which was one of my favorite perks about that place.

Re:id like to see

[icebraining]

And that 1 machine is the box he's talking about. With the difference that the "box" would use much less power.

Re:id like to see

[JumpDrive]

Well you are lucky that you aren't here. Here they installed the double pained reflective windows backwards, so light comes in and you can always see your reflection. But at least it is double pained glass.

Re:except of course, when you leave it idle.

[Yvan256]

Idle means zero computing units and running at 50% capacity means half the possible computing units (but probably way more than 50% power usage).

Is "Web 2.0" really necessary?

[Animats]

Maybe the way to cut energy consumption is to dump unnecessary "Web 2.0" junk. Serving static pages is very cheap. Is it really necessary to generate the pages on your site from some "content management system" which makes multiple database accesses just to display essentially the same page over and over?

Both?

[2obvious4u]

Even as some projects choose to go green, other data center operators insist that improved power efficiency offers a far better return and carbon impact that pursuing on-site renewables.

Why is it that everything must be polarized. Why aren't we doing both? Both are good and they are not exclusive.

Well, not exactly

[Colin Smith]

Idle means zero computing units and running

Performance per watt is almost always calculated running flat out at 100%.

So if it's idle. i.e. not doing anything useful, it's almost certainly still consuming a significant amount of power doing symbiotic processing; processing which is necessary to keep the system running but which doesn't contribute directly to useful computing units. Except that won't be covered in the performance/watt figures.

So, using performance per watt when purchasing is really only useful as a measure if you're able to keep your systems running at high utilisation and switch them off otherwise.

 

Re:Well, not exactly

[poetmatt]

do you mean symbolic or symbiotic? I can't exactly find that term if you mean symbiotic.

Meanwhile, I agree about performance per watt but I do not agree about idle wattage. It's been shown that for many processors idle wattage is quite low in comparison. In fact, complete computer systems tend to use exponentially more power as they head closer to 100% load or above.

Re:Green Institutions

[codepunk]

Any how many of their workers telecommute, imagine if all of them did, savings of probably 100's of tousands of gallons of gasoline not burned. I often imagine how much gasoline could be saved in this country if nearly every office worker in the country that was able to, could telecommute the majority of the time.

Imagine

[codepunk]

Imagine the fuel savings if every office worker that was able could telecommute instead of burning fuel to get to a job that could be done from home. Imagine the money saved on road maintenance and other things associated with the reduction in traffic. For at least the last 15 years I have commuted back and forth every day to perform a job I could have done without ever leaving my home.

Re:Imagine

[JumpDrive]

This has been going on for a long time. The current problem is that nobody thinks you work when you are at home. Here we have people who actually come in and put their head on their desk, but they are deemed good employees because they show up.

Basically it boils down to management. Usually it is deemed that you have to visually see the people to know they are working, otherwise you would have to know what they are working on to determine whether they are working effectively.

An Efficient Office

[MrSteve007]

I manage and operate one of the more efficient office spaces in the US (I was awarded a National EnergyStar award in 2008 for my work). We've implemented almost everything possible for our small server racks. We've gone from 8 machines to 3 via virtualization, and have a 10kW array and 40kw battery backup for our operation - which now results in zero down time. In doing just that, we've gone from 58 kWh used from the grid a day for our servers to zero (the PV array supports it). Also, instead of using dedicated A/C - we've re-engineered our ductwork to pull in ambient air from the office space, and redirect the hot exhaust to different locations. During the summer, it's dumped directly outside - and during the winter it's used to heat our entrances and used to cover the heating needs of the building at night.

In terms of energy use for the servers and A/C alone, we're saving about $4,000 a year - and that's just for a small server arrangement.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=labeled_buildings.showProfile&profile_id=1008052

Re:An Efficient Office

[MrSteve007]

While it seems like a shifty answer, it all depends on how you calculate return on investment . . .

Without any tricky accounting, the simple ROI of the PV array is about 12 years. If you calculate the ROI based on the PV and battery backup, factoring lack of downtime, in our case it was closer to an 18 month ROI. For us, each hour of downtime translates to roughly $5,000 of lost earnings. It doesn't take too many hours of backup power to pay off. Of course we could have gone with a gas generator for a much cheaper installation cost, but the tax benefits of a PV array for a corporation can be very attractive.

As for the virtualization, that was based more on the regular 5 year replacement cycle we have on our hardware. Instead of replacing 5 old servers with 5 new servers, it was much more simple and cost effective to build out one powerful machine and virtualize the existing machines.

The cost of the ductwork and fan was about $1,500 - however our A/C unit consumed roughly $1,000 a year to cool the space, so an 18 month ROI. Of course, it's all dependent on your climate, building layout, age of equipment and ease of installation. For us, it's worked out well. We've now achieved a 75% reduction over our baseline from 3 years ago in our grid energy needs, while increasing processing power, lighting levels, and maintaining a comfortable climate controlled office.

http://jbdg.com/results.html

Re:Time is nigh for room-temp super-conductors.

[h4rr4r]

No point?
If I turn off the AC and do as you suggest, draw in outside air the room would be up to 110F in a couple hours. Sealed if the the HVAC fails the temp alarms set at 95F go off in 30 minutes.

The low temp in the room gives us time to get the HVAC units fixed if it comes to that.

Re:Green Institutions

[jbengt]

I didnt present 'hippy crap'. I submitted a spreadsheet that laid out the power consumption numbers, cost of equipment, licensing etc. It was pretty comprehensive.

I don't think you understand that 'hippy crap'. I've worked on construction projects where the "hippy 'green', 'progressive' shit 'language'," as you say, was important. Green design effort includes the sorts of things you put in your "pretty comprehensive" spreadsheet, but also includes the impacts of various possible combinations of walls, roof, glass, lighting, energy sources, HVAC system types, plumbing equipment, etc. It includes 365-day simulations of hourly energy costs using hourly data on weather, solar, internal loads, energy rates, etc. for different systems, usually including a base of minimum code requirements vs a few other possibilities. The "hippy, green language includes comparisons of capital costs and operating expenses, often on a present value basis. You may be surprised, however, how many owners are just as interested in "going green" as in the "bottom line" costs of the project. To me, that shows that there is currently a perceptible value in going green that should not be ignored.