Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Mandelson queries Labour energy plan

26 September 2013 Last updated at 09:16 GMT Lord Mandelson The former business secretary has been critical of Ed Miliband in the past Lord Mandelson has raised doubts about Labour's plan to freeze energy bills, suggesting people may think it is going "backwards" in its industrial policy.

The former business secretary said he believed the party had moved on from the days of having to choose "between state control and laissez-faire".

Ex-Downing Street communications chief Alastair Campbell later said the Labour peer was "wrong" in his assessment.

Ed Miliband has argued that the public supports action to make markets fairer.

The Labour leader spent Wednesday defending his plan to intervene in the energy market if he wins the next election, in the face of attacks from energy firms, business groups and the Conservatives.

Continue reading the main story
Ed Miliband insists that he is standing up for ordinary people in the face of abuses. He believes that after the banking crisis that is where the new centre ground is. ”

End Quote 'Power cuts' Lord Mandelson - whose Global Counsel business consultancy firm lists energy as one of its specialist areas of expertise - is the most senior Labour figure to publicly raise concerns about the policy and its implications for the party's business credentials.

"At the business department I tried to move on from the conventional choice in industrial policy between state control and laissez-faire," he is reported as saying by the Guardian and the Independent newspapers.

"The industrial activism I developed showed that intervention in the economy - government doing some of the pump-priming of important markets, sectors and technologies - was a sensible approach."

As a result of Mr Miliband's pledge, Lord Mandelson added he believed that "perceptions of Labour policy are in danger of being taken backwards".

But Mr Campbell later tweeted: "Peter M wrong re energy policy being shift to left. It is putting consumer first v anti competitive force. More New Deal than old Labour."

Labour leader Ed Miliband: "I'm standing up for the British people."

Mr Miliband got a rousing reception when he made the price freeze commitment during his Labour Party conference speech on Tuesday as activists welcomed plans to tackle recent price rises.

But shares in the leading energy firms fell sharply on Wednesday after they said that such a move might make their businesses unviable and could lead to power cuts.

Former Labour minister Lord Digby Jones has suggested the last Labour government was to blame for current failings in the market because it piled on to business environmental and social obligations as part of its targets to decarbonise the economy.

Continue reading the main story

The "big six" - British Gas, EDF, E.On, npower, Scottish Power, SSE - made total net profits of:

2009: £2.15bn

2010: £2.22bn

2011: £3.87bn

2012: £3.74bn

"It's a return to ideological tribal socialism... at a time when we need to be globally competitive," he said. "It might appeal to the party faithful but won't create jobs or prosperity.

"He's going to sacrifice Britain's prosperity on the altar of a social tribalism and it's very worrying."

As suppliers stepped up their fightback, Mr Miliband insisted his plan would not lead to the lights going out.

"We will have scare stories from the energy companies, like we had scare stories from the banks - threats, scare stories about regulation," he said.

"I'm not going to tolerate that. The Conservative Party will support them, but I'm in a different place. I'm standing up for the British people."

'Policy unravelling'

The Labour leader said he would not stand for suppliers "colluding" to raise prices ahead of the election to neutralise the effect of the cap.

He insisted that the price cap and other policies announced during this week's conference - including a plan to strip developers of land if they do not use it - did not mean Labour was harking back to the 1970s.

"Small business tax cuts, stopping a race to the bottom in skills so we build up a skilled workforce, dealing with some of the problems of housing which are a problem for business - this is good for business, this is good for Britain what we are talking about."

Labour says the energy price freeze, which would last from June 2015 to January 2017, would save average households £120 a year and businesses £1,800.

But Business Minister Matthew Hancock said Labour's policy was "unravelling" and the government's approach of requiring companies to offer the best tariff to customers was a more "credible" way forward.

One of the country's biggest investors - Neil Woodford of Invesco Perpetual - called Labour's plan "economic vandalism" and warned that "the economy will shut down".


View the original article here

Friday, June 7, 2013

Data Center Energy Efficiency - Looking Beyond PUE

The Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) metric has become the de facto standard for measuring data center energy efficiency. PUE compares the total power going into a data center with the amount of power used to power IT equipment (servers, storage, and network). There is increasing pressure being exerted on data center managers to take measures to reduce the PUE. Unfortunately, the proper usage of PUE is often misunderstood and, by focusing solely on this single metric, it may mean data center managers are missing out on other opportunities to affect sustained reductions in energy use.

The Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) metric was introduced by the Green Grid, an association of IT professionals focused on increasing the energy efficiency of data centers. In the white paper Green Grid Data Center Power Efficiency Metrics: PUE and DCiE (Belady, Rawson, Pfleuger, & Cader, 2007), the authors lay out the case for the introduction of metrics to measure energy efficiency in the data center.

The Green Grid believes that several metrics can help IT organizations better understand and improve the energy efficiency of their existing datacenters, as well as help them make smarter decisions on new datacenter deployments. In addition, these metrics provide a dependable way to measure their results against comparable IT organizations.

There is a great deal of truth in the adage "You can't manage what you can't measure". In order to manage energy efficiency in the data center, it is imperative to have metrics in place to measure the impact of changes. There were two primary metrics introduced, PUE and DCE (Data Center Efficiency). The latter was later changed to DCiE (Data Center Infrastructure Efficiency). Both metrics measure the same two parameters, the total power into the data center and the IT equipment power.

While both metrics had their supporters, PUE became the standard metric.

A PUE value of 1 would represent the optimal data center efficiency. In practical terms, a PUE value of 1 means that all power going into the data center is being used to power IT equipment. Anything above a value of 1 means there is data center overhead required to support the IT load.

What components make up this overhead? Let's look at where the power going into a data center is consumed.

Ideally, we would like all power entering the data center to be used to power the IT load (servers, storage and network). This would result in a PUE value of 1. Realistically, however, some of this power must be diverted to support cooling, lighting and other support infrastructure. Some of the remaining power is consumed due to losses in the power system. The remaining power then goes to service the IT load.

Let's look at an example to see how PUE is calculated. If the power entering the data center (measured at the utility meter) is 100 kW and the power consumed by the IT load (measured at the output of the UPS) is 50 kW, we would calculate PUE as follows:

A PUE value of 2.0 is fairly typical for a data center. This means that for every watt required to power a server, we actually consume 2 watts of power. It is important to remember that we are paying for the power entering the data center, so every watt of overhead represents an additional cost. Reducing this overhead will reduce our overall operating costs for the data center.

If we want to improve data center energy efficiency, there are two areas in which we can affect change. If we can reduce the power going to the support infrastructure or reduce losses in the power system, more of the power entering the data center will make it to the IT load. This will improve our energy efficiency and reduce our PUE.

PUE is a great tool for the facilities side of the data center. It allows facility engineers to measure the impact of changes they make to the infrastructure, things like raising the data center temperature, upgrading to a higher efficiency UPS, increasing voltage to the rack and so on. PUE must be used with care, however. It must be understood that IT changes can have a dramatic impact on PUE.

Under pressure to reduce costs, and in some cases to try to match the reported PUE from other companies, data center managers are being pushed to significantly reduce their PUE value. Unfortunately, this is not always the right approach. The drive to reduce PUE at all costs can actually have a negative impact. If data center managers focus only on reducing PUE, they may inadvertently use more energy and increase data center costs.

Let's run through an example on how this can happen. Suppose we have a data center which has input power of 100 kW, 50kW of which is being used to power IT equipment. As previously illustrated, this would give us an initial PUE value of 2.0.


View the original article here

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Monster sues San Francisco city attorney over energy drinks probe

By Terry Baynes

April 30 | Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:57pm EDT

April 30 (Reuters) - Monster Beverage Corp has sued San Francisco's city attorney over an investigation the city launched last year into the safety and marketing of Monster energy drinks.

In the lawsuit filed on Monday in California federal court, the company accused City Attorney Dennis Herrera of violating its constitutional rights by demanding that the company reformulate its drinks and change its product labels and marketing materials.

Energy drinks - caffeinated beverages with aggressive-sounding names like Monster, Red Bull, Rockstar, Amp and Full Throttle - have come under increasing scrutiny from U.S. regulators and politicians over safety concerns.

Last October, Herrera's Consumer Protection Unit launched an investigation into Monster's marketing practices, citing potential health risks that the caffeinated energy drinks pose to young people.

In a March letter, Herrera demanded that the company take immediate steps to lower the caffeine content of its drinks, change its product labels and stop promoting over-consumption, according to court filings.

Monster argues in its suit that the Food and Drug Administration has exclusive authority to regulate the safety of the drinks, and that Herrera's efforts are barred by federal food and drug laws.

In addition, the city attorney's demands violate the company's First Amendment right to free speech, the suit said.

Herrera responded to the company's legal action on Tuesday.

"Monster Energy is claiming an unfettered right to continue marketing its products to children and youth, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that its products pose serious risks to young people's health and safety," Herrera said in a statement.

The lawsuit is Monster Beverage Corp v. Herrera, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 13-786.


View the original article here

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Monster sues San Francisco city attorney over energy drinks probe

By Terry Baynes

April 30 | Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:57pm EDT

April 30 (Reuters) - Monster Beverage Corp has sued San Francisco's city attorney over an investigation the city launched last year into the safety and marketing of Monster energy drinks.

In the lawsuit filed on Monday in California federal court, the company accused City Attorney Dennis Herrera of violating its constitutional rights by demanding that the company reformulate its drinks and change its product labels and marketing materials.

Energy drinks - caffeinated beverages with aggressive-sounding names like Monster, Red Bull, Rockstar, Amp and Full Throttle - have come under increasing scrutiny from U.S. regulators and politicians over safety concerns.

Last October, Herrera's Consumer Protection Unit launched an investigation into Monster's marketing practices, citing potential health risks that the caffeinated energy drinks pose to young people.

In a March letter, Herrera demanded that the company take immediate steps to lower the caffeine content of its drinks, change its product labels and stop promoting over-consumption, according to court filings.

Monster argues in its suit that the Food and Drug Administration has exclusive authority to regulate the safety of the drinks, and that Herrera's efforts are barred by federal food and drug laws.

In addition, the city attorney's demands violate the company's First Amendment right to free speech, the suit said.

Herrera responded to the company's legal action on Tuesday.

"Monster Energy is claiming an unfettered right to continue marketing its products to children and youth, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that its products pose serious risks to young people's health and safety," Herrera said in a statement.

The lawsuit is Monster Beverage Corp v. Herrera, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 13-786.


View the original article here