Google’s New Green Data Center Site, Austria

DataCenterKnowledge has a post about Google’s new data center in Austria with abundant hydroelectric (green) energy nearby.

Google Confirms New Data Center in Austria

November 21st, 2008 : Rich Miller

Google will build a new data center on this parcel of framland near Kronstruf, Austria.

Google will build a new data center on this parcel of farmland near Kronstorf, Austria.

Google today confirmed that it plans to build a data center in Kronstorf, Austria, where it has purchased 185 acres of farmland for the project. The project has been in the works since May, when news of Google’s site location scouting trips in Austria was published on Twitter by Kronstorf residents.

Here is the Green Energy part.

The land for the new data center is near several hydro-electric power plants on the river Enns, which would satisfy Google’s requirement for the use of renewable energy sources in its facilities.

But, I also found it interesting this site only has 100 people as Google has had up to 200 for many facilities in the US.

Kronstorf also is close to major universities in Linz, Steyr and Hagenberg, which could supply a trained IT workforce. The project is expected to create 100 jobs.

Read more

Nuclear Energy Reading List, WSJ

WSJ has a reading list on Nuclear Energy

Reading Up on Nuclear Energy

The debate over nuclear energy has gained new life thanks to concerns about climate change and the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. We asked several experts on the topic to suggest resources for understanding -- and joining -- the debate.

-- Michael Totty

PETER A. BRADFORD, adjunct professor, Vermont Law School, and former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

  • For an even-handed recent overview of most nuclear power issues, see "Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding," a June 2007 report by the Keystone Center, a non-profit organization that brought together a cross section of parties interested in nuclear energy – including environmentalists and consumer advocates, industry representatives and government officials – to create a base of agreed-upon knowledge about the costs, risks and benefits of nuclear power.
    www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_12_2007(1).pdf

And here is a talk at Google on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor

Joe Bonometti's "Tech Talk" at Google

Dr. Joe Bonometti, gave a "Tech Talk" at Google this past Tuesday on the subject of Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactors. You can also download a copy of his slides here:
LFTR Google Presentation
We really appreciate all of Joe's efforts to advance and promulgate this important technology!

Read more

Another Choice for Nuclear Reactor Data Center

DataCenterKnowledge has another alternative for nuclear power.

Are Nuclear Powered Data Centers Possible?

November 14th, 2008 : Rich Miller

A New Mexico company has announced plans to begin selling compact nuclear power “modules” for commercial use, which are projected to generate about 27 megawatts of energy. The announcement by Hyperion Power Generation of Santa Fe has prompted some tech watchers to wonder whether these mini-nuke installations could be a workable solution for the data center industry.

Hyperion licensed the original reactor design from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The Hyperion Power Module is a hydride reactor that is approximately the size of a hot tub and can drive a steam turbine for seven to 10 years. The reactor uses a uranium hydride core, surrounded by hydrogen gas, and the fuel is not enriched to weapons-grade, meaning it can’t be used for building a nuclear device.

I blogged about this idea before, and I waiting for when there is a data center that chooses a small nuclear power plant.  Right now some companies are evaluating new power plants for remote locations as power generation is limited in many markets.  Why not nuclear.

One alternative to the not in my backyard problem for nuclear plants is to float the nuclear plant offshore.

Russia is already building floating nuclear power plants for Arctic operations.

Given that we are already supposed to be facing the twin threats of terrorism and environmental meltdown, you might think the last thing the world needs is a fleet of floating nuclear power plants (NPPs). Russia disagrees, and confirmed this week that construction has started on the first of seven ships carrying a 70MW nuclear reactor. The ships will provide power to remote coastal towns, or be sold abroad, with 12 countries, including Algeria and Indonesia, said to have expressed interest.

Read more

Floating Nuclear Plant Failed Attempt in 1970s

A blog reader submitted a comment.

Offshore Power Systems was going to build and deploy floating commercial reactors back in the seventies. In fact one of the largest cranes in the world was built in Jacksonville FL in the late seventies where the completed plants could be launched and then towed to there operating sites. Unfortunately one of the greatest President's ever banned any new Nuclear Power Plants in this country! So the crane stood on the Jacksonville skyline as a monumnet to ignorance until the mid 1990s when the chinese bought it dismantled and moved it to China!

Made me curious and found this article in Atomic Insights on Offshore Power Systems attempt to build floating nuclear plants..

Most people associated with the nuclear industry, and many residents of Florida have some knowledge of the ill-fated Westinghouse/Newport News Offshore Power System project.

Begun in 1970, this project was based on two ideas. The first was that a series of identical reactors produced in a factory type setting could be completed in a shorter period of time than a similar number of custom made plants constructed on site. The second was that plants located several miles off shore might be able to avoid the infamous Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome that had begun to plague power plant developers.

Basic Plant Design

By 1970, Westinghouse executives realized that one of the main problems in making nuclear plants competitive was the fact that they were all custom built plants. Company engineers began producing some conceptual designs for smaller, modular plants and checking the reaction of utility executives to the designs.

At Public Service Electric and Gas, based in New Jersey, the designers found some strong interest in standardized plants. However, Richard Eckert, the main proponent of such plants, had some suggestions of his own.

He suggested that the plants should be utility sized, i.e. on the order of 1000 MWe, and constructed so that they could be moored off shore. As the man in charge of finding new sites for power plants, he had discovered that there were a very limited number of sites available in areas where power demands were high. He realized, however, that many such areas were close to the ocean.

After some give and take between the supplier and the customer, the plant design that evolved was essentially a man-made island that could support two 1200 MWe nuclear plants. The power island would be fabricated in a specialized facility, maneuvered to the site and permanently moored behind a large, protective breakwater. Ideally, the plant would be located a bit less than three miles off shore and the power would be sent via underwater cables.

It is ironic what doomed the floating nuclear plant was the 1973 oil embargo which decreased the demand for electricity.

Cancellations

With all of the positives going for this project, it is important to understand why it failed. Surprisingly enough, the initiating event was the OPEC oil embargo of 1973. Typically, an event that leads to a rapid quadrupling of the price of a competitive product is good for business, but the energy industry does not follow normal rules.

The major industrial loads on the Public Service system were oil refineries and petrochemical plants located in places like Newark, New Jersey. The embargo dramatically reduced the demand for their products, so they reduced their purchases of electricity.

Since Public Service's customers needed less electricity, they did not need the capacity represented by the two large plants that they had ordered from Offshore Power Systems. Even though the purchase contracts required them to cover the supplier's costs, including those of building the manufacturing facility, Public Service desperately needed to slow down their capacity additions.

At first Public Service asked for a two year delay, hoping that the "energy crisis" was temporary, but they eventually canceled all orders.

Since the plants and the facilities that had been designed were specifically designed for the production of 1200 MWe central station power plants for the densely populated and prosperous Northeast United States, there was little hope of finding alternative customers. This was unfortunate, since many areas of the world were desperate for moderately sized, non-oil based electric power sources.

Since no business - no matter how good their people, their facilities or their technology - can survive without customers, Offshore Power Systems closed down. The people associated with the project were either relocated or found other employment. Westinghouse sold the Blount Island facility.

The project became a bad memory for many in the nuclear industry, most of whom do not understand the business reasons for the closure. They simply remember that Westinghouse tried floating power plants and failed to produce a single plant. Unfortunately, many industry pessimists see this as a reason to believe that any project based on similar ideas is doomed to fail.

Read more

Universities Greener than Corporations, Educating The Future Workforce

ZDNet posts on Green IT adoption in Universities.

A majority of technology professionals at these schools also are actively powering down their data centers on a regular schedule to cut back on power use (about 55 percent use these techniques). Close to 30 percent have made changes to their data center designed and 20 percent have simplified their networks with energy savings in mind.

Some of you may be surprised by these facts, but I'm not. As I've had the experience with Cornell Medical School's BioMedicine department. Their IT attitude of doing the right thing, setting an example on what can be done, and low labor costs from student faculty creates an environment for green innovation and early adoption.

Other interesting parts of the blog post.

A survey from the Association for Information Communications Technology Professionals in Higher Education finds that at least two-thirds of colleges and universities are adopting energy-savings programs or other policies that could be deemed environmentally conscious. The findings were collected from member schools. (There are 2,000 members from 780 schools.)

In a move that I find fascinating, giving the poor action taken by the general public in this area as evidenced by the Forrester poll I wrote about yesterday, 80 percent of the surveyed universities are recycling computer and networking equipment — a figure much higher than the general public. About 73 percent of the schools said they are buying more energy-efficient equipment, and 63 percent have adopted policies to cut back on printing.

One big indicator about the future of education, given both technology and the green influence: 65 percent of the respondents said they bought new equipment for the specific purpose of launching distance learning or online education programs.

And, the blog finishes with a dig on corporate environments.

Two other interesting stats to leave you with:
- One in four schools is using at least one alternative energy source to provide power on campus.(Can your company say the same?)
- One in four schools has adopted telecommuting policies for their faculty. (Ditto?)

Read more