Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Pollutes To Avoid Fines

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the kafka-runs-the-power-company dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's Quincy data center, physical home of Bing and Hotmail, was fined $210,000 last year because the data center used too little electricity. To avoid similar penalties for 'underconsumption of electricity' this year, the data center burned through $70,000 worth of electricity in three days."

12 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You get fined for saving electricity now?
    Where is this world going...

  2. stupid inaccurate title as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was a perfectly sane response to the situation, and btw the generation is from hydro so really what added pollution was there?
     

    1. Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Title there is ONLY because it was Microsoft.
      Any other company, and it would go unnoticed.

      Why wasn't the Washington state utility board dragged thru the mud on this one instead of a company acting responsibly to reduce energy consumption?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual by rgbrenner · · Score: 5, Informative

      Microsoft signed an agreement to use X amount of electricity, almost certainly to get a lower price per kwh. They then used/purchased less electricity than they agreed to, and no longer qualified for the discount (hence the 210k "fine").

      What's the problem here?

      Can I get the same agreement for my home? I "promise" I'll use 1 billion kwh/month. Same pricing if I don't though.. right?

    3. Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual by Your.Master · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that there isn't a rational basis for not just allowing Microsoft to pay for $70k in power and not use it -- donate it for free back to the energy company, if you will. They have to actually waste the electricity to get lower prices. This situation isn't good for anybody.

      - The environment loses because, although this utility is a hydro source, energy is fungible and it's likely that a fossil plant had to make up the difference somewhere in the grid. I could be wrong, it's possible it would just have been dissipated (or just not extracted from the plant in the first place).
      - The utility loses out on $140k.
      - Microsoft has to burn a bunch of energy to no end.

      In this round, Microsoft got off easiest. Last round, the utility got off easiest. But there's no effective difference between this and Microsoft paying $70k and *not* consuming that power, except that the utility potentially can sell $70k of power elsewhere, which is actually good for them, or at worst, non-bad. Why is that not happening?

    4. Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual by Your.Master · · Score: 5, Informative

      And actually, according to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/technology/data-centers-in-rural-washington-state-gobble-power.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

      That's the same argument Microsoft made. The utility company tried to call their bluff, Microsoft wasn't bluffing so they started their heaters, and the utility company folded.

  3. How? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Funny

    To avoid similar penalties for 'underconsumption of electricity' this year, the data center burned through $70,000 worth of electricity in three days.

    What'd they do, shift all the load to AMD servers?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  4. PPA's by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Basically large companies need to know what their costs are going to be long term. They enter in to Power Purchasing Agreements with electricity generators much like leasing a building. Based on these agreements the electricity generator knows what is expected of it's power plants and maintains them to meet these requirements. If demand is lower than expected they may have to shut down a plant or two since there isn't an economical way to store electricity on such a large scale. It costs a lot of money to shut down one of these facilities and even more to ramp back up. Rather than eat these costs many PPA's include penalties that will cover these contingencies. Since I'm tl;dr the article I don't know if that's what happened here but it makes sense that if Microsoft overestimated it's power needs on its PPA then these fines would have been to cover the plants down time. Since another comment mentioned hydro generation I'm guessing Microsoft running inefficient on purpose to avoid the fines didn't hurt the environment too much.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:PPA's by ewanm89 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a an economical way to store large amounts of electricity though, it's called pumped storage plant, basically it's a hydroelectric plant where the generators and turbines can be used in reverse to pump water back up to the top reservoir, then when needed it's released again to get electricity again. Turning a mountain into a very big gravity powered rechargeable battery.

    2. Re:PPA's by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well then nobody should bitch when ANY company, be it MSFT or fricking Toys R' Us, blows through power just to keep from getting fined. If the cost of blowing through the power is less than the fine, which thanks to the agreement it most certainly is? Then they would be dumb NOT to blow through the power, and would get called to the carpet for blowing shareholder's money by taking fines over meeting their end of the agreement.

      But I'm sure just as the article's flamebait headline suggests its just another excuse for clickbait. if people have a problem with this? then they should outlaw those agreements.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  5. Typical Slashdot title by bi$hop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a love/hate relationship with Slashdot. One thing is for sure: I'm tired of all the *nix fan boys who find every possible way to smear Microsoft. Here are a few alternative titles, just to irk the haters:

    "Microsoft wisely saves $140,000 by simply using electricity."

    "Microsoft deliberately uses electricity to avoid ridiculous fine."

    "Microsoft forces utility board to reduce ludicrous fine by $10,000."

    "Microsoft exposes power company's pollution-inducing practices."

  6. An even more economical way to store electricity by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Pumped storage plant has been used since the 1960's, but it does require a dam.

    On places where there is no dam, this method can not be deployed.

    However, technological advancement has enabled us another way - by using ultra-capacitors.

    http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/piprod/documents/Session_D_Miller_rev.pdf

    Advancement on capacitor technology resulted in capacitors that can store HUGE amount of electricity for a LONG time, with miniscule loss.

    And many are being deployed in power grids - not only as a power storage but also acting as a power stabilizer - the ultra-capacitor can "soak up" power spikes and release power during "brown outs".

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !