Sitewide
RSS Feed:
Green IT: We're getting there. Slowly.
 |
By: David Tebbutt, Programme Director, Freeform Dynamics Published: 5th March 2008 Copyright Freeform Dynamics © 2008 |
 |
Delicious
Digg
reddit
Facebook
StumbleUponOne of the great things about working for Freeform Dynamics is that we get to find out what's actually going on inside organisations. How? Well, we are able to survey the readers of The Register; one of the most successful online IT publications in the world.
Recently we've conducted a couple of surveys and participated in a four-hour online debate, all around the subject of Green Computing. The surveys attracted about 2,400 responses and the conference hundreds of delegates. These people were all, naturally, interested in the subject and, by and large, involved in IT in some way. But the view that they gave us was enormously interesting and we were able to slice and dice the numbers by geography, type of company, company size and their attitudes to environmental issues.
You can listen to the presentations now so, rather than go over old ground, I thought I'd flick through the stack of unasked questions and deal with a few here. Even though we allowed over two hours for questions and answers, quite a few fell by the wayside.
People were demanding a reduction of the environmental footprint of equipment manufacture. If, as one speaker claimed, 75 percent of a PC's environmental footprint is accounted for before it is switched on, then it's clear that the manufacturer has the greatest potential to reduce the environmental impact of its machines.
This would have to include the supply chain—if components are made in China, for example, does this mean the energy is derived from coal-fired power stations? It needs to cover the packaging and transport of the elements and of the finished goods. It needs to take account of the consumption of raw materials, the pollution of the land, the air and the water. And it needs to take account of end-of-life recyclability.
This is all way too complicated for buyers to assess. They need ratings such as the EU Energy Labels on white goods which rank products from A to G.
The environmental impact figures are more or less inverted for servers. According to some, their working life accounts for 75 percent of the overall impact. I would imagine that this refers to energy alone, but it still suggests that attention to usage could pay significant dividends, especially as electricity prices continue to rocket.
Hanging over all the decisions is the big one: cost justification. Many people asked how they can convince their finance departments to cough up for greener but more expensive products.
In due course, environmentally-focused regulations and taxes will start to put pressure on various bits of the supply chain and on a company's own environmental performance. It would be nice to think that some carrots might be mixed with the regulatory sticks but I won't be holding my breath.
Some companies, of course, are already seeing a PR value in going green and others, such as Sun Microsystems, IBM and Cisco have found ways of slashing their travel, accommodation and office expenses by adopting various forms of teleconferencing and teleworking. This rather neatly fits a green agenda too. So, in certain types of organisation, simple cost justifications can be made already.
None of this is easy. Prioritising actions is difficult. Some people were worrying about the difference between leaving a computer powered up to read stuff on screen and printing it and powering the machine down. (My vote would be to keep the machine running, but I fully expect to hear a counter-argument.) The data centre consolidation and virtualisation story is a good one from all perspectives. Smarter cooling, too, can be cost justified. But once you've done these things, then what?
This is where measures and guidance are sorely needed. I have spent masses of time rummaging around to try and find some decent measures. I've asked experts in the field and we're all agreed: we're not there yet. Bits of guidance exist—Energy Star, the EPEAT programme and the Greenpeace Barometer, for example. But nothing that makes it easy for people to make sensible decisions.
However, in the UK at least, several organisations—the British Computer Society, the cross-government CTO Council, the Market Transformation Programme and others, are working on various parts of the measurement jigsaw. Some results are expected this year. Organisations like the Carbon Trust and the Environment Agency are trying to keep a handle on what's going on so that efforts are complementary and not wasted.
Data centres will figure largely early on but the CTO Council will make public a list of topics, prioritised by practicality and the amount of benefit which will accrue. Scorecards, benchmarks, strategy templates and procurement guidelines are all part of the mix.
It's astonishing that we've known about upcoming environmental problems for decades now, but we're only just beginning to take things seriously. This is why the help and guidance we need is still not readily available. We're just going to have to use common sense for now and make environmentally friendly choices whenever possible.
Reader Comments
We are no longer accepting comments against this item. We suggest contacting the author directly.
13th March 2008: 'Simon' said:
I work for a supplier of products to the ICT industry in Australia, B&R Data Systems (I mention their name to justify myself writing this at work). We are currently looking at our environmental policies, and to be honest are finding it really hard to work out what we can do.
To give you an example of our problems, there are at least 6 different initiatives we can sign up to. Probably 2 of them really are applicable to what we do, the others we can just do. On top of that we have the issue of economics. If we make a green product we have to go through a rigorous assessment procedure, and offset product carbon costs. This is going to cost us which we obviously need to pass on to the customer. We are left with the problem, if we do this will we gain market share from the increased 'marketability' of green products, or will we actually lose market share because our products will become more expensive?
Essentially we are left in confusion. We can do the right thing, but will it wreck or market, or we can do nothing.
I would be interested in your comments. Let me, and other similar manufacturers know. Would you pay extra for a carbon neutral, or a known amount of carbon production. If so how much extra would you pay? I have seen figures of up to 15%, but would you really do that?
As datacentre operators, you are faced with the same problems as us suppliers. If you buy equipment 15% more expensively, you will need to pass on that cost. This would probably represent only a few percent of your costs, but would your customers go for it?
Please let me know, as I think this issue is one that we need to solve together, not in an atmosphere of competition and suspicion of profiteering.
13th March 2008: 'David Tebbutt' said:
Thanks for the question. It's a really tough one isn't it? First of all, you can't crucify your business on green idealism if your customers aren't ready for the move or can't be persuaded it's the right thing to do. If your more expensive green products deliver savings to them which exceed the extra cost, then you're in with a shout. Anything else, you need to tread carefully.
I have talked this over with colleagues and we're agreed that the decision needs to be made holistically - R&D, ops, sales and marketing - if any one part of the equation is missing - or weak - then a green move will not work. You'd need a top rate marketeer (that means creativity and talent for market analysis). If you lead, it's better than waiting for the market to pull or for your competitors to beat you to it. You don't really want to be on the defensive. And you can be certain that your competitors (assuming they're awake) will all be wrestling with the same issues.
A final thought is that if you get the PR story right could you sell more and take a hit on the margin but not lose overall.
Bear in mind that we are observers and analysts of what's going on. We're not marketeers or business advisors. But, for what they're worth, they're our thoughts at the moment.
If anyone out there has wrestled with similar uncomfortable situations, we'd love you to join in this conversation.
14th March 2008: 'Simon' said:
Thanks for the reply.
One thing you didn't mention is if data centre owners are not trusting vendors because of lack of proof, what would be trusted? My guess would be an independent audit would go some of the way, but what about compliance with a standard so that there is no question, and no having to review documents.
14th March 2008: 'David Tebbutt' said:
Hi Simon. I hope I've understood you.
Standards would be great. They'd solve a lot of problems. I suspect they're a way off yet. And independent audits are good, except you have to have the products out there and that means up front risk and expense.
Since I wrote previously, I've been on your site and found out what you do. I really should have done this before my previous reply, which was somewhat generic.
You are dealing with a highly aware audience for racking and related systems. The data centre is highly motivated to improve its effectiveness, especially in energy terms.
I'm no expert on racking systems but I do know that some manufacturers are already improving their cable runs so that cooling air flows more freely. Others are putting local sensors on to micromanage air movements.
I would have thought that your edge could come from deliberately designed 'green' racks which you could offer alongside the traditional ones. If they are effective and help the data centre towards its objectives, then a) you can price accordingly and b) transition over time as the market cottons on to your value.
Once again, I am not a business advisor or marketeer, more of an observer. Some of my colleagues are much deeper into data centre stuff. I'll let them know we're having this conversation and they may want to join in.
14th March 2008: 'Tony Lock' said:
As David has pointed out many manufacturers have already started to address "global" green issues, including those of their supply, distribution and disposal logistics. Some, Fujitsu-Siemens for example, has long produced ranges of products (i.e. PCs) that they have marketed as being more green than standard offerings (its own and those of competitors) and has had some success in certain markets at keeping a small green premium in the margin of the products. The real question of physical data centre racks comes down to ensuring that the procurement, distribution and disposal chains are as eco-efficient as possible, and frankly these also considerations usually ensure that costs are also optimised unless the core raw components entail a massive green premium. Whilst there is no doubt that the big picture is everything, there might also be an opportunity for some rack manufactures to add electricity monitoring and management options to the rack to provide systems management tools with accurate information on power consumption, an area that most IT plaforms available today to not handle well. As you know when it comes to data centre power consumption the pressure is now well and truely on. Would customers be willing to pay more for a rack with power monitoring capabilities, for each componet operational within the rack rather than the rack as a whole? I suspect the answer will be yes, at least if sold as part of power optimisation programme for existing platforms that do not have these capabilities. After all, it should be possible to make the business case on electricity consumption alone.
17th March 2008: 'Simon' said:
Thanks for both of your comments.
As you know we manufacture racks amongst other things, and we are of course moving down the line of optimising airflow, and more advanced power monitoring. I have to say that we are taking most of our queues from the Green Grid on the power monitoring side, and I guess that we have the advantage that we supply switchboards and pdu's which means we can measure the PUE at the two extremes. Anyway this sounds like a sales pitch which it certainly isn't meant to be.
What we have experienced recently is one of the large banks in Australia, ANZ, asked what the carbon cost to produce our racks would be. They also said they would not buy unless we could tell them and off-set it. Although this is probably extreme, I have to say that their approach is very good, and makes me happy that I bank with them, however how common is it?
On top of the carbon cost issues, sending racks out usually means an incredible amount of waste packaging, there is no recycle program on the packaging, or the racks themselves, which would be very recyclable.
What I am hearing from you at the moment is that the way we produce and ship racks is not that important in the grand scheme of things. I would guess that this is true in total energy consumption. The trouble is I can't put my hand on my heart and say that is definitively the case. This means that if we don't know the energy cost to produce our equipment I would have trouble pushing sales along a green line, and without having some system our customers would believe it is hard to go down this line too.
Maybe morally I am out of step here. What are your opinions?
18th March 2008: 'David Tebbutt' said:
Hi Simon
I'm actually all in favour of organisations making their supply chains 'green'. In my response to your first comment I said "...you can't crucify your business on green idealism if your customers aren't ready for the move..."
It sounds to me that this particular customer *is* ready for the move. In which case I think there's a lot you can do. Might I suggest downloading a PDF from the Carbon Trust called "Carbon Footprints in the Supply Chain"?
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/publications/publicationdetail?productid=CTC616
It goes through the principles you need to follow and provides a couple of case studies as well.
19th March 2008: 'Tony Lock' said:
Simon
I live in Germany and nearly all packaging materials are recycled here. In addition several of the large infrastructure vendors (and a number of specialist companies) provide IT equipment recycle / reuse / resell services. Indeed IBM states that it manages to recycle or reuse well over 98% by weight of all equipment that its recycle business operates (and not just of IBM kit).
25th March 2008: 'Simon' said:
Thanks for all your comments. It is great to see such an interest. The link was good too!
I am also glad to hear about the recycle plan in Germany. I hope to push for something similar here, as you can be sure we will have to do it at some time, so we might as well start now.
25th March 2008: 'David Tebbutt' said:
Good luck Simon. It's been good chatting.
The messages above were all contributed by IT-Director.com readers. Whilst we take care to remove any posts deemed inappropriate, we can take no responsibility for these comments. If you would like a comment removed please contact our editorial team.