Slashdot Log In
IT Vs. the Permanent Energy Crisis
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Sep 09, 2008 03:43 PM
from the damn-fusion-scientists-are-late-again dept.
from the damn-fusion-scientists-are-late-again dept.
snydeq writes "Organizations looking to remain profitable in the face of escalating energy costs may lean even harder on IT to achieve energy efficiencies in the years to come, InfoWorld reports. But instead of limiting IT's efficiency role to the datacenter, companies will tap IT's vast knowledge of company networks, equipment, and work processes to uncover efficiencies across the organization, in some cases tipping facilities management into IT. 'There is a lot IT can do to fix its own 2 percent [of the company's carbon emissions] and make it more efficient, but the big opportunity for IT is to take a leadership role in tackling that other 98 percent across the business,' says one analyst. And by taking charge of the organization's energy strategy now, IT will be in prime position to alter its relationship with management and reap benefits in the boardroom in the years ahead, analysts contend."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: 10 IT Power-Saving Myths Debunked 359 comments
snydeq writes "InfoWorld examines 10 power-saving assumptions IT has been operating under in its quest to rein in energy costs vs. the permanent energy crisis. Under scrutiny, most such assumptions wither. From true CPU efficiency, to the life span effect of power-down frequency on servers, to SSD power consumption, to switching to DC in the datacenter, get the facts before setting your IT energy strategy."
[+]
Ask Slashdot: When Does Powering Down Servers Make Sense? 301 comments
snydeq writes "Powering down servers to conserve energy is a controversial practice that, if undertaken wisely, could greatly benefit IT in its quest to rein in energy costs in the datacenter. Though power cycling's long-term effects on server hardware may be mythical, its effects on IT and business operations are certainly real and often detrimental. Yet, development, staging, batch processing, failover — several server environments seem like prime candidates for routine power cycling to reduce datacenter energy consumption. Under what conditions and in what environments does powering down servers seem to make the most economic and operational sense, and what tips do folks have to offer to those considering making use of the practice?"
[+]
Hardware: Why IT Won't Power Down PCs 576 comments
snydeq writes "Internal politics and poor leadership on sustainable IT strategies are among the top reasons preventing organizations from practicing proper PC power management — to the tune of $2.8 billion wasted per year powering unused PCs. According to a recent survey, 42 percent of IT shops do not manage PC energy consumption simply because no one in the organization has been made responsible for doing so — this despite greater awareness of IT power-saving myths, and PC power myths in particular. Worse, 22 percent of IT admins surveyed said that savings from PC power management 'flow to another department's budget.' In other words, resources spent by IT vs. the permanent energy crisis appear to result in little payback for IT."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
My solution (Score:5, Funny)
Go back to the abacus. Computers are overrated. Penthouse can take over the only other computer function.
Re:My solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Go back to the abacus. Computers are overrated. Penthouse can take over the only other computer function.
Actually, I remember seeing a documentary showing kids in Asian countries learning how to perform calculations using an abacus. They become lightening fast with it, some even able to do calculations 'in their heads' using an imaginary abacus. It helps them to visualize numbers and visualize the processes of arithmetic.
Parent
Re:My solution (Score:5, Funny)
Penthouse . . .and a deck of cards.
I think you will find that tissues are more absorbent than cards.
Parent
IT Wins? (Score:5, Insightful)
"IT will be in prime position to alter its relationship with management and reap benefits in the boardroom in the years ahead, analysts contend."
Ahh, more responsibility, additional liability, same pay scale.
Re:IT Wins? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:IT Wins? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nono, Dry ice is CO2. You have any idea how bad your carbon footprint will look if you use that?
Here's one idea: Upgrade the server room AC to use heat pumps that can put the heat back into the building where it's needed.
Another idea: Upgrade lighting and switching. Do all of the lights need to be on all of the time? Probably not. Add more switches to light only the parts of the room that need it, and occupancy sensors to make sure they're turned off when everyone leaves.
=Smidge=
Parent
Re:IT Wins? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:IT Wins? (Score:5, Interesting)
Both you and the PP bring up very good points - energy saving design won't do a damned thing if the building occupants can override them.
I'm a project manager for a Very Large Non Profit, and I build buildings ("Hi, Project Manager"). The absolute, positive biggest challenge I face isn't the contractors, or suppliers, or the local government - it's the end users (IT included) that simply CANNOT accept when they don't get things their way. I've had entire departments threaten not to move in because their space was laid out the way the *previous* director wanted it. I've had VP's in a tizzy over the fact that they had to tell their people they could not bring their fans, space heaters, and coffee makers to the new buildings and plug them into their cubicles.
As for building controls, it doesn't matter if you have a system set on a timer or occupancy - someone, at some point, will override those controls based on a request from higher, and they will stay that way. Openable windows? They will STAY open, regardless of the temperature outside. Natural light? It's too bright for Ms Delicate Skin - buy some blinds.
Energy conservation is about People Control, not Building Controls.
Parent
Re:IT Wins? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had entire departments threaten not to move in because their space was laid out the way the *previous* director wanted it. I've had VP's in a tizzy over the fact that they had to tell their people they could not bring their fans, space heaters, and coffee makers to the new buildings and plug them into their cubicles.
You mean people are sensitive to an environment they spend 8 hours a day in, and don't want to accept what you've given them without talking about it? Do you really find that all so surprising? I'd find it odd if people weren't sensitive about those kind of things.
Energy conservation is about People Control, not Building Controls.
Nonsense. Energy conservation is largely about economics. You've got the wrong mentality entirely. If it's really too expensive to drive the gas-guzzling SUV to work every day, the SUV will get ditched fairly soon. The only reason you've got this fight between "the controls" and "the people" is the people aren't paying the energy bill directly.
Parent
Re:IT Wins? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is your great idea ? That accounts for less than a thousanth of a percent of energy usage.
We actually *use* energy you know. That's not to say we can't use it more efficiently, but stopping any of the really energy intensive processes in civilization is a non-starter.
Think about heating, you can do with slightly less, but not much. Everything above 50-55 degrees north would be utterly unliveable. Most of Europe would have to be abandoned.
Think about transportation, again a *little* less should be liveable. Any real reduction is totally out of the question. Cities 1% of the size of anything remotely resembling a metropolis would be out of the question, for way, WAY too expensive to maintain.
And of course the real energy sponges : The human body is about 6% efficient (energy intake vs energy expenditure), and eats either plants (themselves 2% efficient) but also has to eat meat (eating only meat gets us to about 8-9% efficiency) (and cows are some 12% efficient, eating 2% efficient plants). This is a very, very generous amount of efficiency to give the human body since it counts human body heat as work, and most factory floor supervisors will disagree with that being "useful labour" however if you take it out, even a tenth of a percent would barely be attainable for a human body)
Let's say you're a normal person. You eat 100 grams of meat for 900 grams of vegetables you eat. That means you're 90% * 6% * 2% + 10% * 8% * 12% * 2% efficient.
That means that all the energy you expend, running (200-300 watts), thinking (150-200 kcal/day), keeping your body at 37degrees, which feeds most of your cell processes (2200-3500 kilocalories per day) is 0.10992% efficient.
Suddenly that SUV that is about 12% efficient at 16 miles per gallon doesn't seem at all wasteful anymore. If you could somehow digest oil, you wouldn't be able to run half that distance, and certainly not with 500 kg of load on your back.
And the worst part of the human body. The total amount of human bodies in the world grows at 1.6% per year.
Energy conservation, making stuff more efficient is something we can do *once* and we can't make the human body any more efficient at all, we can only replace it. For everything else there are fundamental limits we cannot cross, any really big differences are either already caught, or will be caught the first time we try to fix things (ie. they've been caught in the last 4-5 years). We're not going to save much beyond that first drive.
Say the wet dream of every environmentalist comes true. God descends from heaven and says that all cars drive on electricity at 90% efficiency from now on. Great ! He's just saved us about 60% on the current energy cost of transportation. That will provide for "normal" economical growth without growing energy levels for ... 10 years. There can be only one reasonable conclusion : we need *more* energy. Not less.
Conservation is hopeless. We need new energy sources (and nuclear will do very nicely thank you), and after that we need nuclear fusion, and move part of the species into space.
Btw, in case anybody likes to think "nature is so much better" well no, nature is actually worse, as in less efficient than civilization, in energy usage (incidentially that is why there is so very much oxygen, a (relatively) unstable chemical in the athmosphere in the first place, and so very, very little co2 (without nature, the "natural" state of the athmosphere would be to be so filled with co2 that humans (or animals for that matter) wouldn't be able to breathe).
Parent
Re:Let me restate your post in less words. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it comes down to stop wasting time and money on the conservation of energy and start making more of it, lots more of it. Nuclear power is the only currently viable method that does not significantly contribute to global warming etc etc etc. If we start making lots of electricity and make it cheap everything else will come to use it. Oil was cheap for a long time that's why we used it for energy. Show me 1 cent a kwh electricity and you can bet everybody with switch.
Parent
Re:IT Wins? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, all they need to do is leverage synergies across the company to achieve a new green paradigm. They'll need to be proactive about it though.
Parent
Re:Exactly. (Score:4, Informative)
Most cheap ass computers comes with power supplies going at full capacity + cheap screens will likely send your power usage above the 300W, doing that 8 hours a day from home is far from negligible.
You'll find that most computers draw about 100W while working, and displays generally power down to 5W or less when left alone. Don't believe me? use killawatt or an ammeter and check it out yourself.
Parent
Re:Exactly. (Score:4, Interesting)
You know what else? Many of those people die.
I was watching a History Channel miniseries on the American Revolution the other day, and I was surprised to learn that one of the revolution's greatest Generals Nathanael Greene [wikipedia.org], died of a heat stroke. But not on the battlefield as one might expect. (Especially during the searing heat of Clinton's retreat from Philadelphia [wikipedia.org].) He died on his own plantation of a heat stroke.
What I'm getting at is that you should be careful about considering AC a luxury. It may make life more comfortable, but it also saves lives. One only needs to go as far as a major city to find reports of deaths every year from low income people who have no AC.
Parent
Let IT go nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let IT go nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there's a lot of immediate low hanging fruit to be had from simple conservation and efficiency measures, because it will take decades to seriously ramp up our non-fossil power infrastructure, and because conservation+alternative energy is achieves more than alternative energy alone.
Parent
Re:Let IT go nuclear (Score:5, Funny)
Nuclear power is immoral on the grounds that it desecrates the remains of dead stars. It would be like using mummies for fuel. If you think their curse was bad, just wait until a wormhole-ridden undead white giant comes after you for vengeance. It really sucks, you know.
And don't except mercy, it ended its life with a heart of iron.
Parent
Most obvious thing any business could do (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite seriously - run some optical tube skylights (like this [lowes.com], they come in a wide variety of options) into your working areas. FAR too many companies are wasting energy powering internal lighting when the sun's out. You can always turn on the lights *if* you need them due to a storm.
As an added bonus, you'll start to eliminate health problems - daytime-constant lighting has been proven to mess with your internal cycles [wikipedia.org] and messes up peoples' sleeping patterns, a large part of why sleep disorders are so prevalent in developed countries.
Re:Most obvious thing any business could do (Score:4, Informative)
Quite seriously - run some optical tube skylights (like this [lowes.com], they come in a wide variety of options) into your working areas. FAR too many companies are wasting energy powering internal lighting when the sun's out. You can always turn on the lights *if* you need them due to a storm.
As an added bonus, you'll start to eliminate health problems - daytime-constant lighting has been proven to mess with your internal cycles [wikipedia.org] and messes up peoples' sleeping patterns, a large part of why sleep disorders are so prevalent in developed countries.
New Belgium, imo the best brewing company in the Unites States, already has those. They also compost their waste and collect the methanol it produces, then burn it to provide 10% of their power needs. The rest of their power comes from wind (i.e. they pay extra for their electricity, at rates that make the local wind power profitable, and that money goes to building more wind generation). What else would expect from a company with a bicycle in its logo?
Parent
Re:Most obvious thing any business could do (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
I really don't see a problem here. (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution is obvious, simply outsource all the work and fire the IT employees. This will give you massive savings, make the few domestic employees more reliable, and give you super management powers that will make you invincible.
Telecommuting (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely the largest energy gains would come from telecommuting.
I submit that the shift to telecommuting will look less like the current employee group working out of their home, and more like companies increasing relying on "outsourcing", and out-sorcerers increasingly consisting of people who work in low-marginal-energy environments - whether their own college dorm, some un-cooled sweatshop in Thailand.
It bears mentioning that working from home reduces the AC energy for life-work by 50% while reducing the transportation energy by 80%. It also reduced healthcare costs by reducing viral exposures.
Why IT shouldn't get into facilities management (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm an IT Manager (Score:5, Funny)
"I swear, it was just an analogy that got out of hand..."
Parent
Re:Telecommuting? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, fundamental changes in how IT is run will bring changes.
Telecommuting
Lighting changes (as mentioned)
Changing current infrastructure out for energy efficient stuff (also mentioned)
Improved cooling systems (mentioned)
Better power distribution - less point of load conversions
Unified cooling schemes throughout the data center as well as tweak and improve existing schemes. Underfloor cabling blocking forced air system balancing etc.
There are parts of the world where underground heat exchangers could reduce the over-all cost of standard A/C systems - but that means investment.
Compartmentalized data center "closets" - reduce power and cooling needs
Upgrade older equipment for newer, cheaper, more capable hardware
As can be seen, nearly all of this comes with investment costs up front. That will not happen without some form of incentive. Spend short term money to save money in the long run doesn't look good on a quarterly report. When Wall Street or Washington are on the bandwagon and supporting or giving incentives... then it will begin to happen. In the mean time, look for more data breaches, service losses, and general poor performance from companies who continue to squeeze IT budget and demand less expense from them.
Parent