A Free Trial That Lets You Build Big!
Start building with 50+ products and up to 12 months usage for Elastic Compute Service
There is a way to solve the "high pollution" problem in the past and in the future.
I often receive a large number of emails within a week. Many of these emails were sent by PR personnel who tried to gain the opportunity to receive attention or praise from customers. I am very sorry for them. In fact, I don't mind receiving such emails, because there are often emails that really attract me. I always want to reply "YES!" quickly !" Even if I am not interested in the subject, I will reply to most emails. Only a few emails are deleted. However, occasionally one or two emails will resonate with me, even if it is a negative resonance. This article focuses on such an email that has aroused a negative resonance.
The beginning of this email actually aroused my positive resonance, but a paragraph later completely changed my mind. The following is the complete content of this email and my "deep-seated comments ":
Over the past year alone, more and more people have tried to portray cloud computing as a natural "energy-saving and environmental protection", because cloud computing has many advantages: hardware that integrates servers, improves server utilization, and reduces enterprises' internal energy consumption. In fact, a survey by the Carbon Disclosure Project claims that by 2020, large U.S. companies using cloud computing are expected to save $12.3 billion in energy costs. Although there is no doubt great hope, it is extremely difficult to measure the effectiveness of cloud computing and the environmental impact due to the rapid development of cloud computing, a wide variety of devices, and constant changes in technologies and business models.
[This information is very good. The report on carbon emissions is also very detailed. This aroused my interest.]
But in fact, the engine pushing cloud computing development is still a data center. Therefore, whether cloud computing is truly energy-saving or environmentally friendly is the energy efficiency of data centers.
[Indeed. Now, I am waiting to hear the climax of a specific plan or story. I am curious about the possibilities.]
While there is great potential for clean energy, many companies are expanding their data center facilities to meet cloud computing requirements without considering their own sources of energy for running these data centers. According to a recent report by Greenpeace, large companies, including Amazon, apple, and Microsoft, continue to use "highly polluting" sources, this includes coal, nuclear energy, and diesel from large field generators.
[Wait. Does this really mention "Greenpeace? I pay attention to cleaning and energy-saving and environmental protection, but I do not wear sandals or Toyota Prius (an energy-saving and environmentally friendly car), not only eat vegetables. If you want to communicate with me, you 'd better not join the Green Peace Organization. My fingers have moved to the deletion key involuntarily.]
To alleviate the negative impact of "highly polluting energy" on the environment, we are now paying more and more attention to the use of renewable energy sources, such as geothermal energy, water and electricity energy, wind energy, and solar energy, it is used to run big data center projects such as cloud computing. However, to obtain such "Clean Energy" sources depends largely on where the data center is built and whether it is adjacent to these sources. In addition, location and energy sources have become the primary concern because up to $450 billion a year is spent on expanding new data center sites. But what will happen when the best "green" location gets too crowded? Can the data center cloud computing project actually continue to use renewable energy? Or is the rapid development of cloud computing itself forcing many companies to continue to rely on "highly polluting energy "?
Although it is interesting to discuss green energy, it is impractical. Take a look at the several alternative energy sources mentioned in this email: geothermal energy, water and electricity energy, wind energy, and solar energy. As we have said, location is a major factor. The email did not mention the sea for cooling, which is actually a green alternative.
Let me explain the problems with green alternative energy.
Geothermal energy:Location is the biggest problem of geothermal energy. You must place the data center close to the geothermal vent. This usually means that it is built in areas with frequent earthquakes. The second problem with "geothermal energy" is the cost. The cost of building facilities is extremely high, and any cost advantages arising from the use of geothermal energy as an energy source are lost.
Hydropower:For this type of energy, the location is also very limited. Location is also the biggest problem with this kind of energy. Another problem is the highest power generation. The Hoover dam is the world's largest hydro-electric facility, with a high power generation but limited. Water and electricity are not a good alternative to green energy unless you can build your data center in a place where such energy is available. This "green" Alternative Energy has nearly wiped out four species of fish, undermining the natural flow of the Colorado River. So although this is a green alternative, it is estimated that Greenpeace is angry with its negative impact on the environment and will not use it as a selling point. I just want to give some comments.
Solar energy:Solar energy is a ridiculous alternative to energy sources, even when the sun shines at the beginning of the year. You cannot obtain enough power to run a large data center. In addition, the cost will be high so that you can exit the data center market. However, as an additional or complementary source of energy, solar energy is worth noting. You can use solar energy for lighting, safety, and any other non-computing energy needs. However, to become a source of energy for a data center, it is useless.
Wind energy:Unfortunately, as a source of data center energy, wind energy is equally impractical. The cost is too high and annoying. The Green Peace Group should know that wind energy has killed many birds. It is expensive to store wind energy, and it is still in the research stage. This is an unpredictable energy, so it cannot be a basic energy solution at all. However, I think the best place to combine wind energy solutions and biogas will be Washington.
Sea water:This energy source is hardly worth exploring because it has many problems. To use the data center for cooling, You need to ship the sea water to the data center. Are you planning to build the data center near the sea? The sea water is very abrasive, and the coastal air is also like this. Pumping sea water requires high costs. Coastal areas are also not suitable for co-building data centers because of various threats such as tropical storms, earthquakes, and tsunami.
As we all know, oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power have problems with these so-called sources of highly polluted energy. However, there are some ways to keep the data center running smoothly and ensure high energy efficiency. I can't tell you how to do this. However, I would like to tell you how to build a more reasonable and energy-saving data center. The method is as follows:
Underground:The data center is built underground. You do not have to build it on a very deep ground. In the depths of the earth below two meters, the formation temperature is quite constant, No matter what location or season, have you ever stayed in the cave? Do you think it's cool? You can achieve constant temperature without any air conditioners or heating. Computing hardware emits heat that can be routed to the surface for residential heating, office heating, animal heating, or other purposes-creative.
Solar/wind:On the surface of the Underground Data Center, you can add solar and wind energy sources to help air flow in the data center, or water circulation for heat exchange, or meet the minimum requirements for comparison and power supply from other aspects.
TH:Now you should know it. It is a way to meet our future energy needs. It is a natural radioactive element in nature. It has a sufficient quantity and does not need to be concentrated at all. Its toxicity is less than that of uranium. It is ready for use at any time in the form of natural isotope. At present, someone is studying cars, home reactors, and power stations powered by the son of things. Combined with an underground data center and an independent th-ton reactor, you have plenty of energy. If you think I'm joking, you can search for it on your own. However, it is indeed your future. This green alternative energy source will be around us. In my opinion, compared to all other alternative energy sources, Greenpeace will approve such sources.
Ordinary data centers have clean alternative energy. We must change the way we build a data center, the way we work in the data center, and the way we power the data center. In my opinion, we can no longer use coal to power cars, houses, companies, and data centers, thus wasting such valuable resources. Instead, we should use renewable or practical alternative energy.
We are faced with a new reality. We need to calm down and consider what countermeasures we should take. The demand for computing power will increase dramatically. We cannot let technology manipulate ourselves, destroy our economy, or damage our living environment.
If we want to continue to enjoy what the technology world brings, we need to repeat technology into our human origins: caves. If we combine future energy needs and past avoidance, We Can cleverly solve the problem.
What kind of ideas do you have? Can we succeed with nuclear technology and stone-age houses? Leave a message.
Start building with 50+ products and up to 12 months usage for Elastic Compute Service