The Environment Department asked me to suggest a strategy for reducing energy use of PCs and monitors in Australia. The draft is on the web (look for: "Personal Computer and Monitors Energy Efficiency Strategy"). This recommends a 50% reduction by 2020, through voluntary use of the US developed Energy Star program by industry and mandatory use by Government, plus web education programs.

The technology for reducing energy use is not too difficult. A 50% cut may sound large, but is much easier for computer equipment than for older more mature technologies. The difficult part is motivating people to actually do it.

Why didn't you just mention that 'Standby' status is the main culprit ?

Tom

"The difficult part is motivating people to actually do it."

Not sure whether you're referring to manufacturers and industry people or to consumers here. Either way, there has to be a combined regulatory and educative response. In what other ways, besides turning off stand-by, can the average consumer reduce their environmental impact? For example, I'm still using an old monitor because I hate waste and there seems to be no reason I can see to change to a flat screen. If I knew there were clear environmental benefits, and possibly health reasons too, I would definitely make the switch.

An issue that has always concerned me is the turnover of computer equipment. It seems to be superseded so quickly and so much wastage results. Another concern is the mercury and other environmentally hazardous materials used in the production of computer equipment. Much more has to be done on the part of industry to address recycling and durability issues.

The issue of data storage is also looming as a real environmental problem. The trend to constructing massive buildings just to house data is mushrooming and the amount of energy to run and cool the computer systems within must be adding enormously to greenhouse emissions. When you consider we seem to be moving towards a situation of having the whole world connected online, you have to wonder how much data we can keep generating and storing. On a personal basis alone, it seems to be the accepted norm that everyone will have a facebook page and the numbers of photos and contacts people collect on these pages must run into staggering quantities. This of course pales into insignificance when compared to the truly mind-boggling amount of data generated by business.

Had a quick peruse (not a read!) through your draft strategy. A summary of the main points in an article for OLO would be a useful discussion starter. I don't think many will take the time out to read the document you've linked to here. A great start though and good to see action at long last happening on this front.

Polycarp wrote 22 September 2008 1:58:27 PM:
"Why didn't you just mention that 'Standby' status is the main culprit ?"

As I was doing a high level policy document I didn't want to get down into the detail too much: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/pcmees/pc-report-04.html#1.Executive%20Summary|outline

Also standby is only part of the problem. The Energy Star program I recommended currently covers only standby power for PCs. The new version 5 is supposed to also measure the power used by a PC when running typical applications. US EPA have called a meeting in a few days time to see if everyone can agree exactly how to do that.

Bronwyn wrote 23 September 2008 10:35:07 AM:

" '... difficult part is motivating people ...' Not sure whether you're referring to manufacturers and industry people or to consumers here."

I had in mind a mix of measures for motivating both computer makers and users: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/pcmees/pc-report-04.html#1.Executive%20Summary|outline

The original proposal was for mandatory standards and labelling for PCs. But these would be unique to Australia. So instead I proposed the US approach: mandatory for government sales, but voluntary for companies and consumers.

Apart from making sure they have stand-by on their PC, there is not much the average consumer can do to reduce the environmental impact of a computer. But they can buy a more efficient new computer.

Like you I was using an old CRT monitor on my desk. But the IT support people came around and explained how much extra power the unit was using, so I gave in and got an LCD unit.

I believe that we are likely to see a slowdown in the turnover of computer equipment. I have assumed five years in my report, about double the current rate. This will be partly brought about by applications being run on remote servers, so the power of the computer on the desktop will matter less. This way of computing is variously called thin client, cloud, or netPC: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2008/09/cloud-computers-for-australia.html

The issue of the environmental impact of large data centres is one that I hope to help the Environment Department and the industry address, after we have PCs sorted out. In a way this is much easier than PCs, as there are far fewer large data centres to worry about. Also the people paying the bills for them are very aware of the cost of power and land. Amongst others, IBM <http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2008/07/ibm-green-it.html> and Sun <http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2008/08/green-rationalised-data-centres-at-sun.html> have a plausible approach to green data centres. But I am a bit sceptical of some, such as data centres in shipping containers: <http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2008/07/data-centre-in-shipping-container-from.html>.

In response I have proposed solar powered data centres built from low cost pallet warehouses: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2008/09/combined-data-center-and-solar-power.html

When it comes to "return on effort",

I figure it is more effective to either

turn down the temperature on a electric water system by one degree or

trun up an airconditioner by one degree,

or swap your light globes (if you are into glaring white)

than bother with PC standby status.