backtop


Print 21 comment(s) - last by tmouse.. on Dec 14 at 3:54 PM

IBM's new effort should make Al Gore proud

IBM is looking to develop a greenhouse gas meter capable of measuring output by industries and devices.  It is working with Enterprise Information Management and Evergreen Energy on the project, which is dubbed GreenCert.  The project integrates IBM Websphere tools and applications with a central engine from C-Lock (a subsidiary of Evergreen Energy).

The resulting program uses the varied logistic information it gathers from the Websphere tools to create a snapshot of the company's current usage and calculate an approximate figure for usage.

The program promises financial rewards as companies who use the system can make improvements to their infrastructure and then use the tool to take an "after" picture which will provide companies with proof of their cuts which can be used to obtain carbon credits to be traded on the carbon market.

IBM will release the final version of the software in 2008, but for now it is available for beta test from C-Lock is beta testing it.

As the software seems very vague and abstract, and IBM is keeping much of the details under wraps; it is hard to say how serious IBM is about this project as a business venture.  IBM insists that companies will see real financial benefits by utilizing this program, though.

Cutting CO2 production is the hot item in the science and tech industry today.  Grey-matter heavy Oxford University, the U.S. Congress, and now, IBM are among the power players work to develop efforts to help solve this problem.

IBM is constantly coming up with wild products and ideas -- everything from supercomputers, to in-DVD advertisements, and patents for efficient job outsourcing.  It also recently came up with a new way to recycle silicon.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Moving away from fossil fuels
By Gumby16 on 12/13/2007 7:04:32 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not going to repeat the science. It's publicly available for anyone who cares to look. For the sake of argument, let's pretend the planet isn't warming, CO2 isn't an issue, and carbon politics aren't creating an emotional backlash. My question is this:

What is so wrong with changing the way we operate? Why not move to higher efficiency technologies? Why not move away from limited resources like fossil fuels and use other energy sources? Even if you don't "believe" in global warming, moving away from fossil fuel has other very tangible, very economically lucrative possibilities. The fact of the matter is that oil is limited and will disappear. That fact is independent of climate change issues. So let's discuss useful ways to reduce our fossil fuel use and dependency instead of bantering about climate change. If you don't want to understand the science, that's fine. In the end, we'll have to move to a low or no carbon system anyway because of the limited nature of fossil fuels.

This greenhouse gas monitor is way for companies to begin that process of reducing their carbon use and their impact on their surrounding environment. It's something that companies will do anyway as resources become more limited. Why not start now. In the end, it will cost more to change down the road than to slowly implement improvements and changes over time.




RE: Moving away from fossil fuels
By FITCamaro on 12/13/2007 7:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
Your second paragraph is worth reading. That's about it.


RE: Moving away from fossil fuels
By Ringold on 12/13/2007 8:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is, and environmentalists don't seem to be aware of it, that companies do this routinely. They observe their cost structure, pay economists good money to create internal projections as to where all those costs could be going in the future, and then determin the most profitable plan forward. They try, at least. Do you really think oil companies, for example, aren't aware of the problem? No, they know it, they're exploring like nuts to replace reserves. Most have internal projections, it's said, of $65 / barrel in the long run, and base their operations based on that, though some operate on the assumption of higher long run prices. Apache, for example, if I recall.

Public companies especially have shareholders to report to every 3 months, in detail. Performance is expected, and those who don't perform more often then not end up with family matters to take care of or shaken up due to shareholder activism, such as from people like Carl Icahn. If it were the most efficient use of resources investing in "green" technology, it would be done. In some instances it does happen; you're right, saving energy generally makes sense, doesn't matter where its sourced from. Oil, cow gas, it all costs money.

This.. whatever this monitor is, I suppose, could help spot inefficiency; if a process creates CO2, it probably is eating energy, and.. maybe they hadn't noticed it previously. That's about all I can say about it.

Environmentalists don't have to push or prod business to do things to save money; they've been at this game since long before you or I were born and long before anybody pondered global warming. I therefore always detect either naivety or ulterior motives (such as forced "efficiency" spending) in such arguments.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki