Leading Cloud Computing vendors have hit back at the claims made by lobbyists from Greenpeace that the move to the Cloud means a bigger, more corrosive carbon footprint.
Greenpeace argued: “Cloud Computing is growing at a time when climate change and reducing emissions from energy use is of paramount concern. With the growth of the cloud, however, comes an increasing demand for energy. For all of this content to be delivered to us in real time, virtual mountains of video, pictures and other data must be stored somewhere and be available for almost instantaneous access. That ‘somewhere’ is data centres - massive storage facilities that consume incredible amounts of energy."
The firm cited firms such as Google and Facebook out for particular criticism. Both have now hit back at the claims, countering that the data centres that underpin Cloud Computing are in fact increasingly energy efficient.
In a statement Google noted: “We believe that the Internet and cloud computing data centers support services that can have a large impact on reducing carbon emissions. For example: rather than hop in your car and travel a few miles to the library, you can often find the information you seek doing a Google search from home; you can check inventory on a product before running an errand to a business that was out of stock or closed; and you can hold a meeting with coworkers over video chat instead of flying to meet them in person.”
But the firm said that it acknowledged that data centres energy use was a matter for concern, but added that it chose renewable energy suppliers wherever possible. “In fact, Google data centers are 50% more energy-efficient than the industry standard” it insisted “In addition, as a company, we made a voluntary commitment to become carbon neutral in June 2007. Offsetting will always be an imperfect solution, and our focus remains on driving efficiency and increasing the use of renewable power sources. We continue to look for ways to improve upon that and to be greener as a company.”
Coal powered indignation
Facebook was singled out for particular criticism from Greenpeace which alleged: "In January 2010, Facebook commissioned a new data centre in Oregon and committed to a power service provider agreement with PacificCorp, a utility that gets the majority of its energy from coal-fired power stations, the United States’ largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Effectively becoming an industrial-scale consumer of electricity, Facebook now faces the same choices and challenges that other large Cloud Computing companies have in building their data centres. With a premium being placed on access to the cheapest electricity available on the grid. In many countries, this means dirty coal."
This is “simply untrue”. Said Facebook in rebuttal. “The suggestions of ‘choosing coal’ ignores the fact that there is no such thing as a coal-powered data centre,” it argued. “Similarly, there is no such thing as a hydroelectric-powered data centre. Every data centre plugs into the grid offered by their utility or power provider.
“The electrons powering that data centre are produced by the various sources (e.g. hydro, natural gas, coal, geothermal, nuclear, etc.) the provider uses in proportions similar to the mix of sources used. That is, if 25% of the providers energy comes from natural gas, it’s a good guess that 25% of the electrons powering the facility come from that source. Even when a facility is in close proximity to an individual source of energy, such a dam or coal plant, there is no guarantee that the electrons from that source are flowing to the facility at any particular time.
“It’s true that the local utility for the region we chose, Pacific Power, has an energy mix that is weighted slightly more toward coal than the national average. However, the efficiency we are able to achieve because of the climate of the region and the reduced energy usage that results minimizes our overall carbon footprint.”
Far from being embarrassed by its choice of data centre fuel, Facebook reckons that it's done well. “Overall, we’re thrilled at our choice in Oregon and that we’re challenging the industry to think creatively to meet the standards we’ve set in efficiency,” it said. “In selecting Oregon, we chose a region that offers a uniquely dry and temperate climate. This climate enables us to design what we believe to be one of, if not the most, energy efficient data centers in the world.
“Specifically, most data centres use mechanical chillers or large air conditioners for part, if not all, of the year to cool the computers within the facility. These mechanical chillers use a lot of energy and are only exceeded in their energy use by the thousands of computers inside the data center. Because of the climate around Prineville and our unique design, we won’t use any mechanical chillers. None. We won’t even build any. Instead, the data centre will use an innovative evaporative cooling system.”
Microsoft also weighed in, arguing: “Data centres and Cloud-based services can help people reduce their impact on the environment. For instance, unified communications technologies can help people reduce travel and home energy management services like Microsoft Hohm can help reduce home energy use.
“In our own operations, Microsoft is committed to maximizing energy efficiency and to innovating in support of environmental sustainability. For example, our Quincy, Wash., data centre was designed to reduce its carbon footprint by using the available hydropower as its primary source of energy and in Dublin, Ireland, we use the naturally cool outside air to cool the data center, helping to improve efficiency by approximately 50%.”
Post new Comment