- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: [Possible OT] California, and running off of generators for extended periods
by Sean Donelan 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

On Tue, 16 January 2001, Jerry Scharf wrote: > Unless you have a group that is really really set up to run on local power as > your main source, it's best to use it as the backup it was designed to be. > Unless the facility is ready to make a major commitment to local power > generation, the risks outweigh the benefits, IMO. I'd agree with this statement. Although some politicians have made a deal about the "Internet" economies effects on the power situation in California, the major colo and hosting companies don't really have much effect on the "peak" load. They already have either interruptible contracts, or go on generator when the voltage starts fluctuating. When the grid is down to the last 0.5%, a lot of data center load is already shed off the grid. Which really shows you how bad things have gotten. The problems with doing this on a regular basis. "STANDBY" power systems are standby systems. It seems obvious, but folks don't always remember it. Standby plants are not designed, built or maintained for continious operation. When you order a generator from Catapiller, you have three options: Primary, Continious and Standby. The different types of generators have different costs, and standard features. Maintaining and operating a continious power plant is very different from a standby power plant. Its effects everything from OSHA regulations to the type of employees you need on staff. The Environmental Protection Agency assumes standby generators operate when the grid is off-line, so the net pollution is about zero. If you operate while the grid is on-line, the EPA will start asking for impact statements. For local pollution controls, the assumption is standby generators operate a maximum of 250 hours per year (including testing, standby duty, etc). Normally not a problem, except maybe this year. Once again, more than 250 hours of operation, and someone will want an impact statement. Some local air quality control boards may have more stringiant controls. And finally, the most important factor: cost. Power from the grid is the average cost of power including very cheap hydro and nuclear to more expensive coal and gas fueled plants. While the peak cost of operating your own diesel may be less, the average cost is usually more. If you've been reading the newspapers, you will have seen a number of people making noise about co-generation plants. Many large universities already have on-campus co-gen facilities. The problem is in the past co-gen only made sense when you had a use for the "excess" heat, such as heating the college campus. The one thing colo/hosting facilities don't need is excess heat. But, depending on how the market shapes up, it may make financial sense to operate your own power facility. If you can partner with a nearby institution which needs the heat, and can share the reliable power (e.g. a hospital, hotel, large office complex) you might make it work.

1 0

[Possible OT] California, and running off of generators for extended periods
by Matt Clauson 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

Allo, all... Watching what's going on in California, it occured to me, and some of my colleagues, that the major colo and data centers (for example, but not focusing on, Exodus, Colo.com, etc.) could assist in the power crunch that California is having by shifting part, or all, of their loads over to generator power -- one would think that a) diesel fuel is still cheaper than electricity in California, price hikes lately notwithstanding, and b) the goodwill generated by such an endeavor would be good for the company. Admittedly, some sites with only limited battery UPS power cannot do this, at least not so early in the day. But it seems to me that at least a few datacenters and major facilities could switch over to independent power and just keep fueling the generators. Question: Why would (or wouldn't) your company switch your datacenter loads to generator (or other off-mains) power sources, if you had the capability and/or capacity? Comments invited, especially from companies in CA, or with offices/datacenters in CA. Comments will be aggregated and (re)posted at a later date. (note: this is posted from my personal account. This inquiry is NOT related to my employer or employment, but is posed for information, speculation, and discussion among the NANOG and Internet communities.) --mec

4 3

Re: [Possible OT] California, and running off of generators for extended periods
by Richard A. Steenbergen 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:03:25AM -0800, Sean Morrison wrote: > > Anyone using or considering using a gas turbine instead of diesel to > run their generators? Why not just go straight to nuclear powered colo? :P http://www.uic.com.au/nip60.htm -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/humble PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

3 2

Re: [Possible OT] California, and running off of generators for extended periods
by matthew＠tycho.net 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

> Question: Why would (or wouldn't) your company switch your datacenter > loads to generator (or other off-mains) power sources, if you had the > capability and/or capacity? 1. Due to price caps, it costs me less to take electricity from PG&E (which, because I run a datacenter 24x7, I don't take with time-of-use metering) than it does to run my generator on diesel. Especially so if I factor in the non-fuel costs of operation. 2. My permit from the local air quality management district restricts me to operation when the utility is offline plus a total of 60 hours per year for all testing. I would need to apply for a permit for a different type of operation (voluntary load shedding, peak shaving, or prime generation) and for that, a full environmental impact report is required. Given #1, it isn't worth my trouble. (And my AQMD is the Monterey Bay AQMD... I can't even imagine the pain of applying in the Los Angeles area) 3. Other than as a PR effort, this doesn't make as much sense as having some industry which uses much more power than the Internet data center industry do this. Perhaps an industry which can easily move their peak load to a different hour of the day. Of course, if we had *real* deregulation, my price for power as a commercial user would closely reflect the utility's cost for power, and they might even charge me differently by time of use whether or not I wanted that... then the cost equation changes for item 1, and I'd have an incentive to go look at the true costs of item 2. -matthew kaufman Tycho Networks/DSL.net matthew(a)tycho.net

4 4

Re: [Possible OT] California, and running off of generators for extended periods
by Spencer.Wood＠dot.state.oh.us 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

I saw an article in NetworkComputing/Network World where one Company was using Fuel Cell's to provide main building power.....Utility power was first level backup, generators where the second.... Spencer **************************************************** Spencer Wood, Network Administrator Ohio Department Of Transportation 1320 Arthur E. Adams Drive Columbus, Ohio 43221 E-Mail: Spencer.Wood(a)dot.state.oh.us Phone: 614.644.5422/Fax: 815.361.0714 **************************************************** "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> Sent by: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu 01/16/2001 01:24 PM To: Sean Morrison <seanm(a)dnai.com> cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: [Possible OT] California, and running off of generators for extended periods On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:03:25AM -0800, Sean Morrison wrote: > > Anyone using or considering using a gas turbine instead of diesel to > run their generators? Why not just go straight to nuclear powered colo? :P http://www.uic.com.au/nip60.htm -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/humble PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0

RE: [Possible OT] California, and running off of generators for e xtended periods
by Richard Welty 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

John Fraizer [mailto:nanog@EnterZone.Net] wrote: > I believe that you will find that it is no economical to run > on generator > when on-mains power is available. The fuel is only one factor in the > overall cost of running on generator. Mechanical wear and tear is the > number one cost. The cost of power is will have to increase much more > before it becomes cost-effective to self-generate. i'm familiar with a NYS government agency which ran their generators for an extended period because, ignoring maintenence costs, it seemed cheaper to use generated power. they learned their lesson when they got the bill on rebuilding their generators. richard

1 0

RE: [Possible OT] California, and running off of generators for e xtended periods
by Karyn Ulriksen 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

Not sure about others, but we are already supplementing our Edison feed with our backup power supplies. If we didn't we'd be meeting brown out conditions. We have the diesel generator scheduled to go online when our battery reserves dwindle to a range that we have determined. Why? Hassle. Seems the appropriate way to work. Diesel is noisy and creates bad neighbor relations. Pick a reason. K Irvine, CA > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Clauson [mailto:mec@dotorg.org] > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 9:30 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: [Possible OT] California, and running off of generators for > extended periods > > > > Allo, all... Watching what's going on in California, it > occured to me, > and some of my colleagues, that the major colo and data centers (for > example, but not focusing on, Exodus, Colo.com, etc.) could > assist in the > power crunch that California is having by shifting part, or > all, of their > loads over to generator power -- one would think that a) > diesel fuel is > still cheaper than electricity in California, price hikes lately > notwithstanding, and b) the goodwill generated by such an > endeavor would > be good for the company. Admittedly, some sites with only > limited battery > UPS power cannot do this, at least not so early in the day. > But it seems > to me that at least a few datacenters and major facilities > could switch > over to independent power and just keep fueling the generators. > > Question: Why would (or wouldn't) your company switch your datacenter > loads to generator (or other off-mains) power sources, if you had the > capability and/or capacity? > > Comments invited, especially from companies in CA, or with > offices/datacenters in CA. Comments will be aggregated and > (re)posted at > a later date. > > (note: this is posted from my personal account. This inquiry is NOT > related to my employer or employment, but is posed for information, > speculation, and discussion among the NANOG and Internet communities.) > > --mec >

2 1

Re: Access Numbers
by David Lesher 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

> Our ISP is exanding into other areas. Where can I find a list of what > numbers certain cities can dial locally? We want to get the best location > and phone number for the buck. There is no such list, esp. free. For a LARGE sum of money, some firms will sell you a best-guess, but I betcha they CYA themselves but good. The LERG will not tell you. Best 1st order: the local white pages and a map. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

4 3

fwd ppml: ARIN asking about SWIP procedures
by Bennett Todd 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

I thought folks in this forum might be interested in possibly replying to the matter in this note from ppml, and got the author's permission to forward it to this list. I'm trying to set the Mail-Followup-To header on this note to the ppml(a)arin.net list, not sure if I'm getting it right, but I think it would be appropriate if any replies were directed to the ppml list, as that's what ARIN is watching for this solicitation of public comment. ----- Forwarded message from ginny listman <ginny(a)arin.net> ----- From: ginny listman <ginny(a)arin.net> Subject: Just to clarify Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:20:07 -0500 (EST) To: ppml(a)arin.net Hi, my name is Ginny Listman. As of early December, I am the new Director of Engineering here at ARIN. In a meeting yesterday, to discuss database changes, the following policy issue came up. Apparently, there have been some upstream ISPs that have assigned some networks via SWIP, where later the downstream comes back saying it should have been an allocation, ie they want a maintainer id so they can assign/allocate further on down. In most cases, RSG has been granting the downstream's wish, creating the maintainer id, allowing them to further assign/allocate. Many times, it is just a minor error in the SWIP template, and shouldn't be a big deal. However, would there ever be a situation where the upstream would not want the downstream to be assigning/allocating? Should ARIN be responsible for notifying the upstream? We have be processing these request because we do not want to delay the downstream's business. Do we need a written policy to define how we should be processing such a request? ----- End forwarded message ----- I believe this matter is on-topic for nanog; if I'm mistaken my apologies, and please do let me know. Note that this forwarding to nanog is my fault and not the fault of the original author. -Bennett

5 6

Re: UUNET peering policy
by Sean Donelan 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

On Mon, 15 January 2001, Paul Vixie wrote: > > By saying you should treat the other provider as a black box I mean you > > should be able to tell if the other provider is meeting or not meeting > > their performance requirements WITHOUT examination of how much they are > > paying for their circuits, what type of routers they are using, or how > > they design their internal network. > > I completely agree. (I changed your "with" to a "WITHOUT" above, btw.) Thanks. Yes, that was my intent. Its amazing what a difference half-a-word can make.

1 0