Google opens up on seven years of its data center history

http://gigaom.com/cloud/google-opens-up-on-seven-years-of-its-data-center-history/

by aphtab • 14 years ago

77 37 14 years ago

From the linked post [1], 1/4 the power to run pumps instead of fans is a major difference!

Was curious if using local water sources would have any environmental impact from the heat or flow, and found an article talking about the first seawater-cooled center, from only May 2011 [2]. Google apparently creates a 30-year thermal model of the effect on the environment. I hope other corporations take their consideration and transparency as an example.

[1] http://www.greenm3.com/gdcblog/2012/11/13/google-adopts-wate...

[2] http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-to-switch-on-worlds-first...

dm8• 14 years ago

They innovated on three frontiers - search engine algorithm, intent based advertising, and data center/infrastructure technology. A startup has to be really good at one thing to succeed. Google was really good at 3 three things right from it's early days.

marshallp3• 14 years ago

As much as I like google, I doubt they're as good as that. Their search and advertising is essentially a monopoly because they have such a data lead over anyone else. That's why facebook freaks them out because they know how having more data is the secret sauce. Their data center innovations don't seem all that incredibly innovative. If they had robots whirring around I'd be much more impressed.

Gustomaximus• 14 years ago

> If they had robots whirring around I'd be much more impressed.

They kinda do. See their self driving cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

rdl9• 14 years ago

I wonder how much global warming gets prevented just through everyone adopting these practices for datacenters (either directly or by switching to cloud providers with an economic incentive to do so).

Maybe a carbon tax wouldn't be so unreasonable, if it shifts more innovation like this. There's probably a "Google of Cement Production", agriculture (arguably this is Monsanto or ADM or Cargill, as much as they are reviled over IP, they are quite efficient), etc.

ars5• 14 years ago

There already is an energy tax. You have to pay for energy.

A carbon tax on top of that wouldn't effect efficiency.

fiesycal• 14 years ago

The argument is that the cost of extracting the energy and transforming it into a usable source does not match the cost it does to the environment once that energy is used. That's what the carbon tax is for. It's for the carbon (pollutants) you produce not for the energy you use. Hence why it's called a carbon tax and not an energy tax.

paulsutter• 14 years ago

The most important feature of a carbon tax is that it start small and get progressively larger over the next thirty to fifty years.

Carbon tax isn't about fairness or justice. It's about making investors feel safe allocating long term dollars into alternative energy r&d over a timeline long enough to allow a real transition. A gradually increasing carbon tax is the simplest and surest way for the government to catalyze innovation.

Bloomberg[1] says a current discussion in Washington is for a $20/ton carbon tax increasing by 6% a year. That's $33/ton in 10 years, $60/ton in 20, and $350/ton in 50 years.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/obama-may-levy-carb...

philwelch5• 14 years ago

Energy prices only reflect the immediate traceable costs of that energy, not the costs of the externalities of carbon production. Making something more expensive changes cost-benefits and changes incentives.

wmf• 14 years ago

Data centers are 1-2% of the world's energy usage.

rdl9• 14 years ago

Yeah, but it is unclear what fuels power them. If it's 2% powered by nuclear/hydro, making them use 1/4 the electrical energy is less of a win than if there are big savings in places powered by coal or diesel or fuel oil.

At first glance the big datacenters are going in places with cheap hydro (TVA powers NoVA, right? and OR/WA, although they do use more coal than I would have thought).

Transportation remains one of the biggest potential wins, and some weird things like cement production which are huge outliers relative to economic value created.

patrickgzill2• 14 years ago

Sorry, a carbon tax will do absolutely nothing for the environment - the money will just go into the general fund, that is, the same slush fund that politicians already use for buying votes and paying off contributors to their re-election fund.

rdl9• 14 years ago

Taxes both raise revenue and "distort" the economy.

In some cases, these distortions are accidental (no one really wants capital investment reduced, which is the effect of even a 0.1% capital gains tax; they just consider the revenue raised to be more important than the distortion).

In some cases, the distortions are themselves the goal. Cigarette taxes are a great example -- I think the economy overall would be better off if there were 0% revenue on a $50/pack cigarette tax, as it would save health care and other costs far higher than the revenue on a $0.50/pack cigarette tax. Or, a local tax per-bag of trash produced, in excess of direct disposal taxes, in an attempt to capture the external costs of waste. (in Zurich, I think the bags are something like $5 each)

Carbon taxes could be either, but a steadily increasing carbon tax is much more like a cigarette tax than a capital gains tax.

philwelch5• 14 years ago

Taxing something makes it more expensive, which reduces it. First law of economics: people respond to incentives.

aphtab• 14 years ago

Might wanna read this one too:

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-backs-iowa-wind-farm-has-...

Google opens up on seven years of its data center history

Related Stories