Monday, 06 September 2010 08:25

Facebook is in the process of constructing a new data center in Prineville, Oregon. This data center is slated for completion in two faces, with the entire facility encompassing roughly 300,000 square feet. For Prineville, this construction means 35 full-time jobs at the data center (once operational), as well as up to about 200 temporary construction jobs. But it also means attention from the environmentalist organization Greenpeace.

Although Facebook is working to develop its new data center with industry-leading energy efficiency, its deal with energy provider PacifiCorp to provide the facility’s energy is riling Greenpeace. According to the Associated Press (“Greenpeace wants Facebook center off coal fuel”), Greenpeace claims that PacifiCorp relies on coal for 83% of its energy production. Instead of going after PacifiCorp, however, Greenpeace has targeted Facebook for criticism.

As with most politically charged issues, the intersection of environmentalism and technological development must be treated carefully. Emissions produced by the burning of coal no doubt have an effect on air quality, although as the so-called climategate scandal (“Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?”) has illustrated, they may not be causing global warming. On the other hand, the less well-publicized environmental hazards of mountaintop removal (a method of accessing coal reserves that does not involve underground mining) are also a concern associated with the use of coal as an energy source. Competing concerns include companies’ ability to afford to offer their services—companies can easily pursue energy efficiency and renewable power sources straight into bankruptcy. Thus, a reasonable balance must be struck. The question in the case of Facebook is whether the social-networking giant is taking a balanced approach or whether Greenpeace is justified in its criticism.

Facebook, to its credit, is pursuing an environmentally friendly policy of implementing energy-efficient infrastructure in its new data center. The Associate Press (“Greenpeace criticizes Facebook over Oregon data center”) reports that “Facebook hopes its new cooling system will take only 15 percent as much power as the computers” and that it is seeking a LEED gold rating for its facility. Furthermore, the new facility will take advantage of Oregon’s temperate climate, using outside air (which is free) to aid in cooling. But the company’s choice of Oregon wasn’t just about the weather: the new data center will be close to cables supplying data connections to expanding markets in Asia, and localities in Oregon are offering tax incentives for data centers that further supplement the attraction of the area. Thus, Facebook is (understandably) keeping an eye on its bottom line as much as on its environmental impact.

Greenpeace’s main complaint against Facebook is that energy-efficient infrastructure is not enough: the company should also have chosen a location in which renewable energy sources were more readily available. Because the new Facebook data center will largely be powered by the burning of coal, Greenpeace is not satisfied.

Work by other companies, such as Google, to increasingly rely on renewable energy is admirable, but a number of realities impose themselves on the entire situation. Electricity must be used as it is produced—it is not something that easily can be stored and transported elsewhere. Thus, Facebook (and other companies) cannot simply place an order for renewable energy. Indeed, some localities offer more renewable energy than others, but using this standard as the sole criterion for selecting a data center site severely limits companies’ options and can, for example, affect their ability to use outside air for cooling (if the location is in a warmer climate).

Although a large, well-known company relying on renewable energy sources can increase public awareness of and interest in such energy sources, it does not necessarily make any fundamental changes with regard to the energy grid. Wind farms and solar panels do not produce more power because a large company, rather than the public at large, uses the energy that they produce. Investment in additional such infrastructure is what fundamentally increases production of and reliance on renewable energy. Thus, if Facebook followed Greenpeace’s admonitions, it wouldn’t really be changing anything (other than, perhaps, public awareness).

Thus, although Greenpeace’s concern about the use of coal has a certain amount of merit, its decision to pick on Facebook is somewhat suspect. The use of coal as an energy source may well be declining simply because of ever-tighter government regulation of emissions. Although concerns about the environment always have a certain amount of immediacy (simply waiting for coal to die a natural—or government-imposed—death may not be the best approach), the alarmism of groups like Greenpeace can lead to the type of public backlash that gives caring for the environment a sullied reputation. So, balance is required—Facebook is making an effort to minimize its environmental impact, and that should be recognized. It is also a company with limited funds, and it is operating in a difficult economy. On the other hand, the environment is important, and companies whose practices are harmful should be given a public scolding, if not worse. But a balance between these interests may well be the best for both companies and the environment.

Author contact

Monday, 06 September 2010 08:25

In the quest for power savings in the data center, a new potential approach that is being given increasing attention is the use of low-power processors in server equipment. Although these processors tend not to have the same computing muscle as standard server processors (which are much more power hungry), they may fit the bill in certain applications. Following this trend, which has produced talk of using low-power mobile ARM processors in servers, AMD is now considering whether its new Bobcat processor might be a good fit for servers.

Power savings in a data center servers produces a two-fold benefit: the data center operator has lower power cost because the processor consumes less and because that reduction in consumed power (which is turned into heat) means less power needed to run the facility’s cooling equipment. Seeking to take advantage of this double return on power reduction, AMD is beginning to examine the potential of its new Bobcat processor in a low-end server environment.

Monday, 06 September 2010 08:25

The Sisters of Mercy Health System has a wide spectrum of services with 18 acute care hospitals clinics, three heart hospitals, and other health services. Established in 1986, Sisters of Mercy is now the ninth largest Catholic health-care system in the United States.

Just a few days ago, Sisters of Mercy began operations in its new data center in Washington, Missouri. The 42,500-square-foot data center has come up with an investment of $60 million. Plans for this data center were announced in 2008, and the facility has been completed on schedule. When announcing the plans for the data center, Mike McCurry, chief information officer of Sisters of Mercy, declared that the organization had tried to improve the old data center but then decided to build a new one.

Between the two data centers, Sisters of Mercy will be using the Sunset Hills facility to function as the main business-operations site and the new data center to host medical records. Sunset Hills will also function as the backup data center.

Monday, 06 September 2010 08:25

Earlier this month, the Data Center Journal (“Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD): Wise Investment or Unnecessary Expense?”) considered computational fluid dynamics (CFD) with regard to whether it is worth the cost. With a faltering economy and a stagnating recovery, company budgets are stretched thin. But the question of being able to afford CFD is not simply about the upfront costs of a CFD software package or a consulting firm that performs the analysis—CFD can, in some cases, help data center operators improve air flow in their facilities and reduce cooling costs. The question is more about whether a company can quickly get a return on its CFD investment dollars. Each company must decide whether its current energy-efficiency profile leaves room for significant improvements (in which case, CFD might be a good option) or whether additional investment would only yield incremental returns in cost savings and reduced environmental impact. Nevertheless, the cost and means of performing CFD analysis is still important.

The CFD approach with the most question marks may well involve outright purchase of a CFD software package. The cost of the software may be clear enough, but the costs associated with employees gaining expertise in using the software are typically less clear. Even with relatively easy-to-use software, the subtleties of the mathematics can be daunting, if they are not entirely hidden from the user (which can itself be a problem). Simply buying CFD software can thus be a way for a company to blow a significant amount of time and money on a cool toy that doesn’t really return any benefits. But alternatives to this approach do exist; two such alternatives are outsourcing the entire CFD analysis process (which reduces the need for expertise on the part of data center staff) and using a cloud-based software package (which reduces cost by making CFD a pay-as-you-go proposition).