http://virtualcloudzz.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/hp-blade-powersizer-tool-explained.html

The article clearly states:
“Blog, Enterprise IT – Written by Renai LeMay on Friday, July 27, 2012 12:16″

Glad to see Ranai talk about the issue, as this will no doubt come to haunt those who haven’t already jumped on the Visualization bandwagon!

If you don’t agree with it, fine, but it’s a bit unfair to say Renai “doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” He’s worked for ISP’s before. I think he has some idea….

It costs us $300 to have a DNS record changed.. (yep simple a-record) the same price to run a server for a year…

CT will make no difference what so ever..

And shall we also point out that with cloud computing / virtualisation agency’s / the TCO has actually decreased.. (we went from 16 hosted server racks down to 9)

Sorry Renai you are better off focusing your articles on issues / costs that you actually understand

Better-designed server storage, for better air circulation and less need for cooling?

Lower-power chipsets, and power-managing chipsets?

Plant a few trees on the roof, or maybe put up some solar panels?

Actually, that all sounds way too hard – let’s just complain about a new impost that’s intended to change our behaviour.

How does Macquarie Telecom currently account for its carbon usage? Oh, it’s not considered a resource? Well, maybe it’s time to change that thinking, and think about what your impact is on your environment. It’s not just about money, it’s about the world you live and operate in – and companies just don’t want to understand that.

Problem is, as hardware gets more efficient, software developers get lazy, and dont bother to try and minimize hardware requirements for their software. But of course, some increased demand is expected as software adds more and more functionality.

Things like choice of language effect efficiency of software, and hiring developers good with algorithms instead of good at churning out cheap code.

10 year old server software would probably run from a mobile phone, with those reduced power requirments.

Also, 12% for Carbon Tax added?…..sorry, but IPART just allowed 9% increase from the Carbon Tax…..12% is a bit misleading, because that other 3% electricity generators have added “for other reasons” including infrastructure and “because they can”…..

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1067053/fromItemId/142
[Quote]
ACCC accepts undertaking from refrigeration contractor for misleading carbon price claims

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has accepted a court enforceable undertaking from South Australian refrigeration contractor Equipserve Solutions Pty Ltd.

The undertaking relates to statements made by Equipserve Solutions in an email to its customers which attributed the entire amount of an increase in the price of a refrigerant gas to the carbon price when that was not the case.

“The ACCC was concerned that Equipserve Solutions’ statements had misled customers and caused them to believe that the entire price increase was due to the carbon price – when that was not in fact the case,” ACCC chairman Rod Sims said.
[End Quote]

That 1 kg of product may be the most effective coolant, but if there is a product thats 80% as effective, but significantly cheaper, that will end up being the most used product.

Which is where Michael is coming from – its cheaper now because its not being hit, so businesses will adapt to use that cheaper option. Cheaper doesnt mean more effective.

They might lessen their *carbon* costs, but low- or non-carbon sources of electricity are usually more expensive than coal without a carbon price.
This is because the long-term effects of carbon pollution were, prior to 1 July 2012, completely unaccounted for in electricity generation in Australia. Even now, $23/tonne is pretty cheap. The economic analyses I’ve seen price these external costs at between $65 and $800 per tonne, depending on your discount rate (i.e. whether you care about what happens to your great grandchildren or not).

Personally, I think the real cost is higher than that. How much is it worth paying now, to avoid the effects of 60-70 metres of sea level rise (assuming the long-term projects of those pesky climate scientists are correct). How much will it cost to relocate every major city in Australia, other than Canberra, to higher ground? What impact would that have on the Australian economy? What about some of the other projections, for swings between blistering drought and incredible flooding rains, for heat waves that *require* you to have air-conditioning if you don’t want to die of heat exhaustion? None of these impacts are likely to occur for centuries (we hope), but what’s it worth paying now to avoid a potential complete collapse of civilisation 300 years in the future?

Back on-topic – yes, the carbon price will increase the cost of running data centres. That’s the point.
But as others have already pointed out – the impact of the carbon price has already been overwhelmed by the increases in electricity prices over the last few years. Cost of electricity here in Qld has more than doubled over the past decade or so, and is predicted to rise another 30-50% in the next few years, so the carbon price impact is really only a very minor part of the story.

Not too long ago, I saw a story about fishmongers. They were complaining that to refill their fridges with coolant, the price had gone up from $4,500 to $20,000. Comment was that the price had gone up $285 per kg of coolant. Thats the fact part, assuming the numbers are correct.

So, they pay $285 more per kg. For starters, at $23/tonne that means the process is generating 12 TONNES of emissions to make 1 KILOGRAM of product… Yet they cant see a problem?

Anyhow, on to the example. In the past, there were two options. 1 costing $100 per kg, other costing $250 per kg (the fantasy part). Obviously the cheaper alternative is the more popular. Fast forward to post-CT world, that $100/kg option is now $385/kg, while the previously more expensive option is still $250/kg.

As an industry, they collectively move to that $250/kg option, because its now the cheaper option. The $250/kg option doesnt pay carbon tax, and because its now the preferred option, can afford to work on ways to provide the product cheaper in the long term.

End result is a cleaner product, with development within that product line to make it more efficient. Winners (mostly) all round.

And thats what has to happen with electricity as well. Move from the emitting option to the non-emitting option. As a business, you might invest in solar panelling on the roof for example, and have that investment pay for itself over time.

But as electricity generators lessen their costs through employing greener technologies, and therefore lessening their carbon price costs, can you honestly see them dropping their retail prices? What business wants to drop their prices?

No – the prices will stay (relatively) the same – (indexing roughly against inflation) – so their customers will be paying relatively the same.

It’s costing the generators less to produce, which increases their profit margins. They might be faced with upfront costs to get there, but in the long term, it’s beneficial financially for them.

And they are producing less carbon.

If the customers are also using self-generated power, carbon is reduced further.

The CEOs and CIOs deciding that the increased costs need to be reduced, should be looking at using less grid-generated power. Add some solar power, or wind power, or whatever.

The price increases are deliberate, to encourage people to “find another way”.

Don’t want to pay the carbon price, use less of the service that adds that price to your inputs.

Exactly as it’s designed to do.

These sort of price increases with power have been happening for years, why is it suddenly an issue now? All this story does is perpetuate the current myth that every price increase is because of the Carbon Tax.

There are plenty of other reasons prices go up, ranging from inflation and CPI through to good old fashioned greed.