[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
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Matt Clauson wrote:
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
Matt, 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. Note: Our facilities are NOT in CA but it still costs money to run the generators in OH. <grin> --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
I was waiting for Sean to respond to this first, but it often is unwise to use a backup system as a main. I remember a lower manhattan telco facility (can't remember the address) that switched to backup, didn't handle the procedures correctly and ran the batteries down to zero. Took all sorts of things off line, including all air traffic control for JFK/LAG/EWR for 10+ hours. This for a facility that is in general prepared to run on backup and does it on a regular basis. 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. jerry
The incident in question was a test of the backup systems under load. I don't recall exactly what happened (its actually more common than you might think) but either a) the test failed or b) (and more likely) the test was a success but due to forgetfullness, they never swithced back to the primaries or they attempted to do so but didn't notice that it didn't work. If your systems are designed to operate with main power being down for 6 hours (the minimum in my oppinion), you should have no trouble running on this in the instances of stage 3 etc. Of course, as has been pointed out earlier, environmental regs and general cost per kw of backup vs primary can make this moot.. On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:28:38AM -0800, Jerry Scharf wrote:
I was waiting for Sean to respond to this first, but it often is unwise to use a backup system as a main.
I remember a lower manhattan telco facility (can't remember the address) that switched to backup, didn't handle the procedures correctly and ran the batteries down to zero. Took all sorts of things off line, including all air traffic control for JFK/LAG/EWR for 10+ hours. This for a facility that is in general prepared to run on backup and does it on a regular basis.
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.
jerry
participants (4)
-
Jerry Scharf -
John Fraizer -
Matt Clauson -
Wayne Bouchard