Impact of Google’s withdraw from China on GreenM3, China is #30 in traffic

There is tons of news out there on Google’s contemplating a withdraw from China.  There are over 2,500 news articles on the topic.  WSJ.com is just one example.

Google's Watershed Moment in China

By ANDREW PEAPLE

There's little doubt this is a watershed moment for Google. By publicly contemplating a withdrawal from China, the company is showing it values its reputation for providing a secure service to users more than a leading position in a massive and growing market.

But is pulling out the right decision?

Near-term, Google's internal agonizing will be soothed by the knowledge China remains a small part of its global business. Google's China operations will contribute just 1% of its 2010 profits, Citi Investment Research says.

Telegraph UK has a timeline article on the activity in China.  Look at the activities over the past year.

March 2009:

China blocks YouTube, which is owned by Google.

June 2009:

China blocks Google.com and Gmail briefly as it accuses Google of spreading obscenity over the internet.

September 2009:

Kaifu Lee resigns, amid rumours that pressure from the Chinese government had become intolerable. John Liu is appointed to replace him.

October 2009:

A group of Chinese authors accuse Google of violating their copyright by reproducing their work on its Google Books service.

December 2009:

Rumours suggest Google had heavily reduced its staff in China.

January 2010:

Google announces it will stop self-censoring and that it may pull out of the country after a series of cyber attacks.

My blog is my own little lab to get information on how things work.  Curious I went to Google Analytics to see where China fit in GreenM3 traffic position.  Spot #30.

1

United States

2

United Kingdom

3

India

4

Canada

5

France

6

Japan

7

Germany

8

Netherlands

9

Australia

10

Singapore

11

Spain

12

Taiwan

13

Denmark

14

Malaysia

15

Italy

16

Brazil

17

Philippines

18

Sweden

19

South Korea

20

Belgium

21

Hong Kong

22

Indonesia

23

Ireland

24

Poland

25

Russia

26

Thailand

27

Egypt

28

Switzerland

29

Vietnam

30

China

With results that low am I being censored?  I get no search hits from Baidu, China’s leading search engine.

Read more

Missouri business leaders support development of data center tax incentives in the state

DataCenterKnowledge wrote on the Politics in data centers in NY, TX, and MO.

The Politics of Data Centers: NY, Texas, Missouri

January 6th, 2010 : Rich Miller

In recent years we’ve seen data centers become embroiled in state politics on topics such as whether to build new state data centers to manage citizens’ tax and benefit issues, where to put those data centers, who to hire to operate them, and whether to offer tax incentives to establish a state as a destination for development. This week we’ve data center make headlines in several states.

Missouri caught my attention as I have been there a few times meeting with business leaders.  Rich Miller goes on regarding Missouri.

Missouri: The state General Assembly in Missouri hopes to consider targeted tax incentives that will help the state attract more data center projects. Business groups, including the Missouri Coalition for Data Centers, hope to build upon a cluster of enterprise disaster recovery data centers in the Kansas City, and boost interest in the development of the state’s abundant supply of limestone caves as data center facilities. Missouri is home to several existing underground data bunkers, including The Mountain Complex near Branson and the Springnet Underground in Springfield.

The Missourinet article referenced by Rich has good points.

Business leaders put data center incentives on legislative wish list

by STEVE WALSH on JANUARY 3, 2010

in BUSINESS, TAXES

Among the many issues to be entertained during the 2010 session of the General Assembly, which begins on Wednesday at the State Capitol in Jefferson City, is one that would offer incentives in a bid to lure data centers to Missouri. The push for the legislation comes from what is known as the Missouri Coalition for Data Centers, which is made up of businesses and local economic development agencies.

The argument is to classify data centers as information factories.

“A data center, basically, is a warehouse for information storage,” said Tracy King, Director of Taxation and Fiscal Affairs with the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a member of the Coalition. “You can kind of look at a data center as a manufacturer. Instead of manufacturing widgets data centers manufacture bits.”

Why is designation as a manufacturer important? The manufacturing industry can already take advantage of state-sponsored incentives.

“We’re offering those same exact incentives to the manufacturing industry right now,” said Ora Reynolds, President of Hunt Midwest Enterprises in Kansas City. “So, if you’re manufacturing widgets you get these incentives. If you’re manufacturing data you don’t. So, this is basically the same incentives that are already out there for an industry that’s been in the state for years and years and now we’re trying to bring a new industry in with similar incentives.”

Why do this, because the rest of the surrounding states do which is why they have attracted the big data center companies.

“Tax incentives at every one of our surrounding states are already in place,” said King. “For, let’s say a 100,000 square foot data center, they’re handicapped by about $15-million to do business in Missouri. So they’re not doing business in Missouri – they’re doing business in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma – who already have both tax exemptions in place and also some personal property tax exemptions or abatements.”

Besides the Tax Director and business leaders, there is support in the House and Senate.

Sponsors of data center incentives legislation have been found in both the House and Senate. Supporters acknowledge the proposal might face challenges during these tough budget times, but they insist that at the end of the day the state would benefit from such legislation.

You can bet soon after Missouri extends manufacturing status to data centers, there will be an increase in data center activity in Missouri.

Read more

Are Washington State Taxes driving Data Center builders out of State?

DataCenterKnowledge has a post on Sabey’s partnership to expand out of the State of Washington.

Sabey Unveils Funding, Expansion Plans

January 8th, 2010 : Rich Miller

Rows of server racks inside the Sabey Corp. Intergate.Columbia data center complex in Wenatchee, Wash. 

Rows of server racks inside the Sabey Corp. Intergate.Columbia data center complex in Wenatchee, Wash.

Sabey Corporation has partnered with National Real Estate Advisors to form a new venture that will expand Sabey’s data center operations beyond its core market in the Pacific northwest, the companies said Thursday.

The new company, Sabey DataCenter Properties, will include Sabey’s existing data center developments. NREA will have a minority equity interest and will invest $100 million, which will be used to support the current portfolio and finance growth in new markets.

Where Sabey is going isn’t stated, but it’s not in the State of Washington.

Sabey is not identifying any of the markets where it may eventually operate data centers. But the company has forged a strong track record in building energy-efficient facilities, and its expansion comes at a time of growing interest in data centers built to the highest efficiency standards.

I’ve written on the past on the change in Washington State Sales Tax being applied to server equipment, and how Windows Azure servers were moved from Quincy, WA to San Antonio by Microsoft.

Aug 05, 2009

Washington State Sales Tax Drives Microsoft Windows Azure Servers to Texas

Mary-Jo Foley at ZDNnet picked up news on Microsoft’s decision to remove USA- Northwest from a deployment choice for Windows Azure.

Tax concerns to push Microsoft Azure cloud hosting out of Washington state

Posted by Mary Jo Foley @ 11:55 am

Microsoft is making preparations to move applications that developers are hosting on its Azure cloud infrastructure out of its Washington state datacenter, due to a change in the tax laws there.

Microsoft warned customers testing their apps on the Azure test release about the planned change earlier this week. Microsoft is readying a migration tool to help testers with the move, company officials said.

Cloud-computing and .Net expert Roger Jennings put together all the various reports and clues into a detailed August 5 post on his OakLeaf Systems blog.

One of the factors that is influencing the data center migration out of the state of Washington are the taxes.  But, with a 2.6 billion budget gap, don’t expect the state to change its taxation.

$2.6 billion gap in state budget prompts Dems to look at taxes

As the Legislature starts work to close a $2.6 billion budget gap, key lawmakers say tax increases may be inevitable. Top Democrats have indicated they'll suspend or modify Initiative 960, which requires a two-thirds legislative majority or voter approval for tax increases.

By Jim Brunner

Seattle Times staff reporter

PREV 1 of 2 NEXT

Enlarge this photo

Related

OLYMPIA — As the Legislature starts work today to close a $2.6 billion budget gap, key lawmakers say tax increases may be inevitable.

To clear the way, top Democrats have indicated they'll suspend or modify Initiative 960, which requires a two-thirds legislative majority or voter approval for tax increases.

But which taxes would be raised and who would pay them is far from clear.

Instead of a general tax increase — such as boosting the state sales tax — some top lawmakers are talking about more targeted approaches, such as extending the sales tax to candy, muffins and bottled water and increasing tobacco taxes.

Read more

Oregon State Data Center, learns from its first data center, a bit of humor

Saw this Oregon article about Oregon’s state data center.  I started reading expecting to hear interesting data center ideas, but I started to laugh as it was humorous to see this was Oregon state's first true data center and they thought they could run a data center with unqualified staff and they could do server consolidation across organizational boundaries.

Here is the background.

The Lesson from Oregon's Data Center: Don't Promise Too Much

12/04/2009

State governments across the country are making big changes in their IT departments. They're centralizing their own state data systems in a push to save money. The state of Washington is building a $300 million data center in Olympia. Oregon undertook a similar project a few years ago, but it's been criticized for failing to produce the promised financial savings. Salem Correspondent Chris Lehman found lessons from Oregon.

The State Data Center is a generic looking office building on the edge of Salem. Inside are the digital nerve centers of 10 state agencies, including Human Services, Corrections and Transportation. This mammoth information repository is so sensitive, you can't get very far before you get to something that operations manager Brian Nealy calls the "man trap." It's kind of like an air lock, you have to clear one set of doors before you can get through the next set.

And the story continues.

They have a physical security system.

Bryan Nealy: "You'll notice there are card readers on every door in the secure part of the data center. That way we can give people access only to the areas they need to go into. It's very granular as far as where people can get. This is the command center. This is manned 24–7, 365."

Yet, their goal was to consolidate across agencies which would cause huge workflow and security problems.

Koreski says the original business case for this $63 million facility made assumptions that turned out to be impractical. For example, planners figured they could combine servers from different agencies just by putting them under the same roof. But that's not what happened. Koreski says you can't do the two things at once: physically move the servers and combine their functions.

Due to this assumption they promised a cost savings.

Three years after it opened, data managers are still trying to reduce the number of physical machines at the Oregon Data Center. That ongoing work is one of the reasons Data Center Director John Koreski concedes the facility isn't on track to meet the original goal of saving the state money within the first five years.

John Koreski: "It's not even close."

So, data center operations is dancing to show they didn’t save money, but they did reduce future costs.

And that change has meant the economies of scale haven't materialized as fast as once thought. Koreski took the reigns of the Data Center in January. His predecessor left after a scathing audit from the Oregon Secretary of State's office last year. It said, quote, "It is unlikely that the anticipated savings will occur." But Director Koreski insists the Data Center is saving the state money.

John Koreski: "What our consolidation efforts resulted in was a cost avoidance, as opposed to a true cost savings where we actually wrote a check back to the Legislature."

Luckily Intel and Moore’s law saved their ass even though they are making it seem like the data center addresses budget issues.

In other words, Koreski says the Data Center is growing its capacity at a faster rate than it's growing its budget. That explanation computes for at least one analyst. Bob Cummings works in the Legislative Fiscal Office. It's his job to make sure the numbers add up for major state technology projects. He jumped into the Data Center fray as soon as he was hired last summer, and what Cummings found shocked him.

The Legislative Fiscal office faults the rationale for the data center as bullshit.

Bob Cummings: "It was the right thing to do. However, the rationale for doing it, and the baseline cost estimates and stuff for doing it, were all b–––––––. They were all wrong. They were all low."

Then it gets funnier.

Cummings says the state of Oregon failed to take into account one key detail: Washington already had a data center and is building a bigger one. In Oregon, no one with the state had ever run a Data Center before.

We have never done this before, but our first try was a great job.

Bob Cummings: "I mean, we had to build everything from scratch. And by the way, we did a great job of building a data center but didn't have anybody to run it, didn't have any procedures, no methods. We outsourced to a non–existent organization."

These guys are amateurs.

Oregon Department of Administrative Services Director Scott Harra echoed this in his response to the Secretary of State's audit. Harra wrote that the consolidation effort was hampered because it required skills and experience that did not previously exist in Oregon's state government. After last year's audit, Democratic State Representative Chuck Riley led a hearing that looked into the Data Center. He says he's convinced Data Center managers are saving the state money, but:

Rep. Chuck Riley: "The question is, did they meet their goals. And the answer is basically no, they didn't meet their goals. They over promised."

And that's the basic message Riley and others have for developers of Washington's data center: Keep expectations realistic. I'm Chris Lehman in Salem.

So, for all of you looking at Oregon for a state to put a data center. You can skip a trip to the Oregon state data center as I doubt you will hear this story.  Although it would be entertaining to hear an Oregon politician explain data center operations.

Read more

What most will miss in EPA’s GHG announcement, impact on water and power infrastructure

It is pretty cool that you don’t have to be official press event on Dec 7, 2009 to see news events like EPA’s GHG announcement.  I could watch a live feed through MSNBC. 

The official press announcement makes warnings to health and environment, but in the report is impact to water and power infrastructure both of which you need for data centers.

I was able to get to the official climate change page http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act

You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader, available as a free download, to view some of the files on this page.  See EPA's PDF page to learn more about PDF, and for a link to the free Acrobat Reader.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson press briefing – Live Streaming available through www.epa.gov.

Action

On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

  • Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
  • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities.  However, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration on September 15, 2009. 

Going through the findings document what I found very interesting is the water section.  So, even though everybody thinks this is about GHG.  The potential effect on the water supply is huge. Section 11 of the report covers water.  Section 11(d)

11(d) Implications for Water Uses

There are many competing water uses in the United States that will be adversely impacted by climate change impacts to water supply and quality. Furthermore, the past century is no longer a reasonable guide to the future for water management (Karl et al., 2009). The IPCC reviewed a number of studies describing the impacts of climate change on water uses in the United States that showed:

 Decreased water supply and lower water levels are likely to exacerbate challenges relating to navigation in the United States (Field et al., 2007). Some studies have found that low-flow conditions may restrict ship loading in shallow ports and harbors (Kundzewicz et al., 2007). However, navigational benefits from climate change exist as well. For example, the navigation season for the North Sea Route is projected to increase from the current 20 to 30 days per year to 90 to 100 days by 2080 (ACIA, 2004 and references therein).

 Climate change impacts to water supply and quality will affect agricultural practices, including the increase of irrigation demand in dry regions and the aggravation of non-point source water pollution problems in areas susceptible to intense rainfall events and flooding (Field et al., 2007). For more information on climate change impacts to agriculture, see Section 9.

 The U.S. energy sector, which relies heavily on water for generation (hydropower) and cooling capacity, will be adversely impacted by changes to water supply and quality in reservoirs and other water bodies (Wilbanks et al., 2007). For more information on climate change impacts to the energy sector, see Section 13.

 Climate-induced environmental changes (e.g., loss of glaciers, reduced river discharge in someregions, reduced snow fall in winter) will affect park tourism, winter sport activities, inland water sports (e.g., fishing, rafting, boating), and other recreational uses dependent upon precipitation (Field et al., 2007). While the North American tourism industry acknowledges the important influence of climate, its impacts have not been analyzed comprehensively.

 Ecological uses of water could be adversely impacted by climate change. Temperature increases and changed precipitation patterns alter flow and flow timing. These changes will threaten aquatic ecosystems (Kundzewicz et. al., 2007). For more information, on climate change impacts on ecosystems and wildlife, see Section 14.

 By changing the existing patterns of precipitation and runoff, climate change will further stress existing water disputes across the United States. Disputes currently exist in the Klamath River, Sacramento Delta, Colorado River, Great Lakes region, and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River system (Karl et al., 2009).

Energy is a section of itself in section 13.  It is good to see the EPA put water before Energy infrastructure.

13(b) Energy Production

Climate change could affect U.S. energy production and supply a) if extreme weather events become more intense, b) where regions dependent on water supplies for hydropower and/or thermal power plant cooling face reductions or increases in water supplies, c) where changed conditions affect facility siting decisions, and d) where climatic conditions change (positively or negatively) for biomass, wind power, or solar energy production (Wilbanks et al., 2007; CCSP 2007a).

Significant uncertainty exists about the potential impacts of climate change on energy production and distribution, in part because the timing and magnitude of climate impacts are uncertain. Nonetheless, every existing source of energy in the United States has some vulnerability to climate variability. Renewable energy sources tend to be more sensitive to climate variables, but fossil energy production can also be adversely effected by air and water temperatures, and the thermoelectric cooling process that is critical to maintaining high electrical generation efficiencies also applies to nuclear energy. In addition, extreme weather events have adverse effects on energy production, distribution, and fuel transportation

The official press release  is here.

EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment / Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity

Release date: 12/07/2009

Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn, Milbourn.cathy@epa.gov, 202-564-7849, 202-564-4355; En español: Lina Younes, younes.lina@epa.gov, 202-564-9924, 202-564-4355

EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment

Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity
WASHINGTON – After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.

image

The EPA provided sound snippets as well.

Speaker: Lisa P. Jackson
EPA Administrator

Sound bite 1 (MP3, 0:11 secs, 360 KB)
Transcript: Today, EPA announced that greenhouse gases threaten the health and welfare of the American people. We also found that greenhouse gas emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.

Sound bite 2 (MP3, 0:15 secs, 500 KB)
Transcript: The accumulation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, the poor, the elderly - that can increase ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

Sound bite 3 (MP3, 0:15 secs, 500 KB)
Transcript: Today’s announcement, on its own, does not impose any new requirements on industry. But, today’s announcement is the prerequisite for strong new emissions standards for cars and trucks: the ones the president announced last spring.

Sound bite 4 (MP3, 0:22 secs, 700 KB)
Transcript: Today’s finding is based on decades of research by hundreds of researchers. The vast body of evidence not only remains unassailable, it’s grown stronger, and it points to one conclusion: greenhouse gases from human activity are increasing at unprecedented rates and are adversely affecting our environment and threatening our health.

Read more