Kate's Comment

Thoughts on British ICT, energy & environment, cloud computing and security from Memset's MD

Sweat the desktops, replace the servers

People keep going around and around in circles on the debate of whether you should replace servers and desktops sooner rather than later when you take into account the improvements in energy efficiency in recent years combined with the embedded energy cost of manufacture of computers. So, I decided to get out my calculator and made some interesting conclusions.

Materials, manufacture and distribution of an average PC currently in use today is is between 750 kilo Watt hours (kWh) for the most modern “green” PCs, and 1,300 kWh for machines of a few years go. You then have to add on about 300kWh for a LED screen (500kWh for a CRT screen). Even if we take the best case scenario we are still looking at a minimum of 1,000kWh for a desktop system, and laptops will only be a little less (most of the energy in PC manufacture goes into making the small, complex components such as chips).

An average PC made within the last few years, with its screen, uses about 100W when powered up and 3W when in hibernate mode. If we assume that the PC is on for 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, and is hibernating overnight we get 200kWh/year “on” usage and 20kWh/year standby usage.

So, a 3-4 year old PC probably used 1,200kWh to make and uses 220kWh/year to run, whereas a modern super-green PC might use 1,000kWh to make and burn 150kWh/year. To look at it financially, you will save about £7/year by switching to a super-green PC. Therefore it makes neither financial nor environmental sense to swap out old PCs before about 6 years. If you need to update the software, then switch to some sort of virtual desktop infrastructure instead and use the PCs as thin clients.

The same sums applied to servers on 24/7 are quite different though. An average £1,000 1U rack-mount server bought 3-4 years ago probably “cost” about 1,000-1,500kWh to make and uses 120W at moderate load, which over a year is 1,050kWh, or at least 1,500kWh when data centre cooling is taken into account. The latest equivalent “green” servers use as little as 80W, so swapping to energy efficient servers will save 400kWh/year in electricity and get you 2-4 times more performance.

With good use of virtualisation to consolidate existing applications onto a smaller number of machines (thus taking advantage of the performance improvements) it makes clear environmental and economic sense to replace machines after 2-3 years. Alternatively, if IT is not your core business activity then you could always consider outsourcing your server infrastructure to a carbon neutral IT host such as Memset of course. ;)

As for the old servers, why not give them away to Africa via Computer Aid International, where our “outdated” hardware is much needed and will be put to good & efficient use (ie. it will only be on when they need it).


Addendum June 2009: There are some very cool technologies like Very PC’s Greenhive (a hybrid between PCs and thin client) which are changing the argument around replacing desktop PCs.

Thin client is also reaching maturity now that you can get a decent amount of bandwidth from ADSL and that Windows Server 2008 includes most of the functionality of Citrix at no extra charge. Thin client is definitely the future I think.

7 comments

  1. anonymous Sep 11, 2008 13:26 Hi Kate

    you are always get right!

    Maico
  2. anonymous Sep 24, 2008 16:51 Kate, one of the things that cloud any energy debate, be it on green IT, security of supply, rising cost etc is that the vast majority of end-users, including some big UK business users just don't know how much they use: No one has a clue thanks to the steam age metering in our digital world.
    Visit our web site www.nohotair.co.uk and tell your customers to as well. We figure virtualising servers is not only green, but more greedily, will save an enterprise far more than outdated concepts of switching supplier. The payback is immediate as well! We figure that up to a third of business electricity bills can really disappear by going virtual!

    Another key problem is that energy and IT users often don't speak to one another and don't realise how they can help each other. That comes a lot from energy not being important at board level, although at prices way over 100% up year on year that is finally changing. But getting back to point one: lots of people don't know where to start.
  3. anonymous Oct 10, 2008 14:49 Hi Kate

    Are you able to give a source for those manufacturing and distribution figures?

    Regards

    James

    langstraatj@halcrow.com
  4. Kate Oct 10, 2008 19:44 Hi James & Helen,

    Sorry for being a bit slow to reply - I've been busy jumping jumping out of an airplane in in the Himilayas! http://jumpeverest.com

    Anyway, I got my figures from a collection of sources; some direct from Fujitsu on their new super-green manufacture plant (at a conference on green IT at Oxford Uni), and some direct from Dell (who we buy most of our kit from). The most helpful source, though, was a paper in Environmental Science & Technology (2004, 38, 6166-6174) by Eric Williams titled "Energy Intensity of Computer Manufacturing: Hybrid Assessment Combining Process and Economic Input-Output Methods".

    I took that paper and applied some of the latest figures from the manufacturers to his calculations. I also did a bit of research on LCDs (his paper talks about CRTs), but there was not a lot of info on manufacturing costs so I it ended up being a bit of an educated guess.
  5. Kate Oct 10, 2008 19:55 I have been looking at www.nohotair.co.uk and it is a great site - I've started pointing others there too.

    Good point about going virtual too; for us it was initially a cost-saving initiative, but that is of course synonymous with energy-saving. Most green initiatives in IT also save money - a simple example is swapping out 3-year-old servers for modern energy-efficient ones with a solid virtualisation program; you get a payback within a year in some cases.

    Finally, yes you are very right about a lack of comms between the IT dept and the end-users. Some of our customers come to us in large part for the reason that it allows them to give clear pricing to their internal end-users, since they don't have the means to bill internally for self-hosted kit.
  6. Peter Hopton Jun 1, 2009 14:42 Interesting Figures, here's some more to chew on;

    A three year old PC will typically idle at about 70(best)-210W(worst) eg;
    http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/environ/Opti_GX520_DT.pdf
    http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/environ/Dim9200.pdf

    A recent study done for the US EPA which went into Energy Star 5.0 indicates a typical energy consumption cycle is approximated by taking 40%x On-Idle + 5%x Sleep + 55%x Off.

    So the first machine above has a TEC of 255KWh/yr
    The Second machine has a TEC of 753KWh/yr

    Of course now we've got dual core desktops using 26W idle and less (16W for our fulwood) with a TEC of 102KWh/yr
  7. Carbon cost of Downloads vs. CDs | Kate's Comment Jul 15, 2009 10:07 [...] be complete we should include the embedded carbon of the servers too. According to my educated guesstimate of embedded energy, an average server probably uses 1,000 kWh in its manufacture. These are big-ish servers, so lets [...]

Add your comment

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin