

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

======
doublerebel
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...](http://www.greenm3.com/gdcblog/2012/11/13/google-adopts-water-as-key-
to-save-energy-in-data-centers-pu.html)

[2] [http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-to-switch-on-worlds-
first...](http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-to-switch-on-worlds-first-
seawater-cooled-data-center-this-fall/)

------
rdl
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.

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

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

~~~
fiesycal
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.

~~~
ars
It's not so simple. Until the EROI of other fuels improves dramatically a
carbon dioxide tax is just going to make _every_ fuel more expensive, since
non-carbon fuels need carbon fuels as input.

Once the EROI goes up this isn't a problem. But until it does a carbon dioxide
tax is pointless - it just makes everything more expensive.

And once the EROI does go up people will switch to those energy sources
without prompting (they will simply be cheaper), so again a carbon dioxide tax
does nothing.

~~~
rdl
A correctly-structured carbon tax would make a new NG plant relatively more
attractive vs. continuing to operate a coal plant without the tax. (both
fossil fuels, but NG is more efficient).

Also I think it shouldn't be a straight carbon tax, but an "environmental
externalities tax". I personally care far more about other forms of pollution
(especially localized) than CO2; I don't think global warming is a non-issue,
but it's not the #1 environmental issue. Point sources of particulates, NO2,
etc. should be taxed as well as maximum emissions specified (obviously a steel
mill should be allowed to emit more, and pay for it, at full production in an
efficient way, than a badly adjusted oil-fired school furnace, even if the
school chooses to ignore economic rationality.)

~~~
ars
Agreed!

And interestingly coal plants are already being shuttered due to the low price
of natural gas. All that without any taxes - just new technology.

------
dm8
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.

~~~
marshallp
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
> 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>

~~~
marshallp
I mean in their data center. Also, I'd be more impressed if they actually got
the self-driving cars out to the world. It's been 5 years now. Google has a
problem executing, they're lulled by their one success.

~~~
nostrademons
One success being Search, AdSense, GMail, Maps, Analytics, Chrome, or Android?

~~~
Evbn
You got marhallp-trolled. Check the post history.

------
aphtab
Might wanna read this one too:

[http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-backs-iowa-wind-farm-
has-...](http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-backs-iowa-wind-farm-has-put-
close-to-1b-into-clean-power/)

