SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/business/data30.shtml

Internet centers guzzle energy Those in Seattle have small appetites, but that could change

Tuesday, January 30, 2001

By JOHN COOK SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Internet data centers have been called everything from "server farms" to "telco hotels." Now with energy costs skyrocketing, these networking hubs are getting a less flattering nickname: power hogs.

The centers, which house computer servers and networking equipment in high-security, temperature-controlled buildings, have found themselves at the center of the energy crisis gripping the West Coast. That's because data centers consume massive quantities of power, eating up the same amount of electricity that an oil refinery or a university might.

They do this by simply managing Internet traffic, hosting popular Web sites and running air conditioning systems 24 hours a day. It sounds harmless enough. But these nerve centers of the new economy are consuming tremendous amounts of power as Americans turn to the Internet for news, shopping and entertainment.

For the most part, Internet data centers operate in relative obscurity, tucked into renovated department stores, converted warehouses or other nondescript buildings. But with California experiencing periodic blackouts and the Pacific Northwest looking for ways to curb high energy costs, Internet data centers are moving into public view.

Seattle, a major hub of online commerce and streaming media, has seen a number of server farms open for business in the past two years. Attracted by the hot Internet economy in the Pacific Northwest, Internet hosting companies such as AboveNet, Exodus Communications and HostPro have recently opened new facilities here.

Because many are relatively new players in Seattle, they are drawing little power at this time.

"Most of the (data centers) in Seattle don't even trigger the large load. They don't even bump over 5 megawatts," said Laurent Poole, chief operating officer at Sabey Corp., whose development firm runs the Intergate data center complex in Tukwila. A large load typically refers to 10 megawatts or more, the amount of electricity to power a typical office building at any given moment.

But that could change as soon as the companies start filling up their server racks with paying customers. Bob Royer, director of communications at Seattle City Light, said the city's largest data center would require more than100 megawatts -- roughly the same as a small factory -- by 2004. Three other data center projects in the past month also have requested "large loads," he said.

With the passage of a city ordinance last summer allowing City Light to negotiate separate deals with these so-called large-load users, City Light took steps to make sure these heavy users do not push up the costs of other rate payers. So far, Royer said, the system has been working well.

"We don't want one of our existing customers from the old economy subsidizing a new economy company like a server farm," said Royer.

Some of the largest server farms being built these days are designed with a capacity of 150 watts per square foot, said Mark Mills, co-editor of a monthly newsletter focusing on digital power. That is more than three times the 30 to 50 watts a square foot typically used by a semiconductor manufacturing plant.

Normal usage at Internet data centers usually falls between 30 to 60 watts per square foot, according to Jonathan Koomey, staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

It is unlikely that the new facilities being developed in Seattle would require anywhere near 150 watts per square foot. Yet, many have plans for heavy power consumption in the next couple of years.

At full capacity, the new 115,000-square-foot AboveNet facility in Tukwila will consume between 10 and 20 megawatts, enough electricity to power 10,000 to 20,000 homes continuously with all of the lights on.

"Power is essential," said Jeff Monroe, vice president of design and construction at AboveNet's parent company Metromedia Fiber Network. "We absolutely can never cut back on power. We have a 100 percent guarantee for our customers, therefore we must run the system 24 hours a day, seven days a week without a glitch."

AboveNet, with 14 data centers across the country, works with utilities to ensure enough power will be available. So far Monroe said AboveNet, which opened its Seattle facility last month, has had little trouble attaining permits from local utilities. Although rising energy costs have not spoiled any plans, Monroe said it is an issue executives at the company follow closely.

"If you had to pay $1 million a month for your electric bill, at some point it is going to affect the hell out of you," he said.

Power is equally important at Zama Networks, an Internet hosting company, which launched its business last year just before the energy crisis became a hot button issue.

Tim Wiest, chief operating officer at the company, said Internet data centers sometimes get a bad name because of their hearty appetites for power. Wiest said the power hog label is unfair.

"Some are trying to cast these data centers as the bad guys," said Wiest. "But that is like blaming gas stations for air pollution."

As a newcomer to the data center business, Zama does not yet require the massive amounts of power that some server farms need. Still, Wiest said his company would work with utilities if an emergency arose. Zama has been speaking with Seattle City Light officials about ways to reduce the amount of power consumed at its 56,000 square foot data center in Tukwila.

One of the ideas being considered is to take Zama off the city power grid during peak usage times and allow it to run on its own diesel generator. Most data centers have one or two backup generators that allow the facilities to create their own power in case of an outage.

So far, Zama has yet to fire up its diesel generators.

That is also the case at Exodus Communications -- the largest operator of data centers with 36 server farms worldwide. But if there is an outage on the electricity grid in California or the Pacific Northwest, the company's diesel-powered backup generators ensure all equipment stays up and running continuously at a steady voltage, said K.C. Mares, director of electrical energy/utility management at Exodus.

Exodus is studying developing natural gas-powered co-generation systems to generate its own electricity at its centers and supplying energy back to the grid, said Mares.

At least one California server operator -- Equinix Inc. -- has coped with a blackout. When it happened, the company fired up diesel generators in time to maintain a facility that serves some of the world's largest Web sites.

Other companies -- like Gateway CoLocation in Seattle -- are just happy to have the necessary levels of power coming into their new data centers.

"Everyone is out looking for power," said Eric Blohm, director of sales and business development at the new server farm in downtown Seattle. "Seattle City Light brought in transformers just prior to the power crunch, so we slipped in just under the wire."

Bloomberg News and The Associated Press contributed to this report. P-I reporter John Cook can be reached at 206-448-8075 or johncook@seattle-pi.com

-- Martin Thompson (mthom1927@aol.com), January 31, 2001

Answers

""Power is essential," said Jeff Monroe, vice president of design and construction at AboveNet's parent company Metromedia Fiber Network. "We absolutely can never cut back on power. We have a 100 percent guarantee for our customers, therefore we must run the system 24 hours a day, seven days a week without a glitch."..."

I am now convinced that there is no energy shortage in California. But there is an extreme shortage of imagination and awareness. More than half of the energy comsumed by computers ends up as waste heat. More energy is then used to throw this 'waste' heat away (fans and air-conditioners).

This so called waste heat could easily be converted into other forms of useable energy (e.g. space or water heating for surrounding premises).

"We absolutely can never cut back on power" I bet these people have not even thought of opening the windows!

Using diesel generators for backup power is not a solution to this problem but will simply result in scarcity of diesel fuel and generators.

It is also true that the new economy technologies require less energy than old economy (eg commuting vs. telecommuting) but just at the moment we have both running side by side (this is called transition).

There are also new chips on the market that use a fraction of the energy (by running cooler) than regular chips. Are these companies in bed with Intel?

Also (sorry to go on about this but its really bugging me...

from the NRC website: Megawatt hour (MWh) One million (1,000,000) watt-hours. From a previous message and many others posted on this site: One megawatt is sufficient to power 1,000 homes. Please help me find my mistake - I cant believe so many US journalists can be wrong: 1 megawatt = 1,000,000 watts. 1 kilowatt = 1000 watts therefore 1 megawatt = 1000 kilowatts. If 1 megawatt = 1000 homes, 1 kilowatt = 1 home. If this is the energy consumption the authorities have been planning for I'm not surprized you guys have a crisis!

Average consumption of lightbulb is 60 to 100 watts (usually 100) i.e 1000 watts (1 kilowatt) = 10 to 15 lightbulbs a small heater uses 1 kilowatt. You'd be lucky to find an airconditioner that uses less than 1.5 kilowatts. The supply to my very small house in which I live alone is 60 amps. 5 amps will give about 1 kilowatt. Therefore I can draw about 12 kilowatts before my main circuit-breaker trips. I probably never use more than 3 but how the hell do you guys make do with one?? I won't go into the kilowatts and kilowatt-hours thing as someone else has already enlightened the list on this issue.

1 kW may be enough to LIGHT the average Californian home...just, but it does not begin to cover heating and other electrical appliances. Either I have made a very basic arithmetical mistake or your journalists don't know what they are talking about and are getting thier "facts" from other journalists equally ignorant. I still feel I must be wrong but cannot find my mistake. Please put me out of my misery. This situation reminds me of the Y2K days where I saw the same lame, oversimplified, 2-sentence "explanation" of the problem repeated almost verbatim in every Y2k article I read (All hail the power of the internet)

Hope someone can help

PS I suspect these figures are derived from average yearly consumption. The figures are meaningless since what is important here is the peak consuption figures. It's a bit like saying we are lucky the tyre is omly flat on the bottom!

I hope someone will respond to this - I really need to know if I am being an idiot

Thanks and keep up the good work

-- clivus nondog (clivus@ibm.net), February 01, 2001.