As Dave Rubcich (Vertiv’s VP, Key Accounts- Multi-Tenant) puts it, “you can’t be sustainable without being efficient,” and “if you’re going to have a sustainable data center you’re certainly going to be efficient—but you can be efficient without being sustainable.” He cautions they are two different terms not to be confused with one another.

Data center energy efficiency has varying driving factors for the range of effects yielded. When infrastructure and equipment are more energy efficient in the way they work, one of the most favorable results is the fact that operating costs will go down. Also, less repairs are needed, and less equipment too, which results in more open space in your data center. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, the less energy that is used, the less of an impact you have on the environment and its natural resources. That’s where sustainability comes into the picture.

Sustainability is becoming more and more companies’ priority, but can have different meanings depending on how you’re looking at the issue. Overall, we are trying to sustain the levels of natural resources we have on the planet so as not to contribute to global warming, or even my some miracle make a dent in efforts to reduce it. To work towards this, data centers are striving to have absolutely no impact on the planet.

It is a dream of an ideal scenario. The way Vertiv sees it, sustainability means zero losses, zero carbon, zero water, and zero waste. “We’re nowhere near there today,” Rubcich admits, “But if we don’t start thinking about it, we can never get there.” So, is it plausible to truly not use any natural resources? Not today, but down the road, it’s the long-term goal, but only once real efforts have been made to chip away at the issue. Rubcich adds, “If you’re going to be carbon neutral or carbon negative, you’re not going to be using generators that are running on diesel fuels.” Alternative energy sources will be a must, going into the future.
Elsewhere, in the case of cooling equipment that rely on water, and therefore the equipment’s WUE (water usage effectiveness) is measured, there has been considerable movement away from certain any of these technologies that use a large supply water. Total water usage is becoming a leading factor for companies’ decision-making criteria for new equipment.

So, in what other way can end-users start to include sustainability strategies in the present-day operations of their data center? Rubcich notes that there are already a number of products readily available on the market today that are going to help improve overall efficiency of the data center and will help drive some of the sustainability goals. For example, pumped refrigerant as an economizer, as is the case with the Vertiv DX system, which doesn’t use any water.

Vertiv, along with many other companies are ramping up their efforts to be innovative with all types of technologies. Companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and are able to make commitments for sustainability milestones in the future. For example, Microsoft is committed to use 100% renewables by 2025, and to be carbon-negative by 2030. While some companies’ sustainability goals seem like far off pipedreams, they are on the right path as they have brought on C-suite level sustainability officers to create and implement certain strategies to attain these results. As Rubcich points out, “when you’re hiring [someone to focus on sustainability] at that level, you’re committed to it.” And it is that commitment that will make it a reality.

To explore more of this subject with Dave Rubcich, we invite you to listen to our recent Podcast, The Cooler Side of Data Center Sustainability.

Another year has come and gone. For some of you, this means your data center cooling equipment is another year older, and it may not be running as efficiently as you'd like.

So, the question becomes, to replace or not to replace? If you choose to replace the old equipment with the latest and greatest Vertiv has to offer, a whole lot of comfort and reliability will come with your purchase. If you’re on a much tighter budget, however, retrofitting your current equipment could be a viable option that will help you save energy today, while allowing it to last a few more years before you have to take the big leap to buy all new equipment. While possible equipment upgrades that can be considered include Liebert® iCOM™ and Liebert® EC fans, one equipment replacement might be a Liebert® DSE™.

Before you make up your mind though, it’s best to consider your different options and how they would effect your annual energy costs in the coming years. Would you be saving big with one option over the other? And, if so, how long will it take for these energy savings to cover the cost of the project? For a breakdown of these possible costs (and more) take a look at two options that Vertiv presents in a retrofit payback scenario.

Need help with your decision? Connect with your DVL data center engineer.

COLUMBUS, Ohio--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Vertiv, formerly Emerson Network Power, has acquired Energy Labs, a privately owned, U.S.-based manufacturer of custom air handling systems. The acquisition strengthens Vertiv’s leading position in the data center thermal management space and enables expansion into commercial and industrial segments with industry-leading cooling solutions.

Read full press release here.

If you’ve read the post about distributed and centralized bypass architectures, you’re probably evaluating the right architecture for a new datacenter, or maybe you’re re-designing the one you’re currently using. The decision is not easy and it will often impact the operation and performance of the power protection system in your datacenter or the connected loads. Unfortunately, in technology there is rarely a simple “yes – no” or black – white” answer, and this holds true for power distribution as well. Yet, in technology and science, there’s a “grey area”, in which the ‘right’ decision is strongly influenced by the specific context and case, and is dependent on many parameters. Luckily, there are paths to find the best solution as a trade-off between the multiple parameters involved.

If you’re considering the use of an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS), it means you are worried about the possibility of utility power failures and the associated downtime problems that follow. Given this, the selection of the appropriate configuration or architecture for power distribution is one of the first topics of discussion, and the use of a centralized, parallel, distributed, redundant, hot-standby or other configurations available, becomes an important part of it.  While there are numerous architectures to choose from, there are also several internal variables that will require your attention. Fortunately, a few elementary decisions will make the selection easier. Even if not all parameters can be matched, it’s important to at least begin the conversation and explore trade-offs and other considerations. Without trying to be exhaustive (which would require a dedicated white paper), you should consider at least the following:

a) Cost: more complex architectures will increase both your initial investment and your cost, not only at the initial design stage but during the entire life of your power system, especially with regards to efficiency. In other words, we could say that complex architectures will increase your TCO.

b) Availability and reliability: how reliable should your power system be? And what about single or multiple points of failure? Would you need any type of redundancy?

c) Plans for growth: Do you expect your power demand or capacity to increase in the future? Will you re-configure your load distribution?

d) Related to the previous point, but highlighted separately because of its importance for UPS is modularity. Do you need a modular solution for future expansion or redundancy?

e) Bypass architecture; an important point as explained in a separate post.

f) Need for monitoring of the complete UPS power system, also considering any shutdown of loads, and in combination with other systems like thermal management.

g) Service and maintenance: Once the initial investment in power protection has been made, please do not forget to keep it at optimum conditions. This maintenance at regular intervals has to be achieved through service contracts, check for spares availability if multiple types of UPS are used, capability to isolate a subset, or use of remote diagnostic and preventive monitoring services such as Emerson Network Power’s LIFE for maximum availability.

h) Profile of the loads; especially if you’re considering a few large loads or many “small” loads (perhaps distributed across several buildings or in a wide area such as a wind farm), autonomy required for each load, peak power demands, etc.

In addition, the decision is not only related to the internal requirements of the power systems, but it is also linked to the type of load or application to be protected, as requirements and decisions may vary depending on the application being industrial, education, government, banking, healthcare or data center. For example, an application where the loads are servers which manage printers in a bank, compared to a hospital where the power protection systems may manage several surgery rooms, are by no means the same. In fact, in the case of bank printers, in the worst case they can be shut down, while in the case of the surgery rooms, their shutdown is not an option unless for scheduled maintenance. This is because a non-scheduled shutdown of the medical equipment in a surgery room would have a serious impact on the people inside that room for a surgical operation.

Let’s take the hospital example further and consider a particular case. In order to do a quick exercise and simplify, we can use a scenario with several surgery rooms as a reference (for example 5 to 20 rooms, each one with a 5-10 kVA UPS for individual protection), plus a small data center (for example with 30 kVA power consumption) and finally, other critical installations in the facility (let’s assume 300 kVA for offices, laboratories, elevators, etc.).

In this scenario, initially, the architectures that could be envisaged as a first step are:

1. Fully distributed, and for simplicity’s sake, a hospital with 10 surgery rooms is assumed here with 10 kVA for each surgery room plus a centralized UPS (>330 kVA) for the remaining loads.

2. A fully redundant solution based on a centralized UPS protecting all the loads (this UPS being in a parallel redundant configuration). The power for any of these UPS would be 300 kVA + 30 kVA + (10 x 10 kVA).

3. An intermediate solution, referred to as “redundant hot standby”, so that this redundant UPS is sized only for the surgery rooms (10 surgery rooms x 10 kVA), and with a bypass line connected to the large centralized UPS (>430 kVA). This solution shows the advantage of a smaller capacity required for this redundant hot standby UPS.

Emerson Network Power has done several simulations based on typical scenarios as the one described above for a hospital, and considered the factors for optimization a), b), e) and h). Considering the parameters for optimization, the energy savings (power consumption and heat dissipation), initial investment (CAPEX) as well as the maintenance costs (OPEX), the solution based on the “redundant hot standby” seems to be the most convenient.
Moreover, the difference between architectures 1 and 3 is larger as far as quantity of surgery rooms or period for cost simulation (from 1 year up to 10 years).
This points us in the right direction in selecting the best distribution architecture for this application in hospitals and using these parameters for optimization. Clearly, it can be enriched using the other parameters shown in the sections above, or adapted to the particular case (quantity of surgery rooms, autonomy for each load, power demanded by CPD room, reliability, …) that could lead to a different choice, but globally, this redundant hot standby has resulted in a good trade-off.

As said at the beginning, there is no magic solution for the optimum selection, but we have sought to explore several guidelines and check points that will help drive you towards the best solution for your case. Of course, any additional variables and the reader’s experience are welcome and can only serve to enrich the discussion.

Imagine the CEO of a public company saying, “on average, our employees are productive 10 percent of the day.” Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? Yet we regularly accept productivity level of 10 percent or less from our IT assets. Similarly, no CEO would accept their employees showing up for work 10, 20, or even 50 percent of the time, yet most organizations accept this standard when it comes to server utilization.

These examples alone make it clear our industry is not making the significant gains needed to get the most out of our IT assets. So, what can we do? Here are six steps you’re likely not yet taking to improve efficiency.

1. Increase Server Utilization: Raising server utilization is a major part of enabling server power supplies to operate at maximum efficiency, but the biggest benefit comes in the build-out it could delay. If you can tap into four times more server capacity, that could delay your need for additional servers – and possibly more space – by a factor of four.

2. Sleep Deep: Placing servers into a sleep state during known extended periods of non-use, such as nights and weekends, will go a long way toward improving overall data center efficiency. Powering down your servers has the potential to cut your total data center energy use by 9 percent, so it may be worth the extra effort.

3. Migrate to Newer Servers: In a typical data center, more than half of severs are ‘old,’ consuming approximately 65 percent of the energy and producing 4 percent of the output. In most enterprise data centers, you can probably shut off all servers four or more years old after you migrate the workloads with VMs to your newer hardware. In addition to the straight energy savings, this consolidation will free up space, power and cooling for your new applications.

4. Identify and Decommission Comatose Servers: Identifying servers that aren’t being utilized is not as simple as measuring CPU and memory usage. An energy efficiency audit from a trusted partner can help you put a program in place to take care of comatose servers and make improvements overall. An objective third-party can bring a fresh perspective beyond comatose servers including an asset management plan and DCIM to prevent more comatose servers in the future.

5. Draw from Existing Resources: If you haven’t already implemented the ten vendor-neutral steps of our Energy Logic framework, here are the steps. The returns on several of the steps outlined in this article are quantified in Energy Logic and, with local incentives, may achieve paybacks in less than two years.

6. Measure: The old adage applies: what isn’t measured isn’t managed. Whether you use PUE, CUPS, SPECPower or a combination of them all, knowing where you stand and where you want to be is essential.

Are there any other steps to improving data center efficiency you’ve seen?