Tuesday, January 27. 2009
La chasse au "gaspi" dans les centres de données est ouverte. Ces immenses salles, appelées aussi "data centers", composées de multiples serveurs informatiques qui stockent les informations nécessaires aux activités des entreprises, sont devenues de véritables gouffres énergétiques.
Selon une étude menée par des chercheurs européens dans le cadre du programme de l'Union européenne "Energie intelligente - Europe", les 7 millions de centres de données recensés dans les pays de l'Union européenne consommeraient, chaque année, 40 milliards de kilowattheures, soit l'équivalent de l'énergie utilisée annuellement par une grande agglomération française pour son éclairage public. Si rien n'est fait, cette consommation électrique pourrait, d'ici à 2011, augmenter de 110 % par rapport à 2006, estime l'enquête qui sera complétée au printemps par des études de cas en entreprises.
"Dans les prochaines années, la croissance des nouveaux data centers sera faramineuse. Si on ne prend pas des mesures maintenant, on va dans le mur !" s'alarme Alain Anglade, chercheur au sein de l'Agence de l'environnement et de la maîtrise de l'énergie (Ademe) et membre de l'équipe de chercheurs. Encore modeste à l'échelle de l'Hexagone, l'énergie utilisée par les centres de données (4 à 6 milliards de kilowattheures) représente 1 % de la consommation d'électricité du pays. Un pourcentage appelé à croître rapidement en raison de la diffusion rapide des nouvelles technologies informatiques. Les banques, par exemple, soumises à des réglementations croissantes en termes de stockage et traitements de leurs données informatiques, sont déjà contraintes d'agrandir leurs centres de données.
Le gouvernement français a saisi l'occasion du plan France numérique 2012, lancé en octobre 2008, par le secrétariat d'Etat au développement de l'économie numérique pour créer un observatoire des centres de données. A horizon de dix-huit mois environ, il permettra aux entreprises de se comparer entre elles et de les aider à prendre des mesures pour qu'elles diminuent la consommation énergétique de leurs machines, explique en substance Alain Anglade, un des responsables du projet pour qui "les entreprises sont déjà sensibilisées car ce gaspillage commence à leur coûter beaucoup d'argent". Cette mise en commun devrait également permettre aux entreprises d'anticiper sur la création de nouvelles normes environnementales plus contraignantes au niveau européen.
Parallèlement, le ministère de l'économie et des finances vient de lancer un groupe de réflexion. Baptisé "Green ITW" et dirigé par Michel Petit, membre de l'Académie des sciences, il doit proposer, d'ici à mai, des solutions pour une "utilisation éco-responsable" des centres de données. En clair, comment faire des économies d'énergie sans pénaliser les entreprises dans l'utilisation de leurs outils informatiques. Selon l'étude européenne déjà citée, près de 12 milliards d'euros pourraient être économisés grâce à de nouveaux équipements moins gourmands en électricité et des techniques plus efficaces de ventilation des salles.
L'Allemagne a, de son côté, déjà entrepris de lutter contre le gaspillage énergétique des "data centers". Depuis l'été dernier, un guide est à disposition des entreprises pour leur faire prendre conscience du problème et les pousser à investir dans des équipements plus efficaces. Bien décidé à montrer l'exemple, le ministère fédéral de l'environnement a annoncé en novembre 2008 avoir baissé la consommation d'électricité de ses propres serveurs de 60 %, soit une économie de CO2 de 44 tonnes.
Particulièrement concernés, les géants de l'informatique cherchent eux aussi déjà à réduire la facture énergétique de leurs data centers devenus gigantesques pour stocker e-mails, vidéos et autres documents disponibles en un seul clic. Récemment, Google, Yahoo ! ou encore Microsoft ont installé certains de leurs sites informatiques sur les bords de grands cours d'eau américains. Ils souhaitent pouvoir refroidir plus facilement leurs machines et utiliser les centrales hydrauliques proches pouvant leur fournir de l'électricité moins chère.
Jouant la carte du développement durable, Google affirme avoir investi 45 millions de dollars dans les énergies renouvelables. Le mastodonte américain a même déposé un brevet pour pouvoir installer des centres informatiques alimentés par l'énergie des vagues et refroidis par l'eau de mer sur des plates-formes flottantes.
Lilian Alemagna
En Grande-Bretagne, facture chargée pour super-ordinateur
14 400 tonnes par an. C'est la quantité de CO2 produite par le futur super-ordinateur de l'office météorologique britannique (Met Office) censé aider à lutter contre le réchauffement climatique. Achetée 33 millions de livres (36,3 millions d'euros), cette machine produira autant de CO2 que 2 400 personnes en une année. "Nos super-ordinateurs actuels produisent déjà 10 000 tonnes de CO2 chaque année, mais cela n'est qu'une partie des émissions de carbone économisées grâce à notre travail", s'est défendu Alan Dickinson, un des responsables du Met Office, au quotidien britannique The Times. Le nouvel équipement doit permettre d'améliorer les prévisions météorologiques. Les données permettront ensuite de mieux connaître l'impact des gaz à effet de serre sur l'environnement.
-----
Via Le Monde
Personal comment:
Le débat soulevé ici par le super-ordinateur de l'office météorologique britannique (Met Office) et destiné à lutter contre le réchauffement climatique est intéressant: il produit une quantité non négligeable de CO2, mais combien permet-il d'en économiser?
A terme, cela va devenir une vraie question (combien d'énergie pour produire quoi?) et on ne peut que renvoyer au livre de Joel de Rosnay, Le Macroscope, vers une vision globale (publié en 1975 !) pour se faire une idée de la question dans sa complexité.
Si on se réfère également à certaines réactions suscitées par des installations de fabric | ch (je pense en particulier à Satellite Daylight), l'art, jugé inutile par beaucoup ... aura-t-il encore le droit de consommer de l'énergie tout en ne produisant aucune plus-value directement quantifiable ou vérifiable?
[Storm Surge Barriers in the Netherlands. Photo: Ralph Hargarten]
In the last years it seems to be an agreed upon fact that sea levels are certainly on the rise due to global climate change. Over the past 100 years, the seas have been climbing approximately 1.8mm per annum. Scientists have more recently been recording a rise of approximately 3.1mm per year (over the past 15 years) indicating that this rate is increasing. This is not only due to the melting of the polar ice caps (and all their precious fresh water), but more predominantly by the thermal expansion of the sea (heating water lowers the density of its molecules, thereby increasing its surface area). In the next century, sea levels are predicted to rise between 90 and 880mm. It is estimated that there are currently three billion coastal dwellers, which is expected to rise to six billion by 2025. As sea levels continue to increase, coastal and low-lying cities (or nations), such as the Netherlands, find themselves in a precarious position. A group of engineers and ocean experts on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a forty-centimeter rise in the North Sea by 2025; between sixty-five centimeters and 1.3 meters by 2100; and up to 4 meters by 2200. These estimates have instigated the proactive Dutch to design pre-emptive measures of climatic defense.
[Rising Sea Levels: 1900-200, via Public Doman, Global Warming Art project]
[Location of increased Sea Level: 1993-2008, via NASA]
[World Map with 1m sea level Rise, via NASA]
The Netherlands is one of the few countries that have mastered building on the water. Largely built on reclaimed land, the Netherlands sits in a perilous location - a delta, created where the Rhine and Meuse Rivers flow into the North Sea. In 1953, a massive flood caused severe damage - killing nearly two thousand people and flooding over 150,000 hectares of land. In the aftermath of this devastation - just twenty days later - the Delta commission was born. The Delta commission was conceived to increase the safety of the Delta area of Holland without shutting down the seaways De Niuwe Waterweg and the Western Schelde (which connect to the prosperous ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp). Creating arguably the best defensive system of natural barriers, levees, dams, storm surge barricades, dunes, etc., the Delta Commission was successful at ‘climate proofing’ (their term for resisting flooding) the Netherlands for 1:10,000 year floods (for comparison, New Orleans is striving for 1:100 year levels by 2011). Although the risk seems low, the land below sea level in the Netherlands accounts for sixty-five percent of its GDP (approximately $450 billion per year), not to mention a population of 11 Million residents. As economics plays a large factor in ‘risk’ assessment, the following equation is often used to determine the viability of a ‘climate proofing’ project: Risk = (probability of failure) x (projected cost of damage)
[Areas of the Netherlands below Sea Level, via www.fragilecologies.com]
[The Maeslantkering Storm Surge Barriers, 1997. Final project of the Delta Works. Photo: Ralph Hargarten]
The increased risks by future sea level changes (including the fact that climate change is also expected to promote higher precipitation in the Alps which will trickle through the rivers of Europe) have prompted the creation of the Delta Committee. Governmentally assigned, and comprise of a team of experts, the committee produced a report in 2008 that investigated how to climate-proof the Netherlands for the next century. The report proposed a 100-year mega project, which included extending the coastline and building new surge barriers while fortifying the levees. An estimated 400 square miles is to be added to the Netherlands (or seventeen ‘Manhattans’) over the course of the project. While the primary function of the infrastructural project is defensive in nature, it is hoped that the new construction, “interfaces with life and work, agriculture, ecology, recreation and leisure, landscape, infrastructure and energy”. Although, It is difficult to find concrete details on the design (the report is still only in Dutch), it is evident that it is a serious endeavor and one worth pursuing given the populace and economics with the affected zones.
[The Art of Climate Proofing, via The Department for Information Design at Copenhagen]
The aggressive plan comes with a high price tag - approximately 1.5 billion Euros per year for the next 100 years. Although this may at first seem absurd, we must remember that Hurricane Katrina caused an upwards of $150 USD billion of damage, not to mention the loss of life, crippled economics and tourism. Further, the Dutch are motivated to start early to reduce overall costs and potentially avoid disaster. Currently, the project is in its initial stages, but the Dutch Government has already allocated 50 million euros to the research initiative “Knowledge for Climate Proofing the Netherlands.” This organization is researching climate-proofing techniques and new international technologies. Quoted by wired.com as “what may be the most ambitious act of territorial defense in history”, perhaps the next “great walls” will be to evade climate, instead of nations.
-----
Via InfraNet Lab
[EnviroMission\'s Proposal for a Solar Tower in Australia via www.t-mation.com]
As the race for the tallest tower progresses, research into solar power design has created (perhaps for the first time) a need for height. The solar updraft tower – a combination of a solar chimney, greenhouse and wind turbine – was first presented in 1903 by Spanish Colonel Isidoro Cabanyes in the magazine La Energia Electrica. Due to magnitudes of economics, solar towers garnered little attention until the 1980s. The present energy crisis has fueled a resurgence of solar tower design.
[Sectional Diagram revealing the operation of a Solar Tower via www.global-greenhouse-warming.com]
Solar towers are a unique invention that exploit the greenhouse effect to create energy. Powered by the sun, solar radiation heats a large glazed base that encircles a massive tower. The base essentially acts as a greenhouse to trap and heat the air. Naturally rising hot air finds its way to the tower, and is pulled through the solar chimney by convection currents, the vacuum effect continually drawing in more air. As this occurs, the updraft is able to spin a single or several wind turbines attached to the base of the tower. Like a hot air balloon, think of it as forcing a temperature differential to produce wind.
So where is the best spot to plant a solar tower? Flat, sun soaked conditions are ideal, within close proximity to the electrical grid. Further, areas with lower atmospheric winds and geologically stable land are preferred. It is possible to set up a solar tower in northern latitudes, but this requires the collection disk to slope towards to the south to capture maximum solar radiation (output is often lower as well, typically 85 percent of a strategically located solar tower). Lastly, because the collection greenhouses consume a vast amount of space, these towers are often only possible in areas with low land value (which, given the current economic crisis, is almost anywhere).
[Size Comparison of Solar Towers via skyscrapercity.com]
The amount of energy produced by solar towers is directly related to size – bigger is better. Taller chimneys create higher-pressure differentials, increasing the force on the wind turbine. Additionally, the size of the solar collection area and chimney affects the volume of air, and therefore the amount of energy produced. Current designs are being explored that couple a 1000m tall tower with a 20 sq.km greenhouse, yielding approximately 100MW of power. A similar tower with a 38 sq.km collection disk could produce a whopping 200MW, enough to power 200,000 houses.
The efficiency of solar towers is greatly reduced during the night. The turbines continue to rotate due to the super-heated land that heats the adjacent air, but the efficiency drops significantly. Researchers at RMIT and Ove Arup have incorporated salt-water ponds (also called ‘solar ponds’) because of their increased specific heat capacity, which traps heat in the layers of saltwater and releases it gradually during the dark hours.
[Solar Tower Prototype in Manzanares, Spain via www.climate-changer.com]
Funded by the German government and designed by engineers Schlaich Bergermann and Partner, a small-scaled solar tower prototype was tested in Spain from 1982–1989. Sited 150 km south of Madrid in Manzanares, the tower stood 195m tall with a 10m diameter shaft. This coupled with a collection greenhouse of 46,000 sq.m, produced a maximum output of 50KW. Not intended for energy harvesting, the prototype allowed for the testing of various greenhouse materials.
[Rendering of Solar Tower proposed in China]
[EnviroMission\'s Solar Tower planned for Australia via www.unenergy.org]
Current proposals for a 750m tall tower in Spain, a 800m tall tower in China, and a 600m tall tower in Australia are underway. Renewable energy company, EnviroMission is set to build the tower in Australia, a country that is currently powered by cheap coal. The tower is engulfed by a 65m diameter collection area (approximately 6 times larger than central park) and expected to provide enough energy to power between 100,000 and 200,000 homes. This would save more than 900,000 tons of greenhouse carbon dioxide emissions from entering the Australian atmosphere
[Productive Landscape within the Greenhouse via todaysfacilitymanager.com]
Interestingly, the prototype solar tower built in the desert, fostered conditions conducive to the growth of plant life. This was due to condensation created at night that enlivened the soil with moisture, essentially transforming the desert into arable land. Not only can these collection areas add water to otherwise unproductive land, the towers could be linked with other programmes. Think of large office or residential towers that have a solar chimney at their core. Venting the exhaust heat from these additional programmes into the solar chimney would increase the updraft current, producing more energy. Plus, every resident could have clean energy and a garden plot in the middle of the desert.
-----
Via InfraNet Lab
Personal comment:
A propos de la taille vs production d'énergie des Tours solaires. Où l'on découvre qu'il faudrait une tour de 195m de haut et 10m de diamètre, couplée à un champ de 46'000 mètres carrés de "collection greenhouses" (! --selon un essai datant des années 80--) pour produire l'énergie maximum utilisée par Perpetual (Tropical) SUNSHINE ... Well, on y est pas encore!
By
AL GORE
THE inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he — and we — must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.
The electrifying redemption of America’s revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet.
The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is “unequivocal.” To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.
Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis.
Economists across the spectrum — including Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers — agree that large and rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive our economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil.
As Abraham Lincoln said during America’s darkest hour, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.” In our present case, thinking anew requires discarding an outdated and fatally flawed definition of the problem we face.
Thirty-five years ago this past week, President Richard Nixon created Project Independence, which set a national goal that, within seven years, the United States would develop “the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources.” His statement came three weeks after the Arab oil embargo had sent prices skyrocketing and woke America to the dangers of dependence on foreign oil. And — not coincidentally — it came only three years after United States domestic oil production had peaked.
At the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries. Yet today, after all six of the presidents succeeding Nixon repeated some version of his goal, our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds — and many feel that global oil production is at or near its peak.
Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn’t have to rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and “clean coal” technology.
But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of “clean coal,” too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting “clean coal” technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I’m all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.
Here’s what we can do — now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.
What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crisis and the economic crisis — and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced.
First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.
Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with “smart” features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.
Third, we should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.
Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings — and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.
Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world’s efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.
Of course, the best way — indeed the only way — to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.
Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves.
In an earlier transformative era in American history, President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon within 10 years. Eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The average age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control room that day was 26, which means that their average age when President Kennedy announced the challenge was 18.
This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm electrified Barack Obama’s campaign. There is little doubt that this same group of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our national future, once again turning seemingly impossible goals into inspiring success.
Al Gore, the vice president from 1993 to 2001, was the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He founded the Alliance for Climate Protection and, as a businessman, invests in alternative energy companies.
-----
Via The New York Times
Personal comment:
Bien sûr, on entend et ré-entend maintenant ce type de discours et tout le monde a endossé le "sustainable" parfois bien pensant et souvent sans lendemain. Voilà peut-être malgré tout maintenant arrivé le temps des idées et des projets, du début de la concrétisation d'une nouvelle approche énergétique.
Le temps est au "change", alors changeons!
|