- Study: Lack of standards slowing green datacenter initiatives
- Energy bill spotlights datacenters
- IT has the power to cultivate a greener world
- Big Blue's enviro guru explores garden of green opportunities
- Sun joins investors, businesses in call to Feds for climate change
- Update: HP's new Energy Star PCs come with XP, not Vista
- CEOs urge feds for green-tech funding, support
- New Daylight Saving Time not so bright an idea
- Plenty of green standards a'brewin'
April 22, 2008
Study: Lack of standards slowing green datacenter initiatives
Companies seeking to inject sustainable practices into their datacenter operations are hankering for clear standards to guide the way, according to results of a study conducted by Digital Realty Trust, a developer and manager of technology-related real estate. The good news is, plenty of organizations, from private companies to non-profits to the Feds, are working to develop standards.
Among the respondents to the survey, comprising IT decision-makers at large North American corporations, 82 percent lamented that there is no clear industry standard for green datacenters. The figure is up from 75 percent compared to results from a similar survey Digital Realty conducted last year.
Further, respondents indicated a clear idea as to what they want in a green datacenter standard: 94 percent said it "should outline how to achieve efficient power usage (i.e. maximizing energy delivered to IT equipment by the facility)."
Another 83 percent said that the standard also should outline "how to enhance HVAC systems to use energy more efficiently."
There certainly are a number of efforts under way to develop standards to help companies make their datacenters greener, which means less waste, a small carbon footprint, and often numerous other business benefits.
Among them, the EPA is working to develop an Energy Star rating for datacenter infrastructures and is in the process of collecting data from organizations to help with the effort. Specifically, the EPA is asking companies to gather and share a year's worth of stats on energy use and the operating characteristics of their datacenters, stand-alone facilities as well as those in offices and other types of buildings.
Jim Smith, vice president of engineering at Digital Realty Trust, also pointed to the efforts of The Green Grid. "We ...support industry-wide green datacenter initiatives by continuing to be an active member of The Green Grid, which is doing excellent work establishing standards and best practices for datacenter energy efficiency," he said.
Moreover, the company cited its own efforts in sharing information in the efforts: "We are ... committed to support industry-wide initiatives to increase datacenter efficiency," Smith said. "One of the key ways we are doing this is by sharing energy-efficiency data ... in response to customers and other end-user organizations who want data and benchmarks that educate them about the energy efficiency of competing facilities and about how their datacenter can support their corporate green strategy."
Posted by Ted Samson on April 22, 2008 02:25 PM
June 29, 2007
Energy bill spotlights datacenters
Legislation calls for development of benchmarks and standards for datacenter energy usage -- similar to The Green Grid's goals
Datacenters have not been entirely forgotten in the proposed energy bill put forth by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. In fact, the draft legislation has an entire section aimed squarely at addressing energy consumption in these oower-hungry IT hubs.
Specifically, a section of the "Energy Independence Bill," as dubbed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, would require the Department of Energy and the EPA to consult with members of the IT industry and devise a voluntary information program aimed at datacenter operators. "There is a potential for significant data center energy savings as a result of such a program," the bill reads.
The program would provide specifications, measurements, and benchmarks that would enable datacenter admins to "make more informed decisions about the energy efficiency and costs of data centers."
It would reflect total energy consumption of datacenters, including the performance and utilization of servers, data storage devices, and other equipment; the efficiency of HVAC systems; energy savings from the adoption of software and data management techniques; and other factors.
Interestingly, the bill would have legislators designate an information technology industry organization to coordinate the program. By a remarkable coincidence, such an industry organization already exists: The Green Grid, a consortium of organizations and individuals seeking to lower overall power consumption in data centers. Members include big-name tech companies like Microsoft, HP, Sun, and Google.
The Green Grid, which went public last February, has already set out to achieve the very same goals laid out in this proposed information program. In fact, the group had its first technical summit in April.
Whether or not this energy bill ends up passing, I surely hope that the Feds and The Green Grid can sync up on the project of setting specs and benchmarks for measuring datacenter energy consumption -- as opposed to working separately, which would be wasteful and redundant.
You can read the entirety of the energy bill right here. The portion about the datacenter information program is in Committee Print #1.
Posted by Ted Samson on June 29, 2007 12:22 PM
May 11, 2007
IT has the power to cultivate a greener world
Consensus continues to grow among political leaders around the world that global warming is a very probable threat that needs to be addressed. The latest evidence of this shifting mindset is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report, released last week. The report is a major one, given its scope and number of countries involved, representing a large drop in a bucket of governmental studies and legislation aimed at addressing climate change.
Whether or not business leaders take seriously the threat of global warming, they would be well served to start finding ways to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions at their companies -- both in terms of their operations as well as their products. Acting sooner rather than later means they can stay ahead of stricter laws, as well as on top of the energy crisis that's already being felt in some datacenters.
"Energy grids are being constrained such that they can't deliver the energy that companies needs. Legislative schemes are being put into place to control [carbon emissions]," says John Frey, manager of corporate environmental strategies at HP. By not acting, companies themselves will be "inhibited from a growth perspective, or find themselves legislated or taxed into a corner. Most companies don't want to find themselves in that situation."
Frey concedes that legislation can help spur a change in a company's operations and its products, but waiting for laws to guide you isn't a prudent approach. "Legislation is not going to drive innovation. It is going to bring the high bar up a little bit for those that have not sought a leadership position and gotten in front of the issue."
Another benefit to staying ahead of the legislative curve: You get to participate in how legislation evolves. "As legislators are looking at whom they can invite in for a dialogue, it's interesting and satisfying that companies like HP are the ones that get invited to the table first," Frey says.
A member of the WWF's Climate Savers Program, HP has long employed sustainable IT practices, according to Frey, which has positioned the company well to stay ahead of legislation. Most recently, the company announced ambitious plans to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent by 2010. And driving these company's efforts is indeed green -- both of the monetary and environmental perspective. "This is the right thing to do, just looking at energy efficiency from a cost of ownership perspective... When you look at it from the environmental perspective, it becomes an even better decision. It's not a logical leap a lot of companies make: 'Hey, our IT group can contribute to reducing our environment footprint.'"
Indeed, the IT industry has a major role to play in a day and age where servers, PCs, networking gear, storage, and applications are vital organs for just about any business, keeping that essential data flowing and operations moving. Frey observed that IT was not explicitly referenced in the IPCC report: "When this issue is talked about in a legislative framework ... the assumption is that all these segments, from power generation to general industry, all have an IT component."
That puts the IT industry in a potentially powerful and influential position as businesses worldwide adapt a greener, more sustainable state of mind, says Edan Dionne, director of corporate environmental affairs at IBM. (Dionne sent me some very thoughtful answers to my e-mail questions, which I am posting here for you to read.)
"Improving the energy utilization of IT equipment and datacenters is important because the application of IT to business and societal energy-efficiency challenges offers us the opportunity to transform the way that society uses energy," Dionne says.
"For example, IT applications can manage power grids to reduce losses and enable distributed generation," she continues. "IT can introduce congestion-pricing schemes that reduce road traffic and encourage the use of carpooling and mass transit. IT enables businesses to improve manufacturing processes and supply chain efficiencies to reduce waste and energy usage. IT allows people to work remotely to reduce commuting requirements."
Big Blue, like HP, is a participant in WWF's Climate Savers Program, and it, too, has been tackling energy-efficiency issues for years. Just this week, the company announced its Big Green initiative, a $1 billion-a-year service initiative aimed at building and redesigning datacenters that consume less energy. The company also recently garnered recognition from the EPA for pledging to reduce total global GHG emissions by 7 percent from 2005 to 2012.
Dionne offers this advice for companies struggling with how to tackle reducing their energy costs and environmental footprint: "Do what IBM and some other leading companies have done: Assess their own potential impact on the environment; change the necessary policies, processes, and procedures; set benchmarks for achievement; establish a management system to monitor and report progress on those benchmarks; and take corrective action when needed."
Posted by Ted Samson on May 11, 2007 03:11 PM
May 11, 2007
Big Blue's enviro guru explores garden of green opportunities
Political leaders and business leaders alike are scrutinizing causes of global climate change, as we saw in the recently released IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. And they're devising solutions to the problem. And just as some countries are ahead of the game insofar as devising regulations to combat greenhouse gas emissions and reduce energy waste, so too are some tech companies out there.
Among them is IBM, which has had its eye on the green prize for years now. While social responsibility and environmental stewardship have played a role in its leadership, the business opportunities and potential cost savings have been there, too.
Edan Dionne, IBM's director of corporate environmental affairs, provided some very insightful answers, via e-mail, to my various questions about the IPCC report and concerns about global warming, as well as how they affect business -- and vice versa. Following is our e-interview.
InfoWorld: Why should companies care about the IPCC report, as well as the general growing concern about global warming and climate change?
Edan Dionne: Global climate change presents both challenges and opportunities to the business community. As there is strong scientific consensus that global warming is real and is significantly affected by emissions of greenhouse gases related to human activities, it has become clear that all sectors of society, the economy, and governments worldwide must participate in developing solutions to climate change.
Additionally, public awareness about the impacts of climate change is also swelling demand from employees, clients, investors, and other opinion leaders to know a company's stance on this issue and evaluate how "green" that company is.
Many companies, like IBM, have been taking actions to manage and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions for many years, while others have initiated actions more recently.
The IT industry has the opportunity to play several roles in addressing climate change. IBM has consistently improved the computing power delivered per unit of watt applied with each new generation of products. Over the last several years, IBM has brought its focus on innovation to improving the energy utilization of IT equipment.
While much progress has been made, there is still more work to do. IBM's announcement of "Project Big Green" details the next critical steps that IBM plans to take to improve the energy efficiency of its datacenters and its clients' operations.
Improving the energy utilization of IT equipment and datacenters is important because the application of IT to business and societal energy-efficiency challenges offers us the opportunity to transform the way that society uses energy.
For example, IT applications can manage power grids to reduce losses and enable distributed generation. IT can introduce congestion pricing schemes that reduce road traffic and encourage the use of carpooling and mass transit. IT enables businesses to improve manufacturing processes and supply chain efficiencies to reduce waste and energy usage. IT allows people to work remotely to reduce commuting requirements.
IW: What do companies need to do to address the problem? What's the drawback to putting it off, both from a business perspective as well as an environmental perspective? And what is IBM doing?
Dionne: Let me answer the last part first. IBM has focused on taking concrete actions to address climate change in its operations, products, and services, including: conserving energy (thus reducing direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases); increasing its use of renewable energy; reducing its direct emissions of greenhouse gases from manufacturing and facilities processes; designing energy-efficient products and developing solutions to help our clients reduce their energy use and improve efficiency; participating in voluntary climate protection programs with both government and nongovernmental organizations; and sharing best practices.
Other companies should do what IBM and some other leading companies have done -- assess their own potential impact on the environment; change the necessary policies, processes, and procedures; set benchmarks for achievement; establish a management system to monitor and report progress on those benchmarks; and take corrective action when needed.
It is important to take action today, because addressing the challenges of climate change is a long journey. It is not something that can be handled with one or two quick fixes. As mentioned above, all sectors of society, government, and the economy need to be involved and committed.
Collectively, we need to take available actions today -- like aggressive energy conservation and efficiency programs and diversification of our energy portfolio to increase the contribution of non-CO2 or low-CO2-emitting energy sources to our portfolio. And we need to encourage research and development efforts to develop the new technologies and innovations that we will need in the future to take the next steps beyond those available today.
IW: Should companies be worried about the cost required or the impact making changes will have on doing business? What about current and forthcoming regulations?
Dionne: As I mentioned earlier, climate change presents challenges and opportunities.
Companies need to assess the impact of a carbon-constrained world on their operations, determine the potential risks that carbon and other greenhouse gas constraints represent to those operations, and plan appropriate contingencies and actions. In many cases, the required actions like energy conservation, making logistics or manufacturing operations more efficient, and diversifying a company's energy portfolio will result in reduced operating costs, more efficient operations, and provide a competitive advantage.
However, a company must make investments to their facilities and operations to realize the savings. IBM estimates that, over the past eight years, annual savings from its focus on pollution prevention and design for the environment have exceeded environmental expenses by an average of two to one, so worrying about the cost required may not be necessary for all companies.
Policy, legislative, and regulatory discussions regarding climate change encompass a wide range of suggested measures including demand side management, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, nuclear power, carbon capture and sequestration, alternative fuels for transportation, alternative transportation systems, pricing practices, and a host of other ideas.
Early, voluntary actions help companies develop an inventory of their energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, develop experience in managing their operations with a focus on energy use and its effect on the company's emissions, and capture operational efficiencies that improve their bottom line. This early work helps position a company to manage effectively in a carbon-constrained world. It also allows them to analyze the potential impacts of climate change regulations from a position of experience and offer meaningful, substantive commentary on approaches to carbon management.
IW: What's the good news here? What are the benefits of reducing emissions, both from a business perspective and a global, environmental perspective?
Dionne: The good news is that responses to climate change offer opportunities along with the challenges. Companies will have to manage effectively in a carbon-constrained world, and there will be a variety of operational and financial impacts that companies will need to address.
At the same time, there are many opportunities to become more efficient, reduce spending, improve competitiveness, and introduce products and services to assist a company's clients in managing these same issues. These efforts can benefit the environment, enable and promote the global effort to address the challenges of climate change, and strengthen a company's business results.
Posted by Ted Samson on May 11, 2007 03:10 PM
March 26, 2007
Sun joins investors, businesses in call to Feds for climate change
Businesses have delivered some pretty clear messages to the government of late: We're ready to make some major investments in clean, green technology, and we want your support.
First, TechNet a couple of weeks ago challenged Congress and the president to invest more seed money in sustainable-energy initiatives and offer greater tax incentives to go green.
Then just last week, 65 investors, asset managers, and major corporations -- including just one IT company, Sun Microsystems -- issued a "Climate Call to Action" to the U.S government, an effort orchestrated by Ceresand the Investor Network on Climate Risk. The call to action urged lawmakers to enact strong federal legislation to curb the pollution causing global climate change.
That was their wording, by the way: "curb the pollution causing global climate change." I was immediately stuck by this, because from what I've observed in recent history, companies have tried to shy away from the politically charged topic of global warming.
But these guys clearly take the subject seriously -- or at least the associated investment opportunities (so notes my inner cynic). And to emphasize just how, ahem, important their position is, the group notes that it includes dozens of institutional investors who manage $4 trillion in assets. That's the kind of number (i.e. a large one starting with a dollar sign) that makes politicians perk up, take notice, and on occassion, wet themselves.
Among the group's recommendations, it's asking for "leadership by the U.S. government to achieve sizable, sensible long-term reductions of greenhouse gas emissions"; from 60 to 90% reductions below 1990 levels by 2050. (There's a pretty big difference between 60% and 90%, I'd note.)
The group suggests, as well, mandatory market-based solutions, such as a cap-and-trade system, through which companies could buy and sell their pollution allowance.
Of course, the group doesn't just call on lawmakers' environmentalistic sensibilities: It calls for "a range of policy measures to provide the financial incentives that are needed to stimulate research, development, and deployment of cleaner, more efficient technologies at the scale necessary."
Finally, the group asks for the SEC and other regulatory groups to better define the material issues related to climate change and clarify what companies should disclose on climate change in their regular financial reporting.
As I noted earlier, while many IT companies were involved in TechNet's sustainable-technology call to the government a couple of weeks ago, Sun is the only IT company to appear on the list of signatories for this Climate Call to Action. Here's what Dave Douglas, the company's vice president of eco-responsibility (is that anything like a chief sustainability officer?), had to say about it:
On the call to action: "What we're asking for are clear policies and direction. We're joining together with other corporations to send a clear signal to our lawmakers. We'd like to see a framework in which businesses can take action, set goals and engage in long-term strategies, including taxes, rebates, and long-term costs for companies."
On what what businesses should do rather than simply waiting for the government to lead the green charge: "By measuring and modifying energy usage, a businesses can lower their environmental impact today. Businesses don't need to wait for the government to decide, they can put their own longer term sustainability strategies in play."
On what the government's role should be in spurring "greenovation": "Given its size, we believe its important that the federal government commit to being a good example in its own operations. Beyond legislation, our government has the power to influence innovation and business practices by only procuring products, for example, that are energy efficient. As a major market force, it makes a lot of sense for government to set out its own longer term strategy for energy use."
My own perpsective on this call to action is, it does make sense, but I think the group might have taken a different approach. Much of the up-front emphasis in the call to action pertains to global climate change. While I think that's a very important subject that needs to be addressed, I acknowledge that some people out there -- including lawmakers -- remain skeptical. Thus, I think this group should have put more emphasis on the economic opportunities that the budding green-tech industry offers the nation as a whole, the way TechNet did with its call to action. The promise of green, clean technologies mean not only more jobs, as well as a competitive edge for American businesses; it means we can reduce our dependency on fossil fuels from the tumultuous Middle East.
To see the entire call to action, go here.
Posted by Ted Samson on March 26, 2007 12:03 AM
March 19, 2007
Update: HP's new Energy Star PCs come with XP, not Vista
Updated March 19 to clarify some of the Energy Star info.
If you go to the business desktop PCs section of HP's Web site, you'll see this phrase prominently displayed at the top: "HP recommends Windows Vista Business."
The company might need to put a temporary parenthetical caveat beside the glowing recommendation: "unless you want a more energy-efficient system."
That's the conclusion I've reached, anyway, after reading about HP's new set of Energy Star 4.0-compliant business desktop computers. The systems -- the Compaq dc5700, dc5750 and dc7700 -- will come loaded with Windows XP Pro, not Vista.
Why not Vista? When I first spoke to a couple of HP reps yesterday, I didn't come away with a clear answer; just a feeling that I'd touched on a hot-button issue. Or perhaps a hot CPU issue?
But in a follow-up e-mail, Todd Kruse, the global desktop product manager at HP, said this:
"We will introduce Windows Vista configurations that are Energy Star 4.0-ready in the near future. Because we were able to begin testing all the components including the 80% efficient power supply with Windows XP earlier, we are much farther ahead in confirming compliance with XP combinations.""Also, there will be demand for Energy Star on both operating systems as some customers may want to wait for the first Microsoft service pack before they deploy Vista."
When I did speak with Kruse on Thursday, he explained that there are plenty of hardware considerations when developing a PC that meets the more stringent Energy Star 4.0 guidelines, which take effect in July. These guidelines "apply mainly to a PC's efficiency in idle mode, not how well it runs under a maximum workload."
HP told me that the EPA doesn't expect more than 25 percent of PCs to meet that standard, whereas currently 98 percent of the systems on the market meet the current one. It's all about raising that energy-efficiency bar.
There are actually three categories of Energy Star 4.0 PCs. These HP systems are "category B" systems, meaning they "must have multi-core processor(s) or greater than one discrete processor; and a minimum of 1GB of system memory" to meet the new ES 4.0 requirements, plus they can't use more than 65 watts while in idle mode (meaning when the PC is up and running, waiting for input from the user).
According to Kruse, it took some effort to come up with configurations that would meet that standard. "In some configurations, you may not be able to add graphics cards and a network card. You really need to measure [the energy consumption] of every configuration and determine if it's Energy Star compliant."
HP provided some very basic specs of what comes with its new Energy Star 4.0 configurations (again, which come with Windows XP Pro): The highest-end model includes a Core2 Duo E6300 CPU (which has a clock speed of 1.8GHz), an 80GB hard drive, and 1GB of RAM).
Now consider Vista's recommended system requirements for Windows Vista Business: a 1 GHz CPU, 1GB of system memory, and a 40GB hard drive with at least 15GB of available space. (Windows XP Pro, on the other hand, requires at just a 233MHz CPU, plus 128MB of system memory and 1.5GB of hard drive space.)
So based on the aforementioned Vista systems requirements and the basic specs of HP's systems, there shouldn't be a problem, right? Perhaps the problem lies in Vista Business's graphics card requirements, necessary to keep the oh-so pretty Aero GUI so cool and refreshing (pun intended, though perhaps not noticed).
HP's higher-end, Energy Star 4.0-ready dc7700, for example, comes equipped with an Integrated Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 3000, which is a stripped-down version of the GMA 950 (which was created with running Vista in mind.) On the 3000, hardware video acceleration such as IDCT MPEG-2, ProcAmp (video stream independent color correction), and VC-1 decoding are missing.
I'm certainly not trying to knock HP here. I think it's notable that the company is ahead of the game in terms of cranking out systems that meet the new ES 4.0 regs and cut per-PC power consumption by as much as 52 percent. I also like that HP is making 80 percent-efficiency power supplies available (for $20 more) as an option on nearly all of its dc5 and dc7 configurations, whether they meet the other Energy Star criteria or not.
But I do think that companies like HP have their work cut out for them in terms of delivering the higher-efficiency ES 4.0 PCs that can take full advantage of Vista. And it seems the burden is on the shoulders of the hardware makers to carry the processing-hungry load of the new Windows system. Perhaps it's time we see greater coding efficiency, not only out of Microsoft but other app vendors so as to reduce the strain on CPUs.
And I also wonder if the push for more energy-efficient systems will result in a rise in Linux adoption. But that's a topic for another day.
Posted by Ted Samson on March 19, 2007 03:06 PM
March 14, 2007
CEOs urge feds for green-tech funding, support
Citing the all-important economic case for advancing green technology, TechNet today issued a challenge to Congress and the president to, among other things, invest more seed money in sustainable-energy initiatives and offer greater tax incentives to go green.
TechNet, a political network of CEOs, released its Green Tech Policy Agenda for America, spelling out the familiar and certainly important environmental and national-security-oriented cases for fostering green-tech growth, but also outlining the increasingly recognized business case for weaning the U.S. from its foreign-oil addiction and advancing more energy-efficient technologies such as solar, wind, biofuels, and fuel cell design.
"Clean-energy innovations are positioned to be the next great disruptive technologies with the potential to revolutionize the energy industry, spurring economic growth and creating new industries and jobs," the report says.
Emphasizing the sentiments of the report, John Chambers, chairman and CEO of Cisco and TechNet co-founder, had this to say: "America has a unique opportunity to play a vital role in the world's transition to cleaner energy sources as companies continue to embrace solutions that drive efficiency and environmental improvement -- and make economic sense."
Like Chambers, many business leaders are becoming increasing aware of the issues driving demand for greener, more energy-efficient technology, as evidenced by the growing number of "green" initiatives by companies like HP and Dell, as well as the unification of major IT players like Intel, AMD, Sun, IBM, and Microsoft in forming The Green Grid. "Corporations recognize that clean energy solutions are not only the right thing to do but make sound business sense," the report reads.
Venture capitalists also have jumped on board the green wagon: The TechNet report notes that North American VC funding alone toward green initiatives totaled $2.9 billion in 2006, up from $1.6 billion in 2005.
The federal government, however, has been slower in funding alternative energy initatives. "Overall federal funding for basic energy and applied energy research and development fell 60% in real dollars from 1978 to 2004," the report says.
Compare that to federal funding for life sciences R&D, which has grown by 6.2% annually from 1984 to 2005, engineering R&D which has grown by 2.1%, and physical sciences R&D, up 0.4% per year. 
To that end, TechNet is challenging the government to double annual funding for energy research, which is currently less than $2 billion.
Additionally, TechNet is urging the government to be an early adopter of green technology. "As the single largest energy consumer, the federal government's power and influence over the energy sector cannot be overestimated. By harnessing its spending power as an early adopter of promising energy technologies, the federal government can have an immediate impact in bringing companies to wide-scale commercial viability," the reports.
(Interestingly, the report says the government uses a whopping quadrillion BTUs of energy and spends nearly $15 billion annually on energy products and services.)
The report alludes to the reality that energy is the lifeblood of the modern business world and the threat of a power-shortage crisis is looming: "Demand for electricity in the United States alone is predicted to increase by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years, while rapidly growing population centers in countries such as China and India, home to two-fifths of the world's population, will put substantial additional pressures on conventional world energy sources."
Other items on the TechNet GreenTech Policy Agenda include:
- Designating a lead federal agency to elevate and oversee the energy research and demonstration mission
- Funding structured university partnerships and research to generate a pipeline of innovation and talent
- Funding public and private partnerships to support energy-efficiency initiatives and education
- Increasing the level of incentives to spur new energy technologies
- Increasing consumer incentives to change patterns of demand
- Encourage technology neutrality enabling the marketplace to pick winners
- Promoting standards based on energy demand to provide efficiency incentives
- Designing recommendations for a national program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a market-based system
- Developing industry best practices that promote and expand corporate commitments and contributions to clean energy
The report is available in its entirety here [PDF].
Posted by Ted Samson on March 14, 2007 01:50 PM
February 27, 2007
New Daylight Saving Time not so bright an idea
Call me a conspiracy theorist, if you like, but I suspect the coffee lobbyists in Washington D.C. had a hand in convincing Congress to extend Daylight Saving Time (DST) by a full month. DST kicks in on March 11 this year, three weeks earlier than before, and Starbucks, Peet's, and other caffeine dealers of the United States certainly stand to gain from an extra 15 days of bleary-eyed commuters roaming staggering to the office an hour earlier -- not to mention IT admins who'll be staying up late patching OSes and applications that aren't yet prepped for the early time change.So we have a lot of work and adjusting to do as the extended DST approaches. The question remains as to whether the country as a whole will benefit from the adjustment in the way we'd hope: reduced energy usage. While past tweaks have proven successful, a new study suggests the newest adjustment's impact may be negligible -- or even detrimental to the energy-saving cause.
Back in 1974 and 1975, America extended the DST to ten months and eight months respectively. The Department of Transportation concluded that doing so saved the equivalent of 10,000 barrels of oil each day. California Energy Commission tabulated that at a savings of about one percent per day.
Then in 1986, President Ronald Reagan tacked on April to DST, which, according to Bob Aldrich of the California Energy Commission (CEM), "is estimated to save nationwide about 300,000 barrels of oil each year."
However, a report just released [PDF] from Dr. Adrienne Kandal, with the CEM's Demand Analysis Office, has a not-so-promising prediction about this year's newly extended DST. At best, she said, we might enjoy half a percentage in energy savings. But there's a 25% chance we'll see a very small increase in electricity use.
Specifically, she wrote: "If people do maintain their daily schedules then spring and fall Daylight Saving Time extensions would probably cause a 2 to 5% drop in the evening peak load. Meanwhile, morning electricity use would grow some, but probably not enough to offset evening savings."
"The net effect is small and uncertain: A best guess of total net energy savings is on the order of half of one percent, but savings could just as well be zero. Moreover, our statistical analysis leaves us with one chance in four there could be a very small increase in electricity use."
Notably, the good doctor was looking only at California's energy usage, so it's not clear what we'd see nationwide in terms of overall energy savings. My hunch is, in states that suffer real winters, people will be cranking up the heat when they slide out of bed during those earlier, colder days.
I'd like to be more excited about the prospect the reduced energy consumption that could come with the longer DST, but I'm afraid it's just going to prove to be little more than a poorly planned, token effort by the government to ward off the impending energy crisis. Reducing our increasingly expensive thirst for energy is going to take stricter standards, as well investment in developing and incentives for using alternative energy.
Have some thoughts to share or questions to ask about preparing for the forthcoming DST adjustment? Log in to the discussion on IT-Exec Connect and post away.
Posted by Ted Samson on February 27, 2007 10:25 AM
February 23, 2007
Plenty of green standards a'brewin'
Jeremy Kirk from the IDGNS has compiled quite a laundry list of groups from all over the map that are exploring standards for energy efficiency in the data center.
The European Commission, for example, is contemplating "codes of conduct" for energy efficiency for data-center operators.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which raised the Energy Star bar for PCs and notebooks last year, recently launched a six month study of power consumption in data center and potential conservation measures, as directed by Congress and approved by President Bush.
But it's not just government agencies contemplating eco-friendlier technology; the industry has green on the brain. A group of industry heavyweights including AMD, Intel, Sun, IBM, and Microsoft formed a non-profit consortium last year called The Green Grid, "an association of information technology professionals seeking to lower the overall consumption of power in datacenters around the globe," per its Web site.
Meanwhile, the non-profit group SPEC (Standard Performance Evaluation Corp.) formed a server-efficiency committee last year. (Interestingly, many of the companies represented by SPEC are also involved in The Green Grid.) The group's announced goal was to come up with its first energy and performance benchmark early this year.
But that's not all: Yet another group, this one comprised of representatives from various companies (including those involved with The Green Grid and SPEC) as well as academicians, has already churned out a protocol "measuring energy efficiency in 1U and 2U rack servers." The group was supported by the EPA.
So from where I sit, there's good news and bad news here. The good news is, there's clearly a lot of interest in greener, more energy-efficient technology out there, both from the industry and the government. It's also good to see companies and government agencies cooperating, to a degree. After all, standards that suit everyone's means less foot-dragging when it comes time to enact them.
My concern is just how many divergent efforts are going on. It would be just a bit ironic (in the Alannis Morrisette sense) for these various parties to be wasting energy by simultaneously developing conflicting or even similar energy-efficiency standards.
Posted by Ted Samson on February 23, 2007 12:35 PM
