When Amazon announced it was buying up half the output from one of Britain’s newest and biggest wind farms last week, it appeared like good news for Britain’s net zero ambitions.
The US giant committed to buying energy from Scotland’s Moray West wind farm before it was even built, bolstering its bid to power all operations with 100pc renewable energy by 2025.
However, amid the positivity, some industry sources claim Amazon and other global firms are embarking on an energy “power grab” that draws resources away from decarbonising Britain’s homes and businesses.
No, really, we do.
Steve Rastall, chief executive of IG CloudOps, which helps firms using cloud computing services such as those offered by Amazon, says the company’s business model is designed to maximise usage rather than to seek efficiencies.
“The more time customers spend using servers then the more income it generates for Amazon,” he says. “But that also means a lot more power is consumed and so generates more emissions.
“The biggest cost they face is from power consumption so the way to get around both these problems is by buying up the output from wind farms. It means they get a secure power supply at a guaranteed price.
“The problem is that the output from wind farms and other renewables is fuelling the growth of Amazon and its data centres rather than decarbonising UK homes and businesses.”
Therefore, bugger off.
Hmm, dunno. I admit I am awaiting delivery of my tin foil hat from Bates, but as someone who thinks that Net Zero is so insane it can only be an opportunity for those well connected to make more money than mortal man has ever dreamed of, it seems a tad selfish to be so parochial about sharing the loot,,,
its bid to power all operations with 100pc renewable energy by 2025
Well, that’s not going to happen is it? The last thing intermittent renewables are good for is providing the 24/7 electricity needs of massive data centres.
Yeah Marius. I’ll be interested to see how this (doesn’t) work out.
The reporter hasn’t bothered looking at computing trade fora. Everyone bitches about their Amazon compute bill, and there’s loads of discussion about how to reduce the cost, so the pressure to reduce usage and increase efficiency is there in spades.
This is probably just Amazon pretending to have green credentials. A while ago they were showing TV ads featuring a new fleet of liveried electric vans. I’ve never seen one, our supplies of Amazon loot always arrive in a diesel van.
So, basically Jeff B can virtue signal by buying up wind power at a higher cost than non-renewable generated electricity, and then dump that cost onto his customers via high prices for cloud compute?
Can’t imagine Amazon getting the electricity produced at less than the stupid CfD costs UK government has negotiated (£57.50 per MWh) otherwise the Japanese would sell it to the National Grid.
Wonder if this is another contract where the operator can start/stop the CfD contract as an when the costs go above the price negotiated. In other words, Heads, we win. Tails, you lose.
That’s interesting. So Amazon’s going to put its UK data in darkest Jockistan. And the distribution centre & offices? Because if it isn’t it’s just using electricity off the grid.
The value of electricity only materialises at the point of consumption. So the creation of value is done in the distribution network. The value of electricity at a Jockish windfarm is approximately zero.
some say the output should be decarbonising UK homes
I can see the problem here. They want to “decarbonise” our homes, and we haven’t preemptively composted them yet.
“our supplies of Amazon loot always arrive in a diesel van.”
As an experiment, Amazon have been trying to use drones to deliver in Ukraine and Yemen, but have bee having some teething problems.
“The problem is that the output from wind farms and other renewables is fuelling the growth of Amazon and its data centres rather than decarbonising UK homes and businesses.”
But it does decarbonise UK homes and businesses. For starters, Amazon are going to manage a data centre far more efficiently than a bloke called Steve and Dave in a little locked room in an office. But then there’s the well, why is someone creating a service on AWS? And it’s about efficiency. Mostly not having to pay humans, but it also tends to have energy saving effects too. Internet banking is much cheaper to run than branches, but it also means you don’t have to go for a drive to do things. And the difference between driving 10 miles to an office and using a router for a day to work remote is enormous. Using a satnav not only means you avoid slow traffic, but you also avoid sitting in traffic, wasting fuel.
Loads of Amazon electric vans round here.
Though there’s a distribution centre only a few miles away as the crow flies.
Watched one slam into one of those height restriction barriers over a car park last night.
Was highly amusing.
For starters, Amazon are going to manage a data centre far more efficiently than a bloke called Steve
How dare you.
I’ll believe that unreliables are finally reliable when Amazon contracts to only use them in their data centres.
So how does this work then? Does the windfarm load its electric onto big trains and ship it to wherever the Amazon data centre is and drop it off in the electricity bunkers? Or does it just feed it into the grid like all the rest of its electric? If the latter then Amazon isn’t using renewable energy at all, especially when the wind stops blowing.
It looks like green PR to me. Lots of cloud clients want to boast about green, so amazon indulges them. In fact they are just guaranteeing a price to the windfarmer and selling on to the grid like the wholesaler they are.
Likely as not amazon are going to leverage this to get a foothold in the green retail electricity market, where there are a lot of chumps who don’t mind their electrical sockets smelling of bullshit.
Live close enough to an Amazon distribution centre I can get same day delivery and not seen a single electric delivery van and it’s pretty green/woke around here
That’s interesting. So Amazon’s going to put its UK data in darkest Jockistan. And the distribution centre & offices? Because if it isn’t it’s just using electricity off the grid.
Exactly, bis.
Unless Amazon is going to build a facility close to the cable landing site that is at least, say, 80% of nameplate generating capacity during its minimum demand period, either the windfarm will have to be connected to the grid to dump excess electricity, with all those costs and technical requirements, of they’ll need to stop turbines at times, not very efficient.
That means the Amazon facility will still need to be connected to the grid and probably also need the load of standby diesel generators and some of Elon’s super big batteries it would have if it was only connected to the grid.
TBF, building a data centre in the middle of nowhere isn’t a big issue and they do consume a lot of energy, but building offices and other facilities might be a problem if you want employees. And if its in the middle of nowhere its hardly a good place for fulfilment and distribution centres.
I think Philip has it, this is about greenwashing.
BiND,
“TBF, building a data centre in the middle of nowhere isn’t a big issue and they do consume a lot of energy, but building offices and other facilities might be a problem if you want employees. And if its in the middle of nowhere its hardly a good place for fulfilment and distribution centres.”
These data centres don’t have a whole lot of people or a whole lot of offices, but they do need contractors to do servers, networking, aircon etc. They tend to be on the outskirts of towns and cities. Close enough to get people, but far enough out for land to be cheap. Like Amazon have one near Slough, Manchester, they’re building some near Bracknell, Didcot and Swindon. Inverness just doesn’t seem like the sort of place that you’d get the people you’d need.
From the piece quoted:
the company’s business model is designed to maximise usage rather than to seek efficiencies….The more time customers spend using servers then the more income it generates for Amazon,” he says. “But that also means a lot more power is consumed and so generates more emissions.
I struggle to see how Amazon’s business model is different from any other company’s.
If Amazon was engaged in producing Greta Thunberg pin-up posters, the more Thunberg lovers bought, the more power Amazon would consume manufacturing them & the more emissions be generated.
More particularly, the bloke pointing the finger is doing exactly the same thing. The more he helps firms using cloud computing services, the more ccs’s they will use, the more power use, the more emissions.
So, in his opinion, should he put himself out of business?
AtC:
Anecdotal point, but still…
Two months ago I sold a refurbished blade server back to the same outfit that originally donated it to me.. Because Cloud didn’t turn out not to be so cheap as Projected..
New IT Manager, so he didn’t know.. But the old tech that tested the rig recognised me and the blade on delivery…. and just winked…
I do owe the old BOFH a beer now, since his prediction regarding when the outfit would want that server ( or similar) back was more accurate by ( dagnabbit…) only two weeks…
Western Bloke,
That’s the point I was making. A few contractors going to a data centre in the middle of nowhere isn’t much of a problem, building admin offices and distribution centres in the middle of nowhere is a big problem.
Another problem building data centres in the middle of nowhere is the cost and time of getting a physically diverse fibre connection. It takes months, even years, to get them to rural mobile sites and can cost upwards of £100/m to lay.
There’s a new bitbarn (dunno whose) going up near me on the A4010. They need two new (independently routed) 115kV underground cables from the nearest large substations (Amersham and Aylesbury). The cost of fibre connections will be small in comparison.
“secure power supply” – he is either a complete idiot for not having looked at the specs or lying through his teeth.
Last year the minimum daily average of wind-power supplied to the grid was 1% of the average daily average or 0.4% of the highest daily average 0.24% of rated capacity. Variations within days means that you are looking at minimum hourly outputs of less than one part in a thousand of rated capacity.