Mark Bramfitt - Utilities & IT

Apple to Buy a Small Hydropower System

In what has to be a first, Datacenter Dynamics reports that Apple is securing ownership of a small hydropower system near their new data center in Prineville Oregon.

I wonder what the actual terms of the deal are - is Apple actually buying the facility (what sounds like a short canal and a three MW generation plant), or have they simply contracted to purchase the power. It does seem clear that an arrangement has been made for wheeling the supply, with Bonneville Power and a local cooperative in the mix.

I'm afraid the article makes the common mistake of dealing in electric demand to determine if Apple is closing in on its goal of sourcing 100% renewable power for the Prineville facility. 20 MW of solar PV and another 3 to 5 MW from the hydro system does not represent about two-thirds of the projected facility load of 37 MW (if that is even where Apple is going on the demand side).

With ten or so hours of solar production, and a clear indication that the hydro plant is seasonally off-line, we're likely looking at maybe a third of the power needed for the data center coming from these sources. You always have to talk energy use, not demand, when characterizing a power supply portfolio under these circumstances.

That said, all due considerations to Apple for identifying a power supply option that I haven't seen another operator find. There are data centers (notably in Eastern Washington) that are powered exclusively by large hydro, provided by the local utility, but this is the first small-scale system deal I've seen. 

I expect Greenpeace will still cast a critical eye on Apple's efforts, and the industry as a whole. Their likely criticism of this deal is that it doesn't represent new renewable generation but rather secures power from an existing resource. Nevertheless, Apple is clearly moving in the direction of responsible power sourcing.

Microsoft Moving Closer to a REC-less Future?

After reading a pretty scant report this morning on Salon, I waited for what I knew would be a more thourough job from Datacenter Dynamics regarding Microsoft's power purchase moves in Texas.

Microsoft has entered into a power purchase agreement with a new wind farm that has 110 MW of capacity. But as noted in the report, it's not a pure-play direct access deal.

Microsoft buys the power, strips off the renewable energy credits (RECs) for use across it's facility portfolio (not just their Texas data center), then evidently sells the power back into the wholesale market.

That's really not much different than simply buying the RECs directly from the wind farm project, so it doesn't get them into the kind of deal that Google often makes, which is to buy the power outright and wheel it to their facilities. (That direct investment avoids the question of whether the project would have been built anyway.)

I was under the impression that Texas was pretty wide open when it came to utility deregulation, but I'm inferring that while you can opt to purchase your power from any number of providers, perhaps you can't make a deal directly with a generator. (Remeber that the local utility still gates paid for distribution, and the transmission system gets paid too.)

So I guess I see my esteemed colleague KC Mares' point that Texas still has a somewhat closed system, though I would never advocate what he does without two crucial caveats.

If you want full deregulation, you have to put in place rules about the obligation of utilities to serve customers. If the wind farm Microsoft is buying power from goes bust, what obligation does a utility have, if any, to secure generation resources to make up for that loss?

And perhaps more importantly, in a fully deregulated market, who is responsible for ensuring that enough generation capacity is developed? In California, which of course had a disastrous flirtation with deregulation (largely at the hands of certain Texans!), the utilities have had to get back into the generation development game because the "free market" can't raise capital in a fairly regulated market (let alone a fully deregulated one).

So I will certainly add Microsoft to my very short list of data center operators that are tackling the environmental impacts of their energy use, though the REC purchase approach is probably the least effective of the ways to address the issue.

 

GSMI Green Data Center Conference Presentation Deck

I took a quick trip to the outskirts of Dallas last week to deliver one of two keynote addresses at the GSMI Green Data Center Conference, focusing my remarks on the intersections of the data center and utility industries.

My remarks covered not only the utility and energy factors inherent in making a siting decison for a new data center, but why energy issues will be increasingly important for IT managers even for existing operations.

The concluding theme was that the IT industry and utilities have more to do with each other than ever, and that there are opportunities to partner on energy efficiency and perhaps load management and self generation. And for the big players, a need for them to help guide and influence energy policy and regulations, given the importance of the grid in supporting their business vision.

ASs I noted in an earlier post, it was gratifying to get insightful questions about energy policy in the final few minutes of my time slot, as well as good one-on-one discussions afterwards!

Here's a copy of the deck:

Download GSMI GDCON Dallas 6 2013

EUCI Presentation III: Environmental Considerations for DC Siting

This is the third of four(!) presentations I delivered at an EUCI data center forum in December in San Francisco, and I've just committed to attend their second conference on this subject in Philadelphia in June (details posted when available).

With a mixed audience of data center developers, utilities, and consultants, it was an interesting place to deliver some forthright commentary on the environmental consequences of siting large data center developments:  Download EUCI Presentation 3

On one hand, utilities like attracting these loads, but don't necessarily like to reveal the carbon content of their power. On the other side, where a utility-scale data center is located is the single most important criteria for the environmental impact of the facility, and seeking cheap rates usually means sourcing dirtier power.

On the carbon content point, I noted in the presentation that utilities are pretty lax in reporting the sources for their power. In California, there was a pretty good mandatory framework imposed by the state that has unfortunately been watered down somewhat (utilities can put all of their purchased power in an "other" category, making an often large chunk of their portfolio invisible to consumers).

The other key issue is that the carbon content varies utility-by-utility, even in the same geographical region. I charted California utilities in a white paper (link to your left) and found that municipal providers in California are often providing much dirtier power supplies than the investor-owned utilities.

The cheaper-is-dirtier paradigm doesn't hold in all cases. I cite the Pacific Northwest where some data center operators have been able to get utility power almost wholly reliant on large hydroelectric plants at very low rates, and the surprising amounts of nuclear and more recently even renewables in parts of the country like Virginia where coal has always been king.

My message to data center operators considering locations for new developments is to be sure they know what they are getting from the local utility, and to consider the risks of price increases going forward. States are imposing renewable energy requirments that will lead to greater rate impacts in areas of the country with low use of renewables, compared to other states that are meeting established targets.

For both audiences, I pointed out that regulators and NGOs like Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council are watching, as well as the mainstream press, a la the series of articles published recently by the New York Times.

 

My Riposte to DCD Editorial on Greenpeace Report

Many thanks to Ambrose McNevin for allowing me the opportunity to pen a different perspective on Greenpeace's efforts to rate leading cloud computing providers on their environmental commitment and credibility.

While I continue to have my own criticisms of Greenpeace's report, I do think they are shining a light on a legitimate issue, as Ambrose notes in his blog post today.  I have every expectation that the subject will generate more discussion, based on my email postbox this morning. 

(I hope the predictions that I'll never get consulting work in this industry again are incorrect!)

 

 

Reading Now: Hot by Mark Hertsgaard

I can't recommend this work highly enough, because Mark Hertsgaard focuses not solely on climate change mitigation efforts, but more importantly on the adaptation that will be required regardless of the success or failure of mitigation strategies.

I've read abundant commentary on how we must reduce the carbon output of our societies, and of course am a huge proponent of energy efficiency improvements as one slice of that puzzle.

But what struck me is that even if we successfully reduce our carbon emissions to sustainable levels tomorrow, we still face climate change that is already "locked in" from previous activities. 

That climate change will include no small measure of sea level rise (at least two feet based on conservative estimates, and perhaps much more), weather disruptions (mega-storms and changes in rainfall patterns), and potential water and food supply crises.

So we have two immense challenges, not one, and the alternative is "suffering" in Hertsgaard's calculus. We are going to loose land, more people are likely to go hungry, and mass migration will occur - some of this is going to happen even if we are nominally successful at mitigation and adaptation.

For my own part, the book reminded me to double-down on my commitment to finding sustainable solutions for water supply in my community, including the conservation, recharge, and reuse measures we've been considering for some time now.  I'm also meeting this week with our Resource Conservation District to better understand how the rise in San Francisco Bay levels will affect the southern shore of the Sonoma Valley, and what we plan to do to prepare for that.

In summary, Hot is a thought-provoking work, using compelling examples of climate change adaptation strategies from around the globe. It's well worth adding to your reading list.

 

Appeared At: Uptime Forum 2011

Bit of a conference whirlwind in the past few weeks - this is the first of a series recalling memorable themes form the events.

I attended all three days of the 2011 Uptime Forum in Santa Clara two weeks ago (and that's a long slog!), with the added bonus of sheparding two of my utility clients around the conference as they attended for the first time.

The 451 Group and their varied consulting groups (including Uptime) established a broad conference theme around the industry disruption that is or will occur as users move IT activities to cloud providers. I was most interested in the program on day three, which explored the energy and environmental impacts of this trend.

My "star turn" was to act as the moderator at an executive lunch session sponsored by Panduit and Power Analytics (formerly EDSA). They were joined by Byron Washom from the University of California San Diego, who is running what is essentially a highly integrated utility on campus featuring self generation of a variety of types, along with demand control and extensive metering and monitoring.

That setup lead us to our primary discussion, which centered on why data center operators are loathe to consider self generation, demand response, and load shifting opportunities. I had to get things rolling by calling on some participants (it's a good thing I knew at least half of the folks in the room!).

Many commenters posited that critical facility operators are too concerned about reliability to be open to supply and demand management. Byron truly put that in perspective by pointing out that his campus supports data center infrastructure, but that isn't even his critical load - he has medical facilities including a hospital with critical care units, and a storage facility for ice core samples dating back a century.

My ultimate assessment is that data center operators should be thinking about supply and demand management, and that there are good tools (including gear from Panduit and Power Analytics) that can get them there.  The industry is no better or no worse than other sectors when it comes to engaging more fully in these areas. Ultimately, some leaders will break out front, and they're likely to leverage the benefits by being a more competitive cloud service provider, search provider, or e-tailer.

Natural Gas Perhaps Not As Clean As Advertised

The New York Times has an article today reporting the results of a study by an acknowledged opponent of shale gas extraction, noting that methane released during production and distribution may obviate to some degree it's advantage as a cleaner carbon fuel than coal.

The point is that methane is a potent contributor to climate change: it dissipates more quickly into the atmosphere and traps more heat than carbon dioxide, so leaks are damaging. (No one is disputing that natural gas is at least twice as clean as coal when it is burned.)

The natural gas industry of course argues with the estimates of fuel losses throughout the production and delivery system, and whether the losses are higher for shale extraction compared to traditional wells. The utility industry ought to be able to state with a large degree of accuracy losses in distribution. (I know we accurately account for leakage at the water district where I serve on the board.)

This isn't a tempest in a tea cup, but it does point out that all types of energy production and delivery should be evaluated on an end-to-end supply chain perspective. All fuels require energy for processing and delivery (in some parts of the world natural gas is simply flared off as a waste product because the LNG market can't handle the load), and environmental impacts should properly be accounted for.

The issue raised by the report reminds me of the perception of utilities that I found in the information technology industry when I first started getting engaged on energy efficiency. Smart, bright engineers were saying that utilities lost as much as seventy percent of power generation to transmission and distribution losses.

Simply not true. Utilities lose as much as seventy percent of the energy from source fuel (for coal, natural gas, and biomass) in the power plant, but only four to seven percent in line losses. There is also a small band of over-production to provide gris stability (typically three to five percent), but being very clear about where these losses occur is crucial to understanding efficiency and environmental opportunities for improvement.

Slate Covers Greenpeace/Facebook Conflict

Elizabeth Wiengarten at Slate has a great piece on the Greenpeace "feud" with Facebook regarding their selection of a data center site in Oregon that will be served by utility PacifiCorp.

There are a couple of points that deserve amplification: Facebook is not the biggest operator of data centers - not by far. In fact, the new facility (which already has an expansion in the offing), is Facebook's first stand-alone. They are well known as renters of co-location space, but even considering that load, I wouldn't think they're even in the top ten of data center operators in the US.

Next, Facebook and other operators can locate in areas where utilities offer a cleaner generation mix. Claiming that network connectivity and availability of employees are deciding factors in the siting of data centers is hogwash - power costs and availability trump all other considerations, every time, with the exception of financial services companies who crave proximity to trading centers.

(Is Facebook claiming a pool of qualified employees in Prineville? Really? And superior network connectivity?)

So while I too wonder whether Greenpeace's motivations are pure (they could after all go after other high profile targets, or the industry as a whole), they have a valid point. The operators of utility-scale data centers have an obligation to operate as efficiently as possible, and to drive utilities to cleaner generation portfolios by voting with their site selection.

Looking forward to seeing how this plays out. 

 

Anyone See This Coming? The "Shame" of Coal Power for Data Centers

Many of us in the data center industry - or in the power business - have watched with some bemusement as utility-scale data center operators champion the energy efficient designs of their facilities on one hand, while seeking the lowest possible power costs on the other.  

Those low costs in rare cases come from sweet deals with municipal utilities with clean power generation portfolios - like hydro power in eastern Washington. But more often than not, cheap electricity comes with the environmental "price" of being sourced from coal-fired power plants.

Well, I guess Greenpeace is less amused, and certainly more forthright in criticizing this practice. According to the New York Times Green blog, the environmental group is using social networking to criticize Facebook for the location of their new data center in Oregon, and more particularly where local utility PacifiCorp sources the power that will serve the site.

Facebook defends the location as ideal for taking advantage of free cooling, and while I can't divulge everything I know about their operations, I can say that Facebook is in the vanguard of companies driving innovation in energy efficient IT equipment.

But Greenpeace has a point, and one that can be fairly extended to the utility-scale data center market as a whole. 

The resolution of this conundrum, in my view, is an increased partnership between the industry and utilities, addressing energy efficiency, demand response, and yes, power sourcing. The IT industry as a whole needs to engage proactively in these matters to avoid potentially damaging criticism now and in the future.