The growing demand for storage and transport of ‘big data’ that is underway will increase even more dramatically as the ‘internet of things’ is rolled out. GBS projects that major technology upgrades to reduce implementation costs of this coming explosion will begin with the replacement of air-cooled with liquid-cooled processors in data centers. In working with the leading developer of this capability, we recently performed an analysis to quantify the impacts of this transition with each tech refresh cycle for a data center in operation today. With a three year cycle for replacing servers, a CAPEX savings of 35% and an annual recurring OPEX savings of 75% will be realized by the end of year three. In addition, a reduction in floor space required for servers of 88% was achieved to provide the same processing capability…and that’s not all as dramatic reductions in noise and water usage were also realized. These results lead us to conclude that the transition to liquid-cooled processors will be a major ‘Game Changer’ to start very soon for next generation data centers.
Integration of Software Defined Networks (SDN) with Network Function Virtualization into commercial carrier operations is expected to result in dramatic reductions in both capital (CAPEX) and operating (OPEX) expenses. For data centers, we believe that SDN/NFV coupled with optical switching (OS) will be a ‘Killer App’ for achieving costs savings by owners willing to adopt this technical approach.
On a parallel and potentially related path, OMB has recently approved use of Energy Service Performance Contracts and Utility Energy Service Contracts by Federal Agencies to fund installment of new IT and telecom equipment through avoided energy and real estate costs at data centers using multi-year (up to 25 years) contracting authority. In other words, projected cost savings achieved with SDN/NFV/OS adoption can cover implementation costs for this new network architecture.
We’re still not there yet as the CAPEX for new equipment in an era of declining Federal budgets still needs to be addressed. So, the final enabler to make this happen includes the Federal Agency’s access to private capital through a Public/Private Partnership (PPP).
In summary, we propose implementation of a SDN/NFV/OS architecture at Federal Data Centers funded by cost savings in CAPEX and OPEX over 25 years with use of a PPP without any increase in a Federal Agency’s budget …a cost effective system solution ready for prime time but requiring ‘out-of-the-box’ cooperation by both the Public and Private Sectors.
The President just issued a new Executive Order defining tough goals for Federal Agencies to reduce their Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs) with increasing use of Alternate Energy Technologies. For the first time, Small Modular Reactors were included in the Executive Order as a viable technology option along with renewable energy for reducing GHGs. GBS is supportive of the expansion to include SMRs in the mix as we have been an advocate of this position for the past five years. Hooray!
Americans want clean air, but the Government should not be establishing its preferences regarding what constitutes ‘politically acceptable’ clean energy technologies for achieving the Nation’s clean air goals. This preference is obvious in current US Federal Agencies’ policies which credit use of Renewable Energy Systems for achieving their mandated goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but does not credit Nuclear Power Systems as a clean energy technology option. An example of this is discussed in the American Nuclear Society’s November/December newsletter which explains how using EPA calculation algorithms result in States reducing their greenhouse gas emissions when nuclear power systems currently in operation by utilities are replace with natural gas power systems. From a technical perspective, replacing existing non-carbon energy sources with a carbon source cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EPA calculations that claims cleaner air is achieved by replacing nuclear power with natural gas is patently wrong and represents a policy direction driven by pure politics, not a credible technical evaluation.
EPA is demonstrating an anti-nuclear power bias which is reflected in its policies. In fact, all Federal Agencies appear to have adopted this same bias which is impacting our progress toward meeting US Clean Air goals as well as Energy Independence.