The CBA of the migration project for the software development and test activities at GEC to the AWS cloud shows positive financial results. However, it was not possible to demonstrate that the assumed environmental benefits of cloud computing played a sensitive role there. By migrating parts of the computing resources of the datacenter to the AWS cloud, the financial analysis demonstrated that GEC could achieve significant cost savings in areas of hardware equipment costs, electricity consumption costs for the servers' power and cooling, as well as in user productivity gained from the better effectiveness of the hybrid cloud solution. The financial analysis shows that GEC could obtain a risk-adjusted return on investment (ROI) of 117%, with a payback period of 9 months, by migrating its software R&D's development and test activities to the AWS cloud. However, the initial environmental benefits assumption about cloud computing―resulting from a higher computing efficiency―could not be objectively quantified in the analysis. Failure do to so, can be explained through two main reasons:
Firstly, it is not argued that cloud computing can save billions of kW-hours in energy consumption because cloud providers can squeeze the performance and efficiency of their infrastructures at much higher levels than private datacenters, especially when compared to those of small firms of limited innovation and cash resources. But while the energy efficiency benefits of cloud computing are generally not contested, claiming that cloud computing is a green technology is a totally different story, as reported by a number of ICT practitioners and ONGs like Greenpeace. Despite the fact that some cloud providers are reaching extremely low PUEs, and are also looking to build massive datacenters in places so as to maximize energy efficiency and harness renewable or clean energy, the primary motivation is cost containment, which doesn't necessarily meet environmental and social responsibility objectives. The study showed that while energy efficiency reduces the energy consumption footprint, it is not green if cloud providers are simply looking at maximizing output from the cheapest and dirtiest source of energy available, such as Microsoft's Chicago cloud who supplies power to its datacenter from a coal-burning electricity grid.
Secondly, the current body of environmental legislations that are enacted by governments and regulatory organizations that apply to the ICT sectors are not to a large extent quantifiable in financial terms. This observation I think is coherent with the findings of this study and coherent with the common perception that the economics of green IT are stimulated primarily by the concern of cutting costs in areas of energy-related expenses as well as hardware and maintenance expenses. In other words, “do the right thing for the environment” is not sufficiently rewarded by today's legislations “Energy Policies and Implication”. For example, the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) that regulates the emission of greenhouse gases for the energy sector and other heavy energy consuming industries is not enforceable (yet) to the ICT industry sectors. With regard to energy policies that are of importance to the ICT industry sectors, including the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, the EC Code of Conduct on Data Centers Energy Efficiency, and the Grenelle of the Environment for France, have had, so far, minor to zero financial impacts for the datacenter sector. All this may change in the future, but at the time of this writing it is the current state of business.
Firstly, it is not argued that cloud computing can save billions of kW-hours in energy consumption because cloud providers can squeeze the performance and efficiency of their infrastructures at much higher levels than private datacenters, especially when compared to those of small firms of limited innovation and cash resources. But while the energy efficiency benefits of cloud computing are generally not contested, claiming that cloud computing is a green technology is a totally different story, as reported by a number of ICT practitioners and ONGs like Greenpeace. Despite the fact that some cloud providers are reaching extremely low PUEs, and are also looking to build massive datacenters in places so as to maximize energy efficiency and harness renewable or clean energy, the primary motivation is cost containment, which doesn't necessarily meet environmental and social responsibility objectives. The study showed that while energy efficiency reduces the energy consumption footprint, it is not green if cloud providers are simply looking at maximizing output from the cheapest and dirtiest source of energy available, such as Microsoft's Chicago cloud who supplies power to its datacenter from a coal-burning electricity grid.
Secondly, the current body of environmental legislations that are enacted by governments and regulatory organizations that apply to the ICT sectors are not to a large extent quantifiable in financial terms. This observation I think is coherent with the findings of this study and coherent with the common perception that the economics of green IT are stimulated primarily by the concern of cutting costs in areas of energy-related expenses as well as hardware and maintenance expenses. In other words, “do the right thing for the environment” is not sufficiently rewarded by today's legislations “Energy Policies and Implication”. For example, the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) that regulates the emission of greenhouse gases for the energy sector and other heavy energy consuming industries is not enforceable (yet) to the ICT industry sectors. With regard to energy policies that are of importance to the ICT industry sectors, including the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, the EC Code of Conduct on Data Centers Energy Efficiency, and the Grenelle of the Environment for France, have had, so far, minor to zero financial impacts for the datacenter sector. All this may change in the future, but at the time of this writing it is the current state of business.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please Share Your Views