Skip to main content

Data Centers: Not Exactly About Nuclear Energy But All About Energy

datacenter
No Commodore 64s at the data center.
The New York Times takes a look at large data centers, the warehouses of computers that power large web sites like Amazon and Facebook and Google (and plenty of others). We’ve noted these in the past because many of them have set up in places like Illinois, Virginia and North Carolina – that is, states well covered by nuclear energy – but many with a strong desire to use renewable energy – to the extent that some of them want to install their own wind farms or solar arrays.

We called this silly then but now, the Times' year-long investigation has revealed a rather more alarming angle, because the data centers are environmental sump holes:
At least a dozen major data centers have been cited for violations of air quality regulations in Virginia and Illinois alone, according to state records. Amazon was cited with more than 24 violations over a three-year period in Northern Virginia, including running some of its generators without a basic environmental permit.
And wasteful consumers of electricity, which is more relevant to this discussion:
Most data centers, by design, consume vast amounts of energy in an incongruously wasteful manner, interviews and documents show. Online companies typically run their facilities at maximum capacity around the clock, whatever the demand. As a result, data centers can waste 90 percent or more of the electricity they pull off the grid, The Times found.
Data centers are essentially factories that may be too new in kind to have effectively understood how to marshal resources to maximize profit. (I can’t believe they are designed to be wasteful, as implied above.) After all, nuclear energy facilities require considerable energy themselves, but successfully manage resources to make the production of electricity affordable. This is as true across industries that hope to stay in business.

The sudden rise of data centers hasn’t been matched by good procedure or an understanding of how to maximize output - a lot of the computers at the data centers, for example, consume electricity and do no or very little computation. That’s where the waste piles up.
A senior official at the data center already suspected that something was amiss. He had previously conducted his own informal survey, putting red stickers on servers he believed to be “comatose” — the term engineers use for servers that are plugged in and using energy even as their processors are doing little if any computational work.
“At the end of that process, what we found was our data center had a case of the measles,” said the official, Martin Stephens, during a Web seminar with Mr. Rowan. “There were so many red tags out there it was unbelievable.”
The story doesn’t really explain why those servers are not being used – probably to kick in if another server fails – but the lack of a process to identify them and determine how many have to be flipped on to act as back-ups is just bad planning. The Times suggests that this is because careers ride on containing outages, thus the fear not to use every available server. Maybe that’s part of it – maybe the bottomless bank accounts at some of these companies just make it easier not to really fret about it – or about the electricity bills. It all gets paid.
In addition to generators, most large data centers contain banks of huge, spinning flywheels or thousands of lead-acid batteries — many of them similar to automobile batteries — to power the computers in case of a grid failure as brief as a few hundredths of a second, an interruption that could crash the servers.
“It’s a waste,” said Dennis P. Symanski, a senior researcher at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit industry group. “It’s too many insurance policies.”
I wouldn’t call the story a horror show of energy malfeasance – there’s no evidence that these data centers have destabilized the grid, though that day could come. But the story also makes clear that these operations can run smoothly:
The National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which consists of clusters of servers and mainframe computers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, ran at 96.4 percent utilization in July, said Jeff Broughton, the director of operations. The efficiency is achieved by queuing up large jobs and scheduling them so that the machines are running nearly full-out, 24 hours a day.
That’s about as good as a nuclear energy facility, although queuing jobs may make more sense for processing scientific data than for sharing funny kitten videos – one thing is not like the other. It also suggests that the lab uses all the resources it has rather than all the resources it can buy. You don’t have to worry about an efficient outcome if you can just throw more resources at an issue. Cut the number of servers in half and watch efficiency skyrocket.

Is there a role for nuclear energy in this story? Yes, but mostly because it’s there, in those states with the data centers. If the grid has stayed stable, it’s because of the 24-7 nature of nuclear energy (and fossil fuels, too). These data centers say they would prefer intermittent renewable resources – which I think would put to use all those diesel backups referenced in the story in no time flat. Using wind power sounds good when an data center official is talking to Greenpeace, but these companies did move to states with inexpensive electricity supported by nuclear energy. I’m not saying one thing led to the other – there’s no evidence of it - but there it is.

But this is more a story about unintended – I hope – malfeasance in a relatively immature industry. Assuming the hot water doesn’t scald, there’s plenty of room for a course correction. Step one, start queuing those jobs.

Comments

Joseph said…
The article sounded like an obvious attempt by the legacy media to encourage regulations that would handicap their competitors.
Jack Harrison said…
For the media to compare data centers to nuclear facilities is simply outrageous. I can definitely see the source of this being some of the top dogs in data center management, such as IBM, RackWise, and AlphaPoint

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…