backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 46 comment(s) - last by Christopher1.. on Sep 21 at 5:03 AM
The Climate Savers Computing Initiative now has more than 100 participating companies

During the first day of the fall 2007 Intel Developer Forum (IDF), the Climate Savers Computing Initiative announced that the three-month-old initiative now has more than 100 companies who have joined together to help improve power efficiency while reducing energy consumption.  The group also created sub teams to operate around Europe, China, Japan and Taiwan. According to numbers published on the Climate Savers web site, an average PC wastes almost half of the total power delivered to it.

The organization aims to acquire a 50 percent PC power reduction by 2010.  When asked if Climate Savers Computing has any immediate plans to broaden the organization's scope to products other than PCs and volume servers, the initiative said no.

The Board of Directors for the Climate Savers is made up of Dell, EDS, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, Pacific Gas & Electric and the World Wildlife Fund.  AMD, Delta Electronics, eBay, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Marvell Semiconductor, NEC, Sun Microsystems and Supermicro currently participate as sponsor companies.  A full list of participating companies can be on the Climate Savers website.

Power efficiency and energy consumption are two topics Silicon Valley companies are beginning to take seriously, with companies trying to lower the cost of operating data centers at the same time cutting down the emission of greenhouse gases.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Yea Right
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/19/2007 11:48:56 AM , Rating: 5
I think this is a bit slanted. The reality is that companies are looking to cut costs. By switching to more power effecient servers they can cut the A/C bill down a little and save a large amount of electricity. They could honestly care less about the greenhouse gases and environment. Of course they run it under "Going Green" but the reality is that is no more than a PR campaign to save money. If operating costs went up even 2% because of "Going Green" this initiative would be dead in the water.




RE: Yea Right
By mdogs444 on 9/19/2007 11:55:20 AM , Rating: 2
Same thing as how "Special Interest" groups operate in politics.

They all really want something that is going to solely benefit them, but to make their wants widespread and agreed upon by the public, they advertise it in a way that it SEEMS beneficial to everyone.

Special Interest Groups = Political & Public Nightmare


RE: Yea Right
By Oregonian2 on 9/19/2007 5:00:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
They all really want something that is going to solely benefit them, but to make their wants widespread and agreed upon by the public, they advertise it in a way that it SEEMS beneficial to everyone.


Maybe it SEEMS beneficial because it is?


RE: Yea Right
By Christopher1 on 9/21/2007 4:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
Well, sometimes what is beneficial to special interest groups is beneficial to everyone, sometimes it isn't. Lately, it seems like it falls more under the "Isn't" header on the spreadsheet of life.


RE: Yea Right
By Screwballl on 9/19/2007 11:56:09 AM , Rating: 3
agreed... each of the companies mentioned want to charge the same while making their costs cheaper.. I don't blame them but this PR bs is just annoying


RE: Yea Right
By clovell on 9/19/2007 11:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. After reading the Power Management Instructions on the website, it seems that any company that has ever considered cutting energy costs and uses computers has probably already done this.

Seems more like a PR move to jump on the green bandwagon while the motive is money. Cynicism aside - it's not a bad move - if you can't beat em...


RE: Yea Right
By glenn8 on 9/19/2007 12:00:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They could honestly care less about


Should be couldn't ...

But in any case, I don't see what the big deal is. Of course companies are going to do what's best for them financially... but that doesn't mean they don't care. However let's reverse the situation and say that a company can save 2% by causing more harm to the environment... do you think many companies (and their share holders) would agree to this? In the past.. maybe.. but these days.. I don't know...


RE: Yea Right
By MonkeyPaw on 9/19/2007 6:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
It seems most of them do this until they get caught. Apple was criticized for the past several years for their non-green practices, and this year they've finally responded with more "environmentally friendly" products.

On a related note, something I found quite laughable was that at the last Academy Awards, they started off by bragging about how it was the first "Green" Academy Awards show. Whatever that meant, I don't know, but I fail to see why it took Hollywood so long to do what many actors and actresses have been telling US to do for decades. Environmentally responsible (often mistaken for "friendly") choices have been around for a long time, but it apparently wasn't hip enough to do until now. I've been recycling for the last 15 years or so, and I still don't have curbside pickup. I don't do it out of "green guilt" but because it just makes sense to reuse materials that can be reused. It's like throwing away clothing instead of giving it to Goodwill.

More on topic, I work at an electric utility, and the amount of energy a server farm needs annually is quite staggering. It doesn't take long to see what a 15% reduction in energy consumption can do to the bottom line.


RE: Yea Right
By Christopher1 on 9/21/2007 5:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I did the math recently on what would happen if every server farm went to the new energy efficient Intel or AMD server processors. It was staggering: almost a 60% reduction in the amount of power these server farms would be using, plus they would be using LESS servers, which would bring another power benefit from less amounts of power supplies.

Really, the government needs to give companies incentives (read: penalties) if they don't switch over to new server technologies and new power management techniques when they come out and have been proven to work, seeing as how servers use 90% of the electrical power that is used in the United States in regards to computing.


RE: Yea Right
By Kuroyama on 9/19/2007 12:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. These days it doesn't matter what you are doing, you always sell it as environmental. Want to cut down trees? How about the "Healthy forests initiative". Want to pollute more? How about the "Clean Skies initiative". Want to use more coal? How about "Freedom fuel" (not environmental but still sounds good). Want to save money on your electric bill? How about joining the "Climate Savers Computing initiative". Gosh, everyone loves nature!


RE: Yea Right
By Misty Dingos on 9/19/2007 12:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
And this makes the efforts tainted in someway? That some how the energy saved is not energy saved if it is saved to cut costs and maximize profits?

MK the truth is that the majority of companies that start green programs do it for money. No altruistic fantasies are wandering through the CEOs head. Dollars, euros, yen, rubles, shekels, ryials. No fluffy bunnies dancing in the meadows. Money talks and enviros can walk.

Oh while the enviros are leaving make sure they get a brochure on the new Reebok, Rainbow, Nike, or Gator.

Try to keep in mind that if all the companies go bankrupt because the environmental dogma there will be about 6.5 billion pissed off people on the planet.

Profit minded corporations are not the enemy. Foolish dogma is. Oh that dogma can come from any source I am not singling out the eco-nuts here. They just happen to be one of my favorite punching bags. ;)


RE: Yea Right
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/19/2007 12:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well the efforts aren't tainted but I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't make them into heroes for doing this, there was no selfless motivation in mind with regards to saving the environment.


RE: Yea Right
By Gneisenau on 9/19/2007 12:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. They may be doing the right thing, but I think it's still for selfish reasons. I don't hand out kuddos for that.


RE: Yea Right
By dever on 9/19/2007 2:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I'd rather take away kudos for that. As we all seem to agree it's just marketing. Companies trying to gain marketplace advantage by touting their own money savings.

Given that, is there any harm? To the degree that this sort of marketing adds to the delusion of AGW or any other eco-freak doctrine, then yes it is actually harmful. The marketplace they are trying to gain advantage in is directly threatened by the eco-freaks they encourage by perpetuating these myths. Poor long term vision.


RE: Yea Right
By TomZ on 9/19/2007 2:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, but I don't think marketers think in terms of long-term benefit to society at all. Instead, I think they just look for any/all opportunities to improve the image of their company to customers and shareholders. I'm not even sure if that is right or wrong. Is it really the role of marketing to form a healthy public opinion about a topic? Not sure...


RE: Yea Right
By rogard on 9/19/2007 8:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're right. Just because a company may have no altruistic motives whatsoever, they still do a "good" thing by trying to save energy. They have to pay less (their profit), electricity is saved that is mostly created by burning fossil fuel, which does not pollute the air ("environment friendly"). On top of that, it lengthens the time we all have to find new energy sources for the time when fossil fuel will get scarce, and therefore expensive (smart move!).

I agree, in a better world nobody would make a big fuss about their motives, and they would just say they don't really give a **** about environment. But the world we live in right now wants to hear good news and that something is being done, so there you go...

I think there is a strong relation between media hype and "what the people want" and the green image all those companies want to acquire.

In recent years nobody really cared about the efficiency of PCs and other techno gadgets. Including server farms. It was all about raw power, and it still is. Why else are there PC PSUs around with more than 1kW?? How many people AND companies still leave their computers on 24/7? (yeah, I know, it's all for the cure for cancer or SETI....right) Why did those companies not try to reduce their bills a decade ago? The idea should have been as brilliant in 2007 as in 2000 or 1990 etc. Although electricity is getting more and more expensive, the average usage is still increasing. So money still not seems to be the central issue. Awareness and public opinion is, maybe.

Therefore I say, just give them a friendly pat on the shoulder and a ruffle through their hair for being good boys and girls, because that's what they all want to hear. You cannot praise everybody who saves energy loud enough, because if you stop, they might stop as well.

Silly world.


RE: Yea Right
By Gneisenau on 9/19/2007 12:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you can say that 100 companies signed on equals "flocking to it" either.


RE: Yea Right
By dever on 9/19/2007 2:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. As soon as I started reading I lost a little respect for whoever wrote the sensationalistic title... I assume the author.


RE: Yea Right
By FITCamaro on 9/19/2007 1:42:11 PM , Rating: 1
For any government contractor this isn't just a wanting to save money. It's a requirement. By ISO processes we're required to do things like recycle plastic bottles and paper. Not that its a bad thing. Its just stupid to fail an audit for throwing a water bottle in the trash can instead of the recycle bin.

My company has saved a bunch of money by shutting down PCs overnight when we're not here though. We've got about 300 people here plus other PCs so thats quite a bit of power savings to have the majority of those computers only on for 8-9 hours a day instead of 24/7.


RE: Yea Right
By dever on 9/19/2007 2:16:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not that its a bad thing.
Yes, it's a bad thing. Just think of all the energy and tax money is wasted by government requiring (and checking) that subcontractor employees put their refuse in the correctly colored bin. Extra beaurocracy > Extra paperwork > Extra energy costs > Extra time > Extra waste... why? To prevent waste?


RE: Yea Right
By FITCamaro on 9/19/2007 3:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
I meant not that its a bad thing to recycle.


RE: Yea Right
By TomZ on 9/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Yea Right
By Kuroyama on 9/19/2007 3:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
ISO is not government, it's an overhyped standards setting body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organiz...


RE: Yea Right
By Oregonian2 on 9/19/2007 5:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, there's no point in those companies trying to go Green because everyone will just pooh-pooh their motives with caustic remarks that will cost those companies negatively in the press. Might be a better tactic to just consume as much power as they want and push for lower costs of power from their suppliers. That will provide better PR than trying to go Green instead. Public feedback in action!


RE: Yea Right
By TomZ on 9/19/2007 6:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point, but I do think that the group invites at least a bit of criticism. After all, they named the group "Climate Savers" instead of "Power Savers" or "Cost Savers." Of course the more "honest" names don't sound so good on press releases, do they?


RE: Yea Right
By Oregonian2 on 9/20/2007 3:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
Folks invite others to their "party" even when they really should invite others to "boring stare at each other sit-arounds". Is the name "climate savers" incorrect? I don't think so. Even if not the most to the point name, its still a correct name and therefore not worth the fuss of tearing them down for it. Not as if folk doing the tearing are likely pure in their own day to day conversations either if it were recorded and analyzed word for word for implications. If the name were outright wrong, I can see blasting being justified, but it isn't.


I think this calls for...
By kattanna on 9/19/2007 1:21:23 PM , Rating: 1
me to take a nice long drive in a hummer to celebrate!




RE: I think this calls for...
By mdogs444 on 9/19/2007 1:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
I hope you know that is a very false assumption that most people have.

The new hummers are the same motor & frame of the basic low end V-6 Chevy Blazer/GMC Envoy. No worse than a ford explorer.

The previous generation hummer was no worse than the farmers F150 V-8, or Chevy Full size truck.

However, Gen 1, that may have been true because it was still using the military motor. They were so expensive and targetted towards such a small market, they are probably no worse than the fuel sucking Ferrari's out there.

So just becuase a car/truck is big & bulky, and looks like a tank does not make it any worse than your soccer moms suv, or your rich uncles sports car.


RE: I think this calls for...
By djc208 on 9/19/2007 2:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the military Hummer shouldn't be too bad. They use a big GM diesel since just about everything military runs on the same fuel. The military ones are naturally aspirated, so they're probably no worse than a V-8 pickup and as good or better than most of the new heavy duty diesel pickups with one or two turbos (though not more powerful).

Besides, while a H2,3,whatever might not be any worse than a similar sized something else that doesn't mean it's good. Hell my 6.8L Desoto can get 17 mpg highway too but that doesn't mean it's better for the environment than a V-8 Hummer (no catalytic converter or fuel injection).


RE: I think this calls for...
By mdogs444 on 9/19/2007 2:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
I know, thats what im saying. Im merely just stating that its no worse than anything out there.

Many people have the false perception that the Hummer is environment enemy #1, when it fact its just as bad/good as the rest of the similar cars out there.


RE: I think this calls for...
By fic2 on 9/19/2007 2:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
'08 GMC Envoy 14 mpg/ 20 mpg
'08 Hummer H3 14 mpg/ 18 mpg
'07 Ford F-150 16 mpg/ 20 mpg
H2 isn't even rated since exempt from CAFE standards because it has a GVWR over 8500 lbs. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummer_H2#Fuel_econom... it averages around 13 mpg highway and 10 city.

So, the H3 is a little worse than the SUV/trucks you listed, but the H2 IS horrible just like everyone assumes. Also, the Chevy/Blazer 6 cylinder is an inline now.


RE: I think this calls for...
By FITCamaro on 9/19/2007 3:38:26 PM , Rating: 1
You know for me on the H2s its not even a matter of the emissions and mileage. Its just the absurdity of wanting to drive such a large vehicle just to feel important or powerful. I can't imagine filling the tank of that thing. And parking one can't be a fun experience either.

If you need a large truck or SUV (eg. you have a large family or something tow), by all means, get one. If you're a single person, married with no kids, or have one kid, you don't need one. Get a Saturn Vue, a Honda Pilot, etc.


RE: I think this calls for...
By TomZ on 9/19/2007 3:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think you know it already, but people buy things also based on "want" not just "need." I think your statement that people should not buy a car they don't "need" is pretty off-base. Instead of telling people what they should or should not do, I think we should allow them the freedom to decide for themselves.


RE: I think this calls for...
By TheGreek on 9/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: I think this calls for...
By Ringold on 9/19/2007 4:00:07 PM , Rating: 4
Modern civilization left the caves off the likes of him, and others, exercising some freedom for peculiar consumption.

And I actually tried a "toilet seat" that cost $900 the other day.. and might actually get it.. or at least a cheap knock-off.


When will MAshers and his cult lemmings sign up?
By TheGreek on 9/19/2007 1:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
What, no crucificion by the MAster? Why not? Mr Negativo should be able to punch plenty of unsubstantiated extremist holes in the subject and proclaim them as "the truth", just like in all his blogs. Why isn't here making a mockery of objectivity, like always?




By TomZ on 9/19/2007 2:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
Energy conservation is a win-win for everyone, troll.


By Ringold on 9/19/2007 4:09:43 PM , Rating: 3
Folding@Home should be run 24-7 on all corporate computers. That would consume immense amounts of energy, especially if run on all the worlds servers, releasing tons of CO2 in the air -- which actually causes a global cooling effect. Extra mercury released in to the atmosphere by burning coal will also help with fish stocks, as mercury increases the fertility of fish. Children who eat mercury-fortified fish also show markedly higher intelligence. Therefore, energy conservation causes cancer and makes our children lame. For those who opt out of F@H, they could run SETI@Home, because we all know all advanced species would be of pacifist liberal persuasion, just like the Klingons, and would shower us with free technology.

There. Feel happy now? :P


RE: When will MAshers and his cult lemmings sign up?
By rogard on 9/19/2007 9:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
I am speechless. You got it all figured out. Dude, if Jesus had known how easy it was to save the world, he might have reconsidered the thing with the crucification, eh?


By Ringold on 9/19/2007 11:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure by your reply, but in case it wasn't clear -- I was joking :P


RE: When will MAshers and his cult lemmings sign up?
By rogard on 9/20/2007 10:51:53 AM , Rating: 2
You couldn't have been serious there....

C'mon, neither could I. (Next time I'll use \begin \end irony) :-)


By Ringold on 9/20/2007 5:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
</begin apology>
Lol, sorry, so will I then.

</end apology>


Yay!
By Blight AC on 9/20/2007 11:07:18 AM , Rating: 2
Wow.. lots of cynicism here.

Either way.. glad to see the Intel/AMD both on, and Microsoft as well. Windows Vista is the bane of energy efficiency with how Microsoft wants you to use it, Sleep instead of Shut Down.

Would like to see nVidia on the list. Vista and GPU's are driving up power consumption. What I'd really like to see is more integration of an onboard GPU with add-in cards. Then the onboard can be used for the 3D desktop and video playback etc, while powering off the add-in cards. But when 3D gaming applications are started, the add-in cards are powered on, and the onboard can be used to boost performance for things like Physics and Audio (for systems that run onboard audio), or even use it SLI/Crossfire'd to boost performance... a bit. But I'm getting off track.

Either way.. designing the software to be less power hungry when that power isn't needed, like the CPU's designed to shut down core's/threads when not needed, are a great way to go forward.

If I can run a PC that wastes 50% less energy without sacrificing performance when I need it, I'm all for that. To me, it seems this is more about creating better hardware/software to minimize the energy that's typically wasted, I don't see why that's a bad thing. The goal sounds like it not designed to save money on their own energy bills, but to better design their hardware and software so everyone wastes less.




RE: Yay!
By TomZ on 9/20/2007 2:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to blame a lot of power "waste" on Vista - I think that's misplaced. Vista's no different than other OS's in that regard, e.g., XP, OS-X, Linux. How does Vista waste more power than these other OSs?

And I don't see how Vista "wants you to" use sleep instead of standby. Last I checked that was easily configured to whatever you prefer. If a user doesn't change the default, then they are expressing their preference.

Finally, I prefer sleep mode, since it quickly sleeps and resumes. The alternative for me would be to run the computer all day, because I don't want to wait for booting each time I need to use the computer. I know a lot of people who run their computers this way, like probably nearly everyone working in offices. The net power savings of using sleep mode can be pretty substantial.


RE: Yay!
By rogard on 9/20/2007 7:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
I am using hibernation under XP. It works like a charm. Granted, it is a bit slower than standby/sleep, but only a few seconds. I only boot fresh when Winupdate or other programs nag too much. Usually, it occurs once a month or even less. Since I don't have to wait long to power up again, I hibernate whenever I will be absent from the PC for more than 5 minutes (telephone call, conversation with girlfriend....especially!

I don't know why, but there are so many people that haven't heard of "hibernation" in their lives.

Secondly, and most importantly, I do everything except gaming (no time for that anyway) on a notebook. It consumes around 15-35 W, my gaming rig is more like 120 upwards.
That's what I call "Climate Saver"!


By rogard on 9/20/2007 11:02:51 AM , Rating: 2
Dudes, in case you haven't visited the "Climate Savers" site, do so now...isn't that cute? Aaaaawwwwwww. I feel treehuggish just by looking at it. Makes me want to save _something_ right now. If they had a forum I would have posted some really "deprecative" comments there. Well I guess, I save my time and surf somewhere else.

Seriously, who is the projected audience of this site? I can't figure it out, but it just makes me laugh. Climate savers, my ***.




"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki