January 29, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item A Great Deal of Hot Air
Best wishes,
Phil Factor
January 29, 2011 at 2:01 pm
In addition to using energy consumption reduction efforts .. how about using arrays of solar panels to turn sunlight into electricity mounted of the roofs of the data centers, the use of windpower to supply energy to a data center. These combined with the newer technologies you have mentioned, and by the way solar panels and wind power have the advantage of being proven .. yes they might be able to be improved, but they are here and can be used starting immediately. And they can reduce the amount of heat generated over the system. Where the sytem consists of a Central electrical generating station, tansmission lines, and the data center.
January 30, 2011 at 11:42 am
Is this topic about taking care of limited resources and the earth? If so, we should do all that we can to take care of the planet, based on cost-benefit analysis. For example, years ago we changed the chemical used in air conditioning, to one that was proven to cause more damage! The benefit wasn't there! Should we reduce the cost of data center cooling and power consumption? Yes, as we replace servers we should invest in ones that cost less over time - but again if the benefit isn't there we need to find a better solution. We need to measure the cost to purchase, run, and dispose of the servers, not just how much juice they use. Another example would be replacing a 3-year old server for an application that is little used, and not critical to the organization. Leave it be. On the other hand, replacing out of warranty servers on a critical app, with ones costing $20,000 a piece, which save $500 in energy over the next 3 years, or purchasing standard ones at $5,000 - it would be stupid to buy the more efficient servers.
Is this topic about the pseudo science the media calls global warming? If so it is bunk and doesn't belong here. Debating true science is one thing, debating taking care of the planet is fine. Debating a media craze that has no science behind it is a waste of time. Oh by the way, the same people who started global warming are now talking about global cooling being the biggest issue.
Dave
January 30, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Wind and solar are not base load generators.
Besides, back in the late 70's we were bigger polluters than we are today. Remember the "acid rain" in Europe?
January 30, 2011 at 3:25 pm
The United States used 3723 TWh of power in 2006, and Europe was 3022. This makes the 56 Twh used by Data Centers in Europe come in at around 1.8% of all European energy use. I don't have the USA figures, but I guess that they're similar. This contribution seems very small, but the proportion is set to rise. I believe that the science underlying the idea of man-made climate change is currently flawed, but there is no denying that the precipitate rise in the use of oil worldwide has got to stop. Even the harshest cutbacks in the use of fossil fuels that have been proposed only take us back to early Nineties consumption.
Having said all that, My main worry is that, in the current atmosphere of increasing legislation over energy use, it is much better that the IT industry sorts the problem of its own increasing energy consumption out, rather than leave it to the legislators.
Best wishes,
Phil Factor
January 30, 2011 at 3:34 pm
@niall.baird Hmm. Perhaps this is a base load generator: Scientists design cow dung-powered data centre
[/url]
http://www.futuregov.asia/articles/2010/jun/03/scientists-design-data-centre-powered-cow-dung/
Researchers have found a way to combine dairy farm waste and the heat generated from data centres to create a sustainable ecosystem.
'Around 3.0 kilowatt-hours of electricity could be generated daily from the manure of one cow. Approximately 70 per cent of the energy from the methane could be used for power and cooling, sufficient to power a medium-sized data centre. '
You couldn't make this stuff up
There are datacentres being used to provide heating for housing estates!
Best wishes,
Phil Factor
January 30, 2011 at 3:40 pm
@Phil
Believe it or not, there are a couple of (small) electricity generation plants here in Melbourne that run on Methane collected from old rubbish tips.
Unfortunately though, the methane produced by one of these tips seeped out and caused almost an entire suburb to be evacuated. (http://www.theage.com.au/national/explosive-methane-scare-could-hit-thousands-20080911-4eaf.html)
January 30, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Phil Factor (1/30/2011)
The United States used 3723 TWh of power in 2006, and Europe was 3022. This makes the 56 Twh used by Data Centers in Europe come in at around 1.8% of all European energy use. I don't have the USA figures, but I guess that they're similar. This contribution seems very small, but the proportion is set to rise. I believe that the science underlying the idea of man-made climate change is currently flawed, but there is no denying that the precipitate rise in the use of oil worldwide has got to stop. Even the harshest cutbacks in the use of fossil fuels that have been proposed only take us back to early Nineties consumption.Having said all that, My main worry is that, in the current atmosphere of increasing legislation over energy use, it is much better that the IT industry sorts the problem of its own increasing energy consumption out, rather than leave it to the legislators.
I agree with you. One thing we need to keep in mind is where the increase is coming from - China. We have no control over that. The big issue is that in the US the government is taxing everyone so much, to pay for so many things the government has no business doing, that nobody can afford to improve on things. I know it is only part of the issue, but the so called health care reform has reduced payments from goverment to hospitals, while increasing regulations and decreasing reimbursements from the one source they can use to pay bills - insurance companies. Where are they going to get the money to increase efficiency?
Sigh.
Dave
January 31, 2011 at 9:35 am
djackson 22568 (1/30/2011.....so called health care reform has reduced payments from goverment to hospitals, while increasing regulations and decreasing reimbursements from the one source they can use to pay bills - insurance companies.
Sigh.
Hate tp wander off topic, but it looks like that's already been done, and I also hate to see misinformation spread unchecked.
Your statement is not true. Hospitals are for the health care reform. Insurance companies are against it only because they are being forced to cover things such as preexisting conditions. The US is one of the few major countries without a universal health care system, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, have all successfully implemented government run programs with often easier access and much reduced costs.
BTW, Phil, are you trying to say that something smells fishy? 🙂
Definition of SMELT
: any of a family (Osmeridae) of small bony fishes that closely resemble the trouts in general structure, live along coasts and ascend rivers to spawn or are landlocked, and have delicate oily flesh with a distinctive odor and taste
January 31, 2011 at 9:55 am
RML51 (1/31/2011)
djackson 22568 (1/30/2011.....so called health care reform has reduced payments from goverment to hospitals, while increasing regulations and decreasing reimbursements from the one source they can use to pay bills - insurance companies.
Sigh.
Hate tp wander off topic, but it looks like that's already been done, and I also hate to see misinformation spread unchecked.
Your statement is not true. Hospitals are for the health care reform. Insurance companies are against it only because they are being forced to cover things such as preexisting conditions. The US is one of the few major countries without a universal health care system, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, have all successfully implemented government run programs with often easier access and much reduced costs.
Sorry, but the hospital I work at is NOT in favor, and I talk to hundreds of people at other hospitals, all of whom are against it. Hospitals are going to see reduced income, experts predict 50% of doctors may be lost, and while universal health care has been tried elsewhere, it has failed miserably in every case. If Canada has it so good, why are their people coming to the US for care? Covering preexisting conditions will do NOTHING but increase costs!
We can agree to disagree on this one.
Dave
January 31, 2011 at 10:04 am
djackson 22568 (1/31/2011)
RML51 (1/31/2011)
djackson 22568 (1/30/2011.....so called health care reform has reduced payments from goverment to hospitals, while increasing regulations and decreasing reimbursements from the one source they can use to pay bills - insurance companies.
Sigh.
Hate tp wander off topic, but it looks like that's already been done, and I also hate to see misinformation spread unchecked.
Your statement is not true. Hospitals are for the health care reform. Insurance companies are against it only because they are being forced to cover things such as preexisting conditions. The US is one of the few major countries without a universal health care system, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, have all successfully implemented government run programs with often easier access and much reduced costs.
Sorry, but the hospital I work at is NOT in favor, and I talk to hundreds of people at other hospitals, all of whom are against it. Hospitals are going to see reduced income, experts predict 50% of doctors may be lost, and while universal health care has been tried elsewhere, it has failed miserably in every case. If Canada has it so good, why are their people coming to the US for care? Covering preexisting conditions will do NOTHING but increase costs!
We can agree to disagree on this one.
I'm from Canada and while our system is certainly far from perfect. I'd still take it anyday vs US version.
That being said, I'm a strong believer in taking care of your own health first and then go to the ER when you get in an accident.
The problem we are facing in Canada is that way too many people are getting sick and wouldn't have if they would have taken preventive measures. For the people going to US, it's rarely because of shortage of staff (tho it happens). It also often to have better surgen and trials.
January 31, 2011 at 10:29 am
This doesn't seem like the place to debate things like global climate change, but to echo Ten Centuries, I also hate to see misinformation spread unchecked.
Making statements such as saying that the science of climate change is not fully established yet, saying global warming is media-generated pseudo science, are totally off base and untrue. Further, in my opinion, these statements are incomprehensible based upon the fact that there is a very learned population that participate in this forum, and write articles produced for this publication. For those who call yourselves computer scientists, you should understand the scientific process, not subscribe to the misinformed bluster of isolationists. The overwhelming majority in the scientific community accept the hypothesis that the planet's temperature has risen approx. 1.4 degrees F over the past 120 years (much of it in the last decade), to levels not reached in 2000 plus years. There is no real dispute on the data. The question becomes: "Are the changes human-made?" There, too, much of the scientific community accept that humans are affecting the change, so there is a real desire to determine how much is due to humans, and how it will affect all life on this planet.
This is not "chicken little" talk - this is a calculated assessment based upon data. For people who work with data, I would expect you to pay attention to it, not the rhetoric of some uninformed media types who wish to label scientific thought with perceptions of liberal-biased media thought.
Do you spend money to pursue a hypothesis to get real information to determine what the future holds, or do you choose to ignore the existing data and hide your head in the sand?
January 31, 2011 at 10:41 am
pflipper (1/31/2011)
This doesn't seem like the place to debate things like global climate change, but to echo Ten Centuries, I also hate to see misinformation spread unchecked.Making statements such as saying that the science of climate change is not fully established yet, saying global warming is media-generated pseudo science, are totally off base and untrue.
For those who call yourselves computer scientists, you should understand the scientific process
community accept the hypothesis that the planet's temperature has risen approx. 1.4 degrees F over the past 120 years (much of it in the last decade), to levels not reached in 2000 plus years.
There is no real dispute on the data.
Last post, I promise! BUt I also have to fight misinformation...
You have your opinion, others disagree, on whether it is off base and untrue.
Think about the scientific process and get back to me. Explain how they are measuring this. Explain how they can attribute it to man. Remind me how we are the center of the universe, no other life exists, and all the other things "science" proved in the last 2000 years.
I don't recall reading anything about Jesus walking around with a thermometer taking temperatures, but even if he did, 90 percent of the planet was unknown that far back, and even the continents of North and South America weren't discovered 600 years ago or so. Who measured temps then?
There is a huge dispute, outside of the liberal media, who refuse to report anything they disagree with.
Now back on topic, we should take care of our planet, but we should do it for the right reasons, not some made up pseudo science. Further, cost/benefit analysis is required. Lastly, what good does it do when the majority of the planet is polluting far more than the US and Europe?
Dave
January 31, 2011 at 11:21 am
This may or may not be my last post, based upon the uninformed opinions from Dave...
It seems by Dave's argument, radiocarbon dating might be labeled with the term "pseudo science", as nobody was alive to mark the age of wooden tool found in the alps. How can we depend upon the age estimations of radiocarbon dating of an object if nobody was there to see the plant grow into a tree, see someone chop it down, then see someone make it into a tool? By Dave's reasoning, we really can't depend upon scientific estimations if we were not physically there to observe it. As any informed person can attest, that is simply not true.
I am still hopeful that the majority of people out there will listen to what is a growing basis of scientific knowledge, draw appropriate conclusions, and take appropriate actions based upon this knowledge. Hey, we all can't be experts at everything, but we can benefit from the knowledge gained by others.
January 31, 2011 at 11:23 am
A great deal of space in the internet is being taken up with he debate about climate change. It isn't really a database topic, and I don't think we'll even change anyone's opinions by debating it, let alone belittling anyone with contrary views. It's off-topic.
I'm just trying to point out that we need to deal with the problem of the escalating energy consumption of data centres as soon as possible, otherwise we'll be awash with legislation imposed on us, to make us do so. It is as simple as that. Offshoring this problem won't help.
Best wishes,
Phil Factor
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 41 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply