How green is my data centre?

gallery

When Greenpeace recently released its report ‘How dirty is your data?’, it was touted as “a look at the energy choices that power cloud computing.” It was really a look at data centres and their energy efficiency.

Some of the biggest providers of the cloud – and IT generally – were hit with a damning report card: The cloud isn’t just dirty, it’s big, black, soot-laden and coal-driven. And the companies behind it – big names like Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Twitter and IBM – were not just carpeted for being energy inefficient, they were also criticised for being secretive about their energy use.

"The cloud isn’t just dirty, it’s big, black, soot-laden and coal-driven."

Apple in particular was singled out by the mainstream media for a kicking when Greenpeace gave the company a clean energy index rating of just 6.7 per cent – by far the worst of the companies analysed, despite it achieving comparatively good (but still bad) ratings for its mitigation strategy and transparency.

Predictably, the IT industry hit back.

Is it right to criticise the cloud, when the data centres it uses would exist anyway – out there in the offices and warehouses where the data is created, or nearby in local data centres? Mightn’t they even be more efficient? And can’t larger companies take advantage of their economies of scale and afford to invest in precisely the kind of research and development which will make data centres more energy efficient? Indeed, aren’t some cloud providers and data centres already “going green”?

In response, Google released a statement pointing out the internet and the cloud saved people from needing to travel by car or plane to meetings and was therefore greener than its alternatives.

“However, we also recognise that energy use by data centres is a concern,” the company said. “That’s why we choose renewable energy suppliers wherever we can... and we apply a shadow price for carbon when buying power for our data centres to encourage cleaner energy use.”

“Our researchers and engineers have been working for more than a decade on making our data centres as efficient as possible. In fact, Google data centres are 50 percent more energy-efficient than the industry standard.”

Microsoft released a statement pointing out its data centre in Quincy, Washington, used hydropower, and its Dublin, Ireland, data centre was cooled naturally by outside air.

Gary Cook, the lead author of Greenpeace’s report, told our sister title Cloud Pro he believed the cloud could indeed play an important role in reducing energy demand elsewhere but the lack of transparency and data on the energy footprint claims of companies like Google and Microsoft made it difficult to assess the claims they were making.

He acknowledged data centre and server design innovation could greatly improve efficiency and reduce overhead energy demand and more in the sector were comfortable sharing best-practice data, but again, transparency was vital to assess the environmental performance claims.

“Planting trees in front of your data centre to make it appear green, is just not going to cut it.”

Ali Moinuddin, from data centre service provider Interxion, said being seen to be environmentally responsible was becoming more important, thanks largely to the insistence of customers who want to see green credentials but “without affecting delivery”.

Email to a friend

Print this page