By Will Sturgeon, 22 November 2006 11:50
NEWS
The vast majority of businesses are still shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to energy savings and while the welfare of the planet may not be top of their agenda they are also missing out on the associated cost savings that should be.
Eighty per cent of businesses have never conducted an energy audit and only 29 per cent of businesses are investing in energy efficient PCs, according to research from Intel. What's more, the majority of companies expect to see their energy bills rocket over the next three years, with prices soaring. Most (94 per cent) are also aware energy consumption from IT is a major contributory factor to global warming. (See also: Being 'green': Practical, possible... and profitable?)
So why the inertia when it comes to addressing these problems?
How can you go green?
Find out what one tech giant - Ricoh - is doing to get customers thinking about energy savings and protecting the planet.
According to Daniel Fliescher, senior research analyst at IDC, cost is still a major barrier. Fliescher said: "I think there is still a perception among CIOs that it costs money to go green."
And Fliescher expressed doubts that many CIOs also see a close enough correlation between their IT buying decisions and 'the death of the planet'.
However, he said a greater financial imperative - gained by understanding total cost of ownership issues, including energy consumption - is likely to get IT departments thinking about energy savings differently. That impetus must be injected at board level - from CFO or CEO - and should filter down through the company.
Catriona McAlister, a senior consultant at AEA Energy and Environment, said businesses need to ditch notions of paying a premium for 'green IT', adding: "There is absolutely no correlation between the cost of a PC and its energy efficiency."
But McAlister too is pragmatic about the fact energy savings - and the resultant environmental benefits - will come about as a result of a desire for cost-savings rather than environmental conscientiousness.
IDC's Fliescher said while there are a lot of PR brownie-points to be won around green IT it is still only a question of economics.
Read all about ITÂ…
Check out the Editor's Blog for the silicon.com chief's take on the hot tech issues of the moment.
Fliescher said: "There are a number of 'nice to haves' and we can all market around green issues but it is the dollar which is really important."
Gordon Graylish, EMEA head of Intel, said his own commitment to the planet stretches at least as far as realising no planet would mean no more sales for Intel.
He said: "I care about it because the world won't be a great market if it's all bubbling away and half is under water."
But he added equipment manufacturers and businesses such as his own must find ways to make eco-friendly buying decisions easier for consumers and businesses.
Ensuring PCs can go into hibernation and yet restart quickly again will be vital in weaning users off an over-reliance upon stand-by where machines still use up to 96 per cent of normal operating power, said Graylish. Similarly PCs must be able to activate if they are required for an automatic update, to their antivirus protection for example.
Manufacturers have already taken the greatest strides, said Graylish, and it is the user community who are now playing catch-up. "The carbon agenda has become incredibly important from an environmental point of view but also from a board point of view," he said.
Graylish added: "The industry is moving forward at a component level but individuals still aren't thinking about buying decisions or usage."

Comments
There are 2 comments. Join the discussion
1. Richard
Intel CPUs are energy efficient?
As a quick check, put your hand near the fan outlets from an Intel powered desktop PC, even a low performance Celeron;
Then put your hand near the fan outlets from an AMD powered PC, eg. an AMD 3200+
Interesting difference!
Now, do the same test for an average Windows XP PC and a "Vista ready" PC:
Notice anything?
Most of the power consumed by a PC is converted into heat so a hot, noisy PC is also a wasteful one.
Hardware manufacturers and software suppliers have some questions to answer.
2. Chris Meacher
It's the drop in price of TFTs that's allowed them to catch up in the TCO stakes (but still quite far off).
Currently a branded 17" CRT is about £59.89 [Viewsonic E70 from savastore.com] - a bit cheaper (but not that much) as 2 years ago.
Compare that with how 17" TFTs have dropepd to the current calue of £99.40 [Viewsonic VA703B from same - hey I like Viewsonics]. 2 years ago you'ld be paying over £300 for that kind of monitor!
Even though the price is dropping, to make it in TCO terms the TFT has to make up nearly £40 in energy costs - so lets look at consumption.
TFT: 36watt, CRT 80watt. - a saving of 44watts on power drawn for every hour it's switched on.
Taking energy to be 8p/kWhr (depends on so many factors ...) this means the monitor would have to be used for over 11,000hrs to work out cheaper.
Given a 'typical office' usage of 9hrs a day, 5 days a week, 46weeks a year, this would take 5.5years to work out cheaper than the CRT. And most PC systems are replaced in 3-4 years.
Do the maths - oh I just did...
Incidnetly the issue 2 years ago with it being £300 foir TFTs and £100 for the CRT means it would take just under 27.5 years to be the cheaper option - and I don't think that fits within the manufacturer's MTBF.
personally the benfits of more desk space are worht the extra £40 - but i wish poeple would stop spouting on about how TFTs are so much cheaper int he long run.