Sustainable IT | Ted Samson » April 2007

April 25, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Calif. guv threatens to sue EPA over GHG regulations

TAGS: Carbon emissions

With summer approaching, Calif. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is threatening to take on a new high-profile role: The Litigator.

The state's eco-friendly ("environmentally hip?") Republican governor is threatening to sue the EPA if the agency doesn't grant California the right to implement its own regulations on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from automobiles, according to reports.

In order to enforce its own regulations, the state needs a waiver from the EPA. It requested one back in 2005, but the EPA sat on it, arguing that it didn't have the authority to regulate GHGs.

That perception changed last week when the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote that the EPA does indeed have the power to set limits on GHGs associated with global warming.

So now, the EPA says it's working on California's request, which entails holding a public hearing in D.C. on May 22, followed by a opening up a public comment period through June 15.

"It's a priority for Californians to protect our environment, and if the federal government fails to act to protect our environment, we will take steps to do so ourselves," Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear reportedly told The Associated Press.

If California is granted the waiver, it will be able to enact a law passed in 2002 that would force automakers to reduce car and light-truck emissions by 25 percent and SUV emissions by 18 percent, starting with the 2009 model year.

The waiver could also pave the way for the state to implement a law passed last September, which calls for a 25 percent statewide decrease of carbon dioxide and other gases by 2020.

While the 2002 law clearly impacts the auto industry most, at least in the immediate future, the latter would no doubt touch other industries -- including the state's high-tech companies, which not only produce C02-producing hardware but also spew out large quantities to run their datacenter operations.

Notably, many California-based IT companies are making moves to tackle energy consumption and reduce carbon footprints, including HP, Yahoo, and Sun.

Posted by Ted Samson on April 25, 2007 04:26 PM

April 25, 2007 | Comments: (0)

AMD seeds Dell's 'Plant a Tree for Me' program

TAGS: AMD, Carbon emissions, Carbon emissions, Dell, PCs, Sustainable IT

Dell has found its first corporate partner for its "Plant a Tree for Me" program: cash-strapped AMD.

AMD, which just recently announced a $611 million first-quarter loss and could soon be facing long-term debt of up to $5.4 billion, has scraped together a $16,000 donation "on behalf of the company's 16,000 worldwide employees" for Dell's tree-planting program, intended to offset the carbon produced by the electronics it sells.

When launched in January, Dell presented its "Plant a Tree for Me" program as a way for its customers to offset the carbon impact of their notebook computer use for an extra $2 and desktop system use for an extra $6. Last month, Dell expanded the program to include an extended portfolio of IT products, plus U.S.-based consumers and businesses could donate to the program without making any product purchases. Dell even goes so far as to let you donate $99 to offset your own carbon usage.

I hate to say it (kind of), but I can't help but draw a rather cynical conclusion when looking at this announcement.

First, consider the sum AMD is pouring into the program. While $16,000 surely can buy plenty of saplings, it strikes me as a rather token donation coming from a Fortune 500 company. A dollar per employee doesn't come close to the $99 per-person carbon cost calculated by Dell.

Second, consider AMD's relationship with Dell. After years of being an Intel-only hardware maker, Dell finally opened its arms to AMD, releasing notebooks, desktops, and servers running AMD processors last year. Having buy-in from one of the world's top PC maker was a huge and significant win for AMD.

Third, consider Dell's "Plant a Tree for Me" program. Although it's a very well-meaning endeavor, there are probably better ways for companies to invest money toward reducing carbon emissions and conserving energy: making energy-efficient power supplies standard on PCs, or investing in alternative-energy research, or installing solar panels on the roof of your datacenter, or developing more sustainable, eco-friendly business practices. That's why carbon-offsetting programs like Dell's "Plant a Tree for Me" garner some criticism: they're viewed in some circles as a way of sidestepping the responsibility of reducing and cleaning up one's carbon footprint.

Also notable: A new study by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Carnegie Institution, and Université Montpellier II confirms that although planting more trees in tropical rainforests could help slow global warming, new forests in mid- to high-latitude locations could actually create a net warming. Thus, the benefits of reforesting are arguably inconclusive anyway.

Now, to Dell and AMD's credit, both companies do seem to have a firm commitment to sustainability. Dell, in fact, has become the green poster child among IT hardware makers for such initiatives as offering free product recycling worldwide, regardless of product purchase.

AMD, meanwhile, has worked to reduce energy consumption, make its wares more efficient, cut back on hazardous waste, and has taken plenty of other direct measures to boost its sustainability and reduce its eco-impact.

In other words, both companies have been taking on the challenge of cutting carbon emissions in very direct ways, but now Dell has come along with this offset program, the benefits of which aren't as concrete.

Yet when presented with the option to donate to the cause, what could AMD do but donate to Dell's green pet project? You'd likely do the same if your manager wandered into your cubicell and asked you to sponsor his son's walk-a-thon to fight diaper rash. Even if you'd already given money and volunteered time for more arguably worthy causes -- and you were a little strapped for money -- you'd still reach into your pocket and fork over a few bucks.

That's my admittedly cynical view. What do you think of Dell's "Plant a Tree for Me" program?

Posted by Ted Samson on April 25, 2007 10:31 AM

April 24, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Apple faces unfair criticism for its green ways

TAGS: Hardware

Judging by the beating it's taken lately, both from Greenpeace and some of its investors, you'd think Apple was more toxic than the one that knocked out Snow White. Meanwhile, the company counters that its wares are quite Granny Smith green, thank you -- and from my perspective, the company does have a pretty green track record.

That's not to say that Apple -- or any other electronics company -- is doing all that it can to be fully eco-friendly. But Apple seems to be unfairly getting a worse rap than anyone else.

Some background first: Last year, Greenpeace ranked Apple as being the fourth least eco-friendly electronics company. It even went so far as to single out Apple, launching a marketing campaign called "Green My Apple", aimed at the company's alleged environmental shortcomings.

Apparently, the campaign didn't work to Greenpeace's expectations: Earlier this month, the nonprofit declared Apple to be at the very bottom of the barrel, dinging the company for failing to make any progress in greening up its act.

And now, Apple is feeling some heat from its investors to detoxify its goods. At its next annual meeting, slated for May 10, Apple's shareholders will vote on a proposal to eliminate certain hazardous chemicals from its products.

The resolution, submitted by investment firm Trillium Asset Management, would require Apple to explore removing "persistent and bioaccumulative toxic chemicals, and all types of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics" from its products.

Notably, those are precisely the types of substances that Greenpeace considers when assigning eco-rankings to electronics companies.

Apple, meanwhile, continues to defend its environmental record. "Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, as well as many BFRs," the company said in an e-mailed statement.

The company also boasts in the environment section of its Web site that every one of it desktops and notebooks "score best in class in EPEAT, an environmental assessment tool launched under an initiative of the Environmental Protection Agency." EPEAT considers not environmentally sensitive materials found in electronic products; it looks at the larger green picture, including power consumption, company's take-back programs, product lifecycle, and product packaging.

Notably, the Greenpeace approach and the EPEAT approach are quite different, as outlined in this IT Week article.

"Scot Case, marketing director at EPEAT, insisted there was no contradiction between the two ranking systems' findings and that neither could be used to prove the inaccuracy of the other. 'My initial reaction was that comparing the two systems was like comparing apples and oranges, but on closer inspection it is more like comparing apples and cows,' he said. 'EPEAT focuses on ranking the products; Greenpeace is looking at the whole company.'"

Personally, I think the EPEAT standards are more meaningful than Greenpeace's. Moreover, I find it suspect that the organization launched a flashy (and Webby-winning) campaign against Apple last year, even though the company wasn't then the lowest-ranked organization on the Greenpeace survey. I'd wager that the decision to single out Apple was really just a publicity ploy to draw attention to its cause by riding the coattails of the arguably hippest electronics company out there. Though considering the resolution Apple has before it on May 10 to explore removal of various substances from its goods, perhaps Greenpeace's campaign was effective.

Of course, I fully support Apple -- or any other company -- researching the feasibility of making its products more environmentally friendly. It's good for the planet and for our health, and it's a smart business move as well as a proactive business move to stay ahead of the green curve, given the increasingly strict environmental directives and regulation we've seen and will undoubtedly continue to see.

Posted by Ted Samson on April 24, 2007 02:15 PM

April 19, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Yahoo's carbon-neutrality is a smart investment

TAGS: Sustainable IT

Yahoo has raised the green bar substantially amongst IT companies, announcing ambitious plans to become carbon-neutral by the end of this year.

What that means, basically, is the company is measuring its environmental impact, reducing that impact where it can, and, for what remains, investing in projects that reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) in amounts equal to what it's still emitting, according to the company's announcement.

"We measured our carbon footprint and discovered that Yahoo going carbon neutral is equivalent to shutting off the electricity in all San Francisco homes for a month. Or, pulling nearly 25,000 cars off the road for a year," writes Chief Yahoo David Filo in the Yodel Anecdotal blog.

Yahoo isn't alone among major IT players in making a public display of its goals to cut energy usage and reduce GHG emissions. IBM recently announced plans to cut its greenhouse emissions 7% by 2012, while HP said it would cuts its total energy consumption by 20% by 2010.

But what Yahoo is doing is a little different, as I interpret it, and frankly, I think it's a great move.

Essentially, the company first is going to do all it can to cut energy costs within, something that any organization with huge datacenters needs to do anyway, given the power crunch and soaring energy bills companies are facing. Putting a dent in its energy bills -- and doing it sooner, rather than later, thanks to its self-imposed 2007 deadline -- may just help Yahoo reduce those operating expenses that resulted in a sub-par quarter.

After the company has made internal adjustments to reduce its carbon footprint, it says it's going to invest in projects around the world that cut emissions by the same amount that it's emitting.

But here's the important bit: Yahoo doesn't appear to be poised to simply throw money at feel-good, green-hued pigs in pokes, such as organic soybean farms in Malaysia run by vegans, or free-range, guinea-pig-powered server farms (patent pending). Rather, Yahoo has set some pretty strict criteria as to where its dollars will go, and expects to see actual returns on its investment.

The criteria Yahoo is using are:

Measurable results: We want to see real, measurable, direct emissions reductions.

Verification: We'll put potential projects through a third-party verification process to ensure they're actually delivering their expected environmental benefits.

Additionality: We want our investment to fund a project beyond business as usual. In other words, we wouldn't invest in a program that would occur anyway without our support. Some offset projects have been recently criticized because they merely provided additional revenue without environmental improvements.

High quality: We want to invest in projects that are wise investments with strong environmental returns but which also help other businesses and consumers build faith in this new and emerging market.

The Purple Gene: We want to do this in a way that's innovative and authentic.

And that's what I like so much about Yahoo's plan. Essentially, it's implementing a short-term strategy to cut costs and energy usage, which are both good for its bottom line and for the environment, and it has devised a long-term strategy for investing in the future of clean, sustainable technology -- an industry that companies like Yahoo will ultimiately profit from, and one that is bound to boom in a big way.

Yahoo's Filo has started a thread on Yahoo Answers, asking for suggestions from the public as to what it might to do reduce its carbon footprint. It makes for some interesting reading, really: Some people commend the company for its plans while others scoff that the company is wasting its time and money buying into the "global warming hoax."

What do you think of Yahoo's move?

Posted by Ted Samson on April 19, 2007 12:18 PM

April 18, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Reading assignment: "The Power of Green"

TAGS: Sustainable IT

In between Reality Checks, perhaps, my colleague Ephraim Schwartz pointed me to a rather excellent article on NYTimes.com titled "The Power of Green." Written by Thomas L. Friedman, the article argues that in order for America to regain its global stature, it needs to assume environmental leadership.

Friedman eloquently touches on several arguments for his case. Among them, there's the irony of our country funneling millions of dollars into the war on terror, while at the same putting millions of dollars into the hands of certain regimes in the Middle East, through oil revenue, that are going toward training and arming anti-American militants. Reducing -- or even eliminating -- our need for fossil fuels by developing greener alternatives would help solve the problem.

He also notes the concerns surrounding the phenomenon global warming, which an increasing number of individuals -- even long-time holdouts -- are beginning to accept as scientifically-based reality that needs to be addressed. Friedman quotes Stephen Pacala, an ecology professor who leads the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton, as saying that through a combination of clean power technology and conservation,

"we have to get rid of 175 billion tons of carbon over the next 50 years -- and still keep growing. It is possible to accomplish this if we start today. But every year that we delay, the job becomes more difficult -- and if we delay a decade or two, avoiding the doubling or more may well become impossible."

Another challenge in pushing the green agenda and swaying organizations and consumers to use eco-friendlier, more energy-efficient products: the costs of sustainable technology.

"Green will not go down Main Street America unless it also goes down Main Street China, India and Brazil. And for green to go Main Street in these big developing countries, the prices of clean power alternatives -- wind, biofuels, nuclear, solar or coal sequestration -- have to fall to the 'China price.' The China price is basically the price China pays for coal-fired electricity today because China is not prepared to pay a premium now, and sacrifice growth and stability, just to get rid of the CO2 that comes from burning coal."

And they way to get the prices of alternative energy down is stricter regulations from the government, as well as greater funding for more R&D in clean technology, to fuel development and innovation. Friedman writes:

"The market alone won't work. Government's job is to set high standards, let the market reach them and then raise the standards more. That's how you get scale innovation at the China price. Government can do this by imposing steadily rising efficiency standards for buildings and appliances and by stipulating that utilities generate a certain amount of electricity from renewables ... . Or it can impose steadily rising mileage standards for cars or a steadily tightening cap-and-trade system for the amount of CO2 any factory or power plant can emit. Or it can offer loan guarantees and fast-track licensing for anyone who wants to build a nuclear plant. Or ... it can impose a carbon tax that will stimulate the market to move away from fuels that emit high levels of CO2 and invest in those that don't."

There's much more to Friedman's article -- and again, I urge you to read it -- and I agree with just about he has to say. In fact, I've touched on some of the points he raises. (His piece has also generated some criticism, in part because he praises nuclear power and clean coal. But I think that's missing the bigger issue.)

But more important, major players in the business world are aware of the problems we're facing -- as well as the opportunities they offer. It's not just the stereotypical tree-hugger types in tie-dyed T-shirts and hemp shorts demanding respect and love for Mother Nature (a cause I also support, despite my lack of any hemp or tie-dyed attire). Businesses are playing a critical role in driving a green agenda, and not surprisingly, the IT world is among the most vocal.

After all, IT companies are major energy consumers, as right now, they're enduring the pain of ridiculously high energy bills -- and the fear of simply not having enough juice in a few years if we don't start seeing some drastic changes to how we, as a nation, produce and use energy.

That's why tech companies are already working to influence the government, calling for funding and support that can really drive sustainable-technology innovation. And with a major election a year and a half away, I expect we'll see talk of the green issue getting more coverage as candidates try to sway the electorate, and vise versa.

Does our country need to start taking green more seriously? Are we on the right track? Or have we gone overboard?

Posted by Ted Samson on April 18, 2007 10:06 PM

April 17, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Who's the greenest of them all?

TAGS: Green technology

Back in the '80s, it was hip to be square (if you believe the dogma of the prophet Huey Lewis). These days, being green is where it's at, and while many companies are scrambling to tout their eco-friendly, energy-efficient ways, the media and other organizations are also celebrating companies they deem the greenest in the land -- and decrying those that fall short.

As with any ranking, though, it's always important to assess the criteria the ranker is using. Green is not an easily measured trait. More on that in a moment.

First, let's take a look at some companies in the IT world that are drawing attention for their green accomplishment. An recent article from Fortune declares Sun Microsystems "the greenest company under the Sun." After speaking with Sun's vice president of eco-responsibility Dave Douglas, Fortune writer David Kirkpatrick declares that "Sun is ahead of its peers in the scope and seriousness of its multi-tentacled environmental efforts."

Indeed, Sun has an impressive sustainability track-record. Beyond what's it been doing in-house, such as developing energy-efficient UltraSPARC server processors, Sun was the only IT company to join in a call to the Feds for carbon reductions to address climate change. That's just the tip of the iceberg; Sun seems to have a strong green track record. But is it the greenest IT company out there?

Consider Hewlett-Packard. The company also has a remarkable green track record, for which it has garnered recognition (such as by Fortune, again). HP was the first to market with an Energy Star 4.0-compliant PC, and it recently announced its plan to cut its 2005 level of energy usage by 20% come 2010. Given its extensive sustainability record, is HP the greenest IT company?

Well, not if you look at Greenpeace's recent ranking of tech companies based on the greenness of their electronics. Topping the list was China-based Lenova. At the bottom was Apple. HP, despite its green reputation, was in the middle of the pack. (Since it doesn't do consumer electronics, Sun wasn't ranked.) So given Greenpeace's rating, is Lenova the tech greenest company out there?

The problem is, it's difficult to gauge which company is the greenest, because the potential the criteria are so broad. In the case of the first two articles from Fortune, in fact, the criteria are quite vague. Meanwhile, Greenpeace attempted to create a formula based on specific criteria, but really, I'm not convinced the rankings have too much value. The nonprofit essentially rated companies based on the amount of specific hazardous substances in their wares, as well as their take-back and recycling programs. What about the energy efficiency of products? How about the packaging employed?

And what about other steps companies take (or don't take) in-house to reduce their environmental impact and boost energy efficiency, like virtualization and storage consolidation? Using hybrid vehicles instead of traditional ones? Tapping into alternative energy?

And consider this: If Company A has managed to cut back from 1,000 servers to 100 through virtualization, while Company B is using just 75 servers but no virtualization, which is greener? A is making better use of resources, but B is using fewer.

Or suppose Company X employs virtualization, has neatly consolidated its storage, has solar panels on the roof, runs it servers on organic soybean oil, etc., but it produces PCs that have inefficient power supplies and components that require an above-average amount of electricity to run. Meanwhile, Company Y hasn't done much in the way of improving its energy efficiency in-house, plus its CEO drives an SUV that gets 12 miles to the gallon-- but its PCs are all Energy Star 4.0 compliant, low on toxic substances, and 99.7% recyclable. Which company is greener?

How would you determine which company is greenest?

Posted by Ted Samson on April 17, 2007 11:14 AM

April 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Enlist MAID, get paid

TAGS: MAID, Sustainable IT

Just as companies are turning to virtualization to wring more energy efficiency out of their servers, so too might they start employing MAID (massive array of idle disk) storage devices to control the power expenditures stemming from their ever-swelling data troves.

Recognizing the potential energy savings of MAID, PG&E has announced an incentive program for organizations to adopt the storage platform. "Data storage growth rates for many businesses exceed 100% per annum, so a technology that supports that rate in a more energy efficient manner will help our customers manage their costs," said Brad Whitcomb, vice president of customer products and services at PG&E. "By providing financial support, we hope to ramp up industry adoption of this technology."

MAID storage devices contain multiple (or, a "massive array of") drives, but unlike with traditional storage systems, those drives aren't all spinning continuously. Rather, a drive spins when you need to access the data on it. The end-result: lower energy bills, both saved on powering your storage devices as well as your cooling. (InfoWorld Test Center Senior Analyst and Storage Guru Mario Apicella has written about MAID at greater length.)

Copan Systems, maker of Cool Bytes MAID storage solutions, is the first company to boast certification for its product under the PG&E program. "We're pleased to be the first storage company to qualify our products for the PG&E energy efficiency incentive," said Roger Archibald, senior vice president of marketing and business development at Copan in a written statement. "We look forward to helping customers get a handle on data center growth, especially in terms of energy use."

The San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) (a current COPAN customer) collaborated with PG&E on tests to assess the energy effiency of MAID as well as Fibe Channel disk products and standard SATA. According to the results, MAID delivers impressive 91TB of capacity per kilowatt consumed, where as Fibre Channel delivers 4TB per kilowatt, on average, and SATA does 17TB per kilowatt.

"The energy savings, both for powering disks and cooling the unit, are
certainly attractive, and from a utility standpoint, we are assured hat the unit delivers energy-demand reduction," according to Mark Bramfitt, principal program manager for PG&E. "In combination, this is an exceptional set of environmental, capacity, and cost saving benefits for our customers."

The social networking company FaceBook is the first customer to take advtange of the PG&E incentive program. The company installed 448TB of Cool Bytes Enhanced MAID, and will receive $15,000 from PG&E as a result.

Currently, PG&E's incentive program is open to its own customers, as well as San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison. It hopes to see the program expanded to other parts of the state and beyond.

For more information or an application, go to pge.com/hightech.

Posted by Ted Samson on April 13, 2007 04:04 PM

April 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Green briefs: HP, Via pair on green PC for China

TAGS: Sustainable IT

Some tasty green nuggets have accumulated on my desktop over the past week, so I thought it would be nice to share.

Green chips on the table:HP has invested a bit of cash in "green chips" from Taiwan-based Via. HP released today in China a new business PC, the Compaq dx2020, that's powered by Via's carbon-free 1.5GHz C-7D processor, which consumes a mere 20 watts of power or less. The system itself is RoHS-compliant, meaning it adheres to the UK's restrictions on the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. As with the HP's recently released Energy Star 4.0 PCs, the Compaq dx2020 comes packaged with Windows XP, not it's hardware-hungrier younger brother, Windows Vista.

PlateSpin 3.0 projects power costs:Need a guide down the path toward green data-center pastures? PlateSpin this week unveiled Version 3.0 of its PowerRecon data center planning and analysis solution. PowerRecon is designed to aid in planning, analyzing, and modeling for data center consolidation and optimization. The new version also gives medium and large data centers tools to analyze and report on power and cooling requirement and create plans to reduce energy consumption, the company reports. Among other things, organizations can compare their current power and cooling costs against projected post-consolidation costs. And remember, if you're looking to implement virtualization, don't forget to check in with PG&E or your local utility to see if you're eligible for a cash incentive!

Here comes the sun:Finally, there've been some developments this month suggesting that perhaps it's time for solar power to shine.

First off, the Georgia Tech Research Institute unveiled a new solar panel design that's superior to the traditional flat and bulky style. These babies boast an array of nano-towers, which resemble high-rise buildings in a city street grid. They add surface and trap more sunlight, the AP reports.

This cube design means they can produce 60 times more current than traditional solar cells. Unfortunately, "there's still too much resistance within the cell to produce the type of electricity that's needed," AP reports.

Speaking of solar power, IBM honored it partner Sirius Computer Solutions with an award for developing an energy-efficient infrastructure plan for a 100% solar-powered Web hosting company called AISO.net. Sirius designed a plan that involved server consolidation reduce the number of servers in the hosting company's data center from 120 to four BM xSeries 346 servers., thus increasing open floor space and dramatically decreased power consumption. The company expects to see an 80% decrease in energy usage when the project is fully complete. (Go here to read more about AISO.net's solar-power network. It is, as the Bostonians say, "Wicked cool.")

Posted by Ted Samson on April 13, 2007 10:31 AM

April 10, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Blossoming Green Grid to hold first technical summit

TAGS: Power consumption, Sustainable IT standards

With its first technical summit just over a week away, The Green Grid now boasts a rather well-rounded lineup of IT players, having added new storage vendors, networking companies, and heavy tech-using companies.

A consortium of companies and individuals seeking to lower overall power consumption in data centers, The Green Grid announced today that its ranks have swelled to 39 members since the group was formally announced in February. The 28 new members, which include heavy-hitters such as Cisco, Brocade, Juniper, and Novell, as well as large technology consumers, such as BT (British Telecom), should contribute valuable mindshare when members convene in Denver on April 18 and 19 for the group's first technical summit.

According to The Green Grid, the summit is intended to give the group's technical committee an opportunity to further define technical objectives addressing three key areas: definition and measurement of data-center efficiency; guidance for data-center owners and managers making decisions pertaining to datacenter architecture and planning; and guidance for data-center owners and managers looking to improve energy efficiency during day-to-day operations.

"This inaugural technical summit signals the swift pace with which The Green Grid is moving to further define our technical objectives for 2007 and beyond," said Bruce Shaw, director of The Green Grid and director of worldwide commercial and enterprise marketing at AMD. "Participation from the industry's leading data center efficiency experts will ensure our continued progress in helping the industry achieve greater data center energy efficiency."

"This is where the meat of the Green Grid's work will take place," noted Green Grid director Mark Monroe, director of sustainable computing at Sun.

Having representation from networking, storage, and end-user companies is essential for the group to meets its goals. From the get-go, the group has wanted to tackle the question of measuring energy-consumption in the data center holistically -- from power supplies to processors to servers to cooling to storage to networking gear to applications -- rather than in a piece-meal fashion. "You can optimize any one piece of puzzle and still have only a suboptimal solution," said Green Grid Director Larry Lamers, senior engineering manager at VMware.

Among storage vendors now on The Green Grid roster is Copan Systems. Roger Archibald, the company's vice president of business development, noted that while much of the focus of data-center energy consumption is directed at server usage, storage devices play a major role, sucking up as much as 38% of the power. And storage will continue to take its toll as companies face a data explosion, thanks to regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley.

The addition of end-user companies like BT also plays a critical role, according to Sun's Monroe. "Having end-user organizations as part of the Green Grid helps us to keep the IT companies in line in terms of the defining useful measurements [for users]," he said. "We can come up with great ideas of what we want the measure to be, but they'll tell us which will be the most valuable, so we know we're not barking up the wrong tree."

Following is a list of all 28 new members of The Green Grid: 1E, 365 Main, Active Power, Affiniti, Aperture, Azul Systems, BT, Brocade Communications, Chatsworth, Cherokee International, Cisco, Coldwatt, Copan Systems, Digital Realty Trust, Eaton, Force10 Networks, Juniper Networks, Netezza, Novell, Pillar Data Systems, Panduit, QLogic, Rackspace, SGI, SatCon Stationary Power Systems, Texas Instruments, The 451 Group, and Vossel Solution.

Founding companies of the group include AMD, APC, Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Rackable Systems, SprayCool, Sun, and VMware.

The Green Grid's technical committee summit takes place on April 18 and 19 in Denver, and it's open to all contributing members of the consortium-- even those who have yet to join. Contributing membership costs $25,000. More information is available at The Green Grid Web site at thegreengrid.org.

Posted by Ted Samson on April 10, 2007 01:17 PM

April 09, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Green can be blue and red

TAGS: Sustainable IT standards

I try to focus on one color in this blog, and that's green. Shades of green, actually, both of the monetary and environmental persuasion. But I'm not out to let my political hues -- red nor blue -- shine through -- at least not too much.

But I think the beauty of the topic of sustainable IT -- developing a more energy-efficient business model through cleaner technologies and practices -- is it can appeal to both sides of the political fence: Going green, to me, is about strengthening your business through short- and long-term investment in and planning for cleaner, waste-reducing, money-saving technology. That's good for the U.S. economy, and it helps out Mother Nature along the way.

I raise this issue because California Senator Barbara Boxer (a Democrat) criticized President George W. Bush (a Republican) today for his not wanting the government to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which have been linked with global warming.

The president has argued that applying regulations to GHGs emissions would put U.S. businesses as a disadvantage as they compete with growing economic superpowers such as India and China. He told reporters last week that "[reducing GHGs is] going to require new technologies, which tend to be expensive, and it's easier to afford expensive technologies if you're prosperous."

According to the LA Times, he also said that "China and India must join the global warming fight. Unless there is an accord with China. … China will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do in a brief period of time."

Boxer had this to say today at an AMD event: "Since when does any [U.S.] president look to China for environmental leadership? We can't wait for China. We have to be the moral leaders on this."

Of course, these are both merely sound-bytes, but my assessment is, they, and other politicians on both sides of the aisle, are missing the bigger picture here, likely in the name of partisan politics.

To the president and those that agree with his stance, I say this: If regulating GHGs is an overall positive move, yet the prices of energy-saving, cleaner technology are too high, help level the playing field (as investors and business have suggested) with incentives and funding for research and development. Think of it as investment in the future of economy as well as the environment, both of which we're dependent on.

As to the argument that cleaning up our act, so to speak, with GHG regulations wouldn't make a difference because China and India aren't curbing their pollution: Well, the obvious reply is, "Two wrongs don't make a right." And I'm not talking about a moral "wrong" here, either, Senator Boxer. While I agree that being intentionally wasteful and destructive is morally wrong, I think most businesses, as well as the nation as a whole, is less-than-green by circumstance, not because we hate trees and clean air and lizards.

The problem is, we've built up an economy that's mostly dependent on fossil fuels, and the reality is, it's a tough and potentially costly habit to break, no matter how much the most well-meaning yet cash-strapped CEO might want to. (That's not to say that some business leaders out there don't intentionally disregard environmental law for the sake of a buck; certainly they do.)

The reality, though, is that we do need to break free of this carbon-dependent economy of ours, because the current model isn't working. And sticking to a bad plan just because a competitor is doing it (e.g. India and China) strikes me as short-sighted. Wouldn't it make more sense to sow the seeds for a cleaner-technology-based economy and address today's power concerns before they blossom into tomorrow's power crises? And a power crisis would surely put us at a severe disadvantage against the likes of China and India, whereas being world leaders of clean technology innovation could push us ahead of the pack.

Taking the more unfamiliar greener path isn't easy, especially if you have one person shoving you from behind and telling you to hurry up -- even though the path is hazy and you lack the rations to move so fast; meanwhile someone else is telling you that if you take another step, you're bound to fall off a cliff -- even if the cliff is really 20 feet away and easy enough to avoid, with some planning.

But I know there has to be a way for the U.S. government to help us kick, or severely cut down on, the fossil-fuel habit, with some cooperation and intelligent planning. So if the shovers would stop rushing us and the naysayers would stop scaring us, perhaps they might develop a map that safely, yet relatively swiftly, guides us to the destination we surely all want to reach: becoming a stronger, world-leading, sustainable economy that doesn't have worry about where the next kilowatt, or breath of fresh air, will come from.

And you know, ever if the government can't get its act together to help invest in and plan what I truly believe is a common and necessary goal, it's at least good to see that businesses and as well as individuals are working on their own to get us someplace greener.

Posted by Ted Samson on April 9, 2007 04:19 PM

April 05, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Supes' ruling on car emissions could impact IT

TAGS: Sustainable IT standards

If the promise of lower energy bills isn't incentive enough for you to explore ways to consolidate your datacenter and cut energy consumption, perhaps the threat of federal regulations on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be.

As you've likely heard, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does have the power to regulate GHGs such as carbon dioxide, associated with climate change. In other words, GHGs are pollutants that should be dealt with. (Notably, the Supreme Court didn't say the EPA has to do anything about them -- yet.)

Although the case focused on the auto industry, a significant producer of GHGs (vehicles alone accounted for 33 percent of the U.S.'s 2005 CO2 emissions according to the EPA), the ruling likely will affect the EPA's approach to the regulation of other significant sources. "[T]he Supreme Court's Mass v EPA ruling makes it abundantly clear that we are in a carbon constrained world. Companies that fail to prepare will be severely disadvantaged," said Josh Margolis, managing director at CantorCO2e, a global environmental brokerage firm.

Those companies could include IT organizations. There's growing awareness that enormous, energy-hungry datacenters not only gobble up a lot of power but emit GHGs as well.

The EPA is already in the process of scrutinizing energy consumption of server hardware, per the direction of Congress. Measuring energy efficiency of servers, however, remains a challenge, which is why groups such as The Green Grid are tackling the conundrum as well.

Although countries such as the United Kingdom have already laid out plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, lawyers have opined that we won't see changes made overnight here in the U.S. -- but it's going to happen. "The consequence of this will be to create pressure to get federal legislation that is coherent and comprehensive, and most importantly targeted to the emission of greenhouse gasses and the problems related to climate change," environmental lawyer Kevin Healy told the AFP.

The federal government isn't just feeling pressure from the Supreme Court, environmental groups, and ally countries to address greenhouse gas emissions. A consortium of major companies and influential investors recently issued a "Climate Call to Action" to the Feds, urging lawmakers to enact strong federal legislation to curb the pollution causing global climate change.

My advice: Get on board the Green Express now and start exploring ways to reduce your energy consumption, while there are not only clear long-term cost savings and incentives to be had, but also precious time to develop a sustainable IT strategy. Better that than rushing in recklessly after federal regulations inevitably kick in.

Posted by Ted Samson on April 5, 2007 03:34 PM

April 04, 2007 | Comments: (0)

No green-sanctimony intended (well, much)

TAGS: Green business

Blogger Rex Hammock has taken me (and InfoWorld) to task for an article I wrote for our final print edition in which I talked about the environmental benefits of our moving to a Web and events business. (So as to not make it too personal, perhaps, Rex gives me the psuedonym Tom in his post.)

My article was titled "Magazines vs. the environment." In it, I argued that InfoWorld's shift to an online-only publication happily happens to have positive environmental benefits, including saving trees (one weekly magazine subscription on average results in 90 additional pieces of mail, according to the USPS) and reducing fuel consumption and gas emissions involved in getting our magazine to mailboxes every week. (The New York Times had a great article on the general subject last year, by the way, as the publishing industry as a whole struggles with its effects on the environment.)

Whether or not you think that InfoWorld's shift to focusing on the Web and events is a good overall business move, the green benefits -- which I described as a "healthy by-product" to the transition -- are indisputable.

Rex, however, astutely notes that nowhere in the PR announcements about InfoWorld folding its print line did we or our parent compancy IDG ever, ever try to tout this as an environmentally-driven move. Yet his conclusion is that my article was an attempt at "retrofitting a green-reason for shutting down InfoWeek [sic]." (Again, he gently used a pseudonym, this time for the magazine, so as not to be personal.)

I don't agree with Rex's take on my motives for writing the article at all. I think if InfoWorld or our parent company, IDG, had wanted to add a big green spin to the move, they'd have left it to the coporate marketing team, rather than subtly injecting it in a single article written by the author of InfoWorld's Sustainable IT blog (i.e. me).

But more important, I think the leaders of IDG and InfoWorld are smart enough to know that savvy readers of the magazine simply wouldn't be fooled were we to try to convince them that we were suddenly oh-so green because InfoWorld, just one of IDG's print publications, is going online-only in the name of Mother Nature.

That all said, though, I do agree with what may be Rex's underlying point: A lot of companies are attempting to apply a overly green spin to existing or new business practices, something I wrote about last week. So I can appreciate -- and will exercise -- some cynicism when a company trumpets itself as being suddenly "green," just because, say, it's offering a 3% more efficient power supply, or its packaging is now 27% less toxic.

But on the other hand, I would still encourage companies to highlight what they're doing to reduce waste and increase energy efficiency. Sustainability is at the forefront of the minds of many a business leader; hence recent calls on the government to boost funding for alternative-energy research and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And even those moves likely aren't being made primarily in the name of keeping the grass green and the skies blue (or less brown in Los Angeles); companies are increasingly recognizing that emerging technologies and business strategies that require less hardware or less energy consumption or less paper are often, by their very nature, green.

That all said, though, companies should exercise some restraint in flying a green flag above each and every announcement they make, because plenty of analysts and media critics are watching, including me. And Rick Hammock.

Posted by Ted Samson on April 4, 2007 09:02 AM

April 03, 2007 | Comments: (0)

PG&E dangles cash as virtualization incentive

TAGS: Hardware, Platforms, Power consumption, Server virtualization, Server virtualization

How would you like to have your monthly data-center energy bills dramatically slashed while freeing up precious rack space, without taking a performance hit? Not a sweet enough deal? What if up to $4 million in cash incentives was thrown into the pot?

I know: It sounds like one of those late-night pitches you see in between re-runs of "Mama's Family" at 2:00 in the morning ("It's a salad spinner! It's an appetite suppressant! It's a powerful adhesive, and a stool loosener -- plus it brings you inner-peace!"). But this the real deal: If you consolidate your datacenter server hardware through virtualization, PG&E will pay you cash for each server you end up removing. (You have to be a PG&E customer to participate, though other utilities are offering similar deals.)

InfoWorld has, of course, been beating the virtualization drum for a while now, but perhaps those compelling rhythms haven't reached your ears, despite the datacenter power crises organizations are facing. The idea behind virtualization is, you create virtual machines on a few servers so that they can do the work of multiple servers -- thus rendering the latter unnecessary. Pretty simple, in theory, though if you want to dig down into the all-important hows and how-tos, check out our previous coverage.

Management advantages and cool factor aside, the energy savings -- and resulting cash savings and environmental benefits -- of virtualization are quite alluring. In fact, I'd say that virtualization has to be one of the most important sustainable technologies of our time in that it simultaneously addresses critical and intertwined business and environmental needs.

Participation in PG&E's Virtualization/Server Consolidation Projects Incentive program is pretty straightforward:

1. Develop a virtualization plan. Whichever virtualization company you decide to go with (VMware, VirtualIron, etc.) should be able to assist you with that.
   
2. Download, fill out, and submit your application to PG&E, which should include an inventory of what servers currently have running and what will remain once you've virtualized. A member of PG&E's HTEE (High Tech Energy Efficiency) team can assist you in the process.
   
3. Let PG&E perform calculations and determine what kind of cash incentive it will offer. You can expect between $150 and $300 for each server you unplug, according to PG&E HTEE Program Manager Mark Bramfitt.
   
4. Implement the plan (and be sure to recycle your hardware. Plenty of companies, including IBM, Sun, and HP, have notable hardware recycling and reuse programs that could reap you cash or credit toward other purchases.)
   
5. Let PG&E come by to ensure you've done what you said you'd do.
   
6. Receive incentive check.
   
7. Enjoy significantly lower energy bills and increased rack space while taking satisfaction in knowing that your company is producing fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Frankly, the incentive is really just the tip of the savings iceberg, compared to the decrease you'll see in your energy bills. Each server you remove represents between $600 and $1,200 in energy saved on electricity and cooling, according to Bramfitt.

Bramfitt said that companies of all sizes have already participated. The United States Postal Service in the Bay Area is in the process of cutting away more than 5,000 of its 6,000 server through virtualization. Smaller companies, such as AutoDesk, went from 230 to 13. Even companies with as few as 30 servers have gotten on board, he said.

The incentive program launched late last year, a result of fruitful conversations with VMware. But it won't going to be around forever, Bramfitt noted. "Once we get to 50 or 60% adoption, will get out of this incentive program. It will become standard practice, and companies won't need an incentive to move forward."

For more information about PG&E's Virtualization/Server Consolidation Projects Incentive, as well as an application, go to www.pge.com/biz/rebates/hightech/htee_incentives.html. (While you're there, check out some of the other resources on the site. The utlity offers a host of best practices and incentive and rebate programs for saving electricity.)

If you're not in PG&E's jurisdiction, contact your local utility anyway and see if they have any similar programs. And if they don't, ask why the heck not?

Posted by Ted Samson on April 3, 2007 06:00 AM

April 03, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Ignore the data-center power crisis? Don't press your luck

TAGS: Power consumption, Sustainable IT, Virtualization

Even organizations that are ineligible for PG&E's Virtualization/Server Consolidation Projects Incentive Program (or other utilities' variants) should give virtualization, and other greener, more energy-efficient technologies, some serious consideration.

In a conversation last week, Bogomil Balkansky, director of product marketing.at VMware, outlined the "triple whammy" that's driving up power and cooling costs in the data center. To simply ignore the harsh reality of what some industry leaders have described as a power crisis would be to, well, press your luck.

Whammy No. 1: The average power consumption of an individual server has quadrupled in the past five years, from 100KwH (kilowatt hours) to 400.

Whammy No. 2: Companies have managed to double the number of servers they can cram into their data centers, thanks to decreasing form factors such as those of oh-so-sharp, cutting-edge blade.

And Whammy No. 3: Energy costs have been going nowhere but up. Balkansky said that on average, they've increased 20% since 1999.

"Under the weight of these three factors-- quadrupling power consumption, double the number of servers, and the increasing cost of electricity -- they've all compounded and lead to a situation where expenditures for power and cooling has become a significant force to reckon with," he said.

He also noted that some utilities are struggling to keep pace with companies' swelling thirst for energy, resulting in a datacenter migration from metropolitan regions like Silicon Valley and New York to destinations in Idaho and Washington State. Building a new data center is, of course, a monumental task that can take a couple of years and many millions of dollars.

During our conversation, Balkansky also noted that VMware is working on adding power management features to its product line, which strikes me as an invaluable addition. The way it would work is, it would dynamically transfer underutilized VMs to as few servers as possible during downtimes and power down the servers not in use.

That's certainly something to watch for down the road, though Balkansky couldn't say when we might see it.

Posted by Ted Samson on April 3, 2007 06:00 AM