How Clean is Your Cloud?

Posted by petespeller - 17 April 2012 at 4:30pm - Comments

If you use a smartphone, Facebook, email or any sort of online storage then you're using what is referred to as "the cloud". Every day, our lives revolve more and more around the phenomenon that is the cloud. We check our email, store our music, and share photos and status updates. It’s a key part of how we connect with our friends and family.

But have you ever stopped to wonder… where does the cloud actually exist?

The companies that give us the cloud keep all that data in huge warehouses called data centres which are switched on 24/7. Keeping these services running requires huge amounts of electricity, much of which comes from dirty, dangerous energy like coal and nuclear power. This problem is growing fast. We found that if the cloud were its own country, it would rank fifth in the world for how much electricity it uses, and that electricity demand will triple by 2020!

Our new How Clean is Your Cloud report, launched today, looks at the data centres of 14 of the top global IT companies - like Microsoft, Apple, IBM or Amazon - and challenges these 21st century companies to end their reliance on a 19th century power source and invest in clean, renewable energy.

Thankfully, our growing cloud could actually be a really good thing for the planet if powered by clean energy, not coal. We’re already seeing companies like Google, Yahoo and Facebook lead the way by moving toward powering their clouds with clean energy, partly in thanks to you.

"Data centers are switched on 24/7"

Yes, well then you might be able to deduce from that sentence why they are not powered by renewable energy - which is intermittent and does not produce a constant output 24/7.

My question is "how clean is greenpeace"? GP has over 40 headquarters world wide, their carbon footprint has to be phenominal. GP uses facebook,twitter and every other public media they can to spread their word without acknowledging that they too use coal and nuclear energy to exist. The hypocrisy seems never ending with this self appointed eco police organization. Step up GP and share your energy usage with the world you claim to care so much about.

I'm a Greenpeace supporter
but I can't help thinking there must be far more pressing environmental
matters around the world than this one.

Call me cynical but could it be that Greenpeace simply chose to focus on 'The Cloud' as it's currently a trendy buzz-word?

As we are building 'the greenest data centre in the world' in Norway because we are 100% hydro powered we welcome the report as data  networks now allow facilities to be located anywhere [within reason] but disappointed Norway was not mentioned in the report.

The bigger question I guess  is whether the book ordered and deliverd by E Bay or the shopping online from Tesco is a 'greener' alternative, that is a complex question with many more variables.

An e mail is certainly 'greener' than a letter sent by post!

The current basic text for IT practitioners is a little book called "Green IT for sustainable business practice". There are real differences between the version of Green IT put forward there, and the Greenpeace version as it appears in the report on cloud computing. I think we should worry that the PUE metric is still being touted as a bade of Green honour, especially as IT's carbon footprint is huge and growing. See more on this issue at http://bit.ly/JptCN7

@Huw Jones

In the article it mentions that google, yahoo and facebook are already doing this, so there's no argument about whether it's possible.

@nuke roadie

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/about/measuring-our-own-carbon-footpri...

@Mart B

'The Cloud' uses about twice as much electricity as the entire UK - it's kind of a big deal.

I do wonder whether this particular campaign was thought through. The PUE rating is very important and if you talk to any cloud provider such as Amazon, MSFT etc you would find that a key goal is keeping this figure as low as possible and also to get this power from renewable sources. It's great PR for them as well as saving costs. One thing not mentioned is how many organisations outsource to these cloud providers because they want to cut down on their own inefficient emissions. Consolidation and virtualisation of data does save considerable energy. IT companies are always looking to reduce energy consumption.. its a massive cost. There are of course other factors that have been pointed out.. Does having virtual meetings and video conferencing which are often bridged from these datcenters save on our energy use? Does the fact that access to cloud data can be done from anywhere, including people working from home cut down on our CO2 emmisions? Does downloading an ebook and/or any document rather than printing it off save energy? There are more areas to discuss but I dont want to rant on and bore you with this. My point here is that this is a bigger debate than just whether one of these data center providers is actually using coal or nuclear power.. its whether, in the grand scheme of things there is an overall saving. Surely we should be a little pragmatic. 

 

I do work in cloud computing, so yes I gues I have a different point of view...A lot of my customers look to cloud to reduce their CO2 emmisions, and yes. even if it's hosted for them its still counted as part of their carbon allowance.. 

I do wonder whether this particular campaign was thought through. The PUE rating is very important and if you talk to any cloud provider such as Amazon, MSFT etc you would find that a key goal is keeping this figure as low as possible and also to get this power from renewable sources. It's great PR for them as well as saving costs. One thing not mentioned is how many organisations outsource to these cloud providers because they want to cut down on their own inefficient emissions. Consolidation and virtualisation of data does save considerable energy. IT companies are always looking to reduce energy consumption.. its a massive cost. There are of course other factors that have been pointed out.. Does having virtual meetings and video conferencing which are often bridged from these datcenters save on our energy use? Does the fact that access to cloud data can be done from anywhere, including people working from home cut down on our CO2 emmisions? Does downloading an ebook and/or any document rather than printing it off save energy? There are more areas to discuss but I dont want to rant on and bore you with this. My point here is that this is a bigger debate than just whether one of these data center providers is actually using coal or nuclear power.. its whether, in the grand scheme of things there is an overall saving. Surely we should be a little pragmatic. 

 

I do work in cloud computing, so yes I gues I have a different point of view...A lot of my customers look to cloud to reduce their CO2 emmisions, and yes. even if it's hosted for them its still counted as part of their carbon allowance.. 

Follow Greenpeace UK