House backs energy-efficient servers for feds, industry

FCW.com ^ | 7/14/06 | Aliya Sternstein

[advance_copy]

The House of Representatives has approved a bill that directs the Environmental Protection Agency to assess the potential energy and cost savings of purchasing energy-efficient servers for federal government and business data centers.

On Wednesday, the House passed H.R. 5646 by a vote of 417-4.

Studies have shown energy efficient servers can save up to 80 percent in electricity and cooling costs, according to co-sponsor Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.).

Between 2005 and 2009, the U.S. server market is expected to grow from 2.8 million units to 4.9 million units.

This spike in server demand will result in soaring energy costs as data centers consume more power and require more energy to cool, said the bill’s other co-sponsor, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.).

The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.

[advance_copy]

I do not like this one bit. The current manufacturers support it, because it'll help keep any new upstarts (if such even exist these days) out of the market. But if you can afford your electric bill, what business is it of the U.S. government how many Watts your servers draw. Bad bad bad.

[LasVegasMac]

The House of Representatives has approved a bill that directs the Environmental Protection Agency to assess the potential cost savings of purchasing employing efficient employees for federal government centers.

The way it should read.

[PghBaldy]

Considering they have rotten security, wouldn't a focus on security be better at this time? Hackers recently broke into State Dept computers. Especially those dealing with the North Korea issue. THAT seems more pressing to me now.

[Cousin Eddie]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Are they saying that government data centers haven't looked at potential energy savings in the past? And why is congress wasting their time with this? It's as stupid as Congress passing a law saying that govt agencies ought to compare the cost of toilet paper before deciding which brand to purchase. Well duh!!!

I used to sell mainframs for IBM in the 80s, and the financial justification always considered potential energy savings, especially if the installed machine was more than 5 years old. Newer machines -- besides offering faster performance and new capabilities -- always consumed less power than previous models, and it wasn't unusual for a new machine to consume over $1,000 less in energy per month (i.e. $12,000 per year and $50,000 to $100,000 over the life of the machine). Granted, energy savings alone wasn't enough to justify a new machine that might run $1 million to $5 million, but they'd have to be idiots not to consider it in the equation.