Microsoft Pollutes To Avoid Fines 295
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's Quincy data center, physical home of Bing and Hotmail, was fined $210,000 last year because the data center used too little electricity. To avoid similar penalties for 'underconsumption of electricity' this year, the data center burned through $70,000 worth of electricity in three days."
Wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
You get fined for saving electricity now?
Where is this world going...
PPA's (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:PPA's (Score:5, Informative)
There is a an economical way to store large amounts of electricity though, it's called pumped storage plant, basically it's a hydroelectric plant where the generators and turbines can be used in reverse to pump water back up to the top reservoir, then when needed it's released again to get electricity again. Turning a mountain into a very big gravity powered rechargeable battery.
An even more economical way to store electricity (Score:5, Interesting)
Pumped storage plant has been used since the 1960's, but it does require a dam.
On places where there is no dam, this method can not be deployed.
However, technological advancement has enabled us another way - by using ultra-capacitors.
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/piprod/documents/Session_D_Miller_rev.pdf [energy.gov]
Advancement on capacitor technology resulted in capacitors that can store HUGE amount of electricity for a LONG time, with miniscule loss.
And many are being deployed in power grids - not only as a power storage but also acting as a power stabilizer - the ultra-capacitor can "soak up" power spikes and release power during "brown outs".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think that there are many ultra capacitors adding storage capacity to grids. Its definitely on the table for the future however at the moment the capacitor banks that you see at your transmission yards are actually for power factor correction not power storage.
Re:An even more economical way to store electricit (Score:5, Informative)
There are not more than 8 factories that I know of, that are producing industrial-grade ultra-capacitors, that are to be deployed for the purpose of power-storage / power-stabilizing, near power generating plants and also in the power grid.
And all the factories are churning out ultra-capacitors as fast as they can.
But it is not enough.
That is why it will take some time for more ultra-capacitors to show up in places that need them.
The bottle-neck is with the manufacturers.
The main patent for the ultra-capacitors is owned by Sanyo, of Japan.
They were actually trying to find ways to develop an ultra-capacity rechargeable battery. They came up with the idea of using nano-scale materials (that was back in the late 1990's or so) and successfully produced a re-chargeable NiMH battery that can keep the charge for as long as 36 months, and at 97% capacity.
That patent was subsequently licensed to other re-chargeable battery manufacturers - including GP and Energizer.
And later, someone found that the same technique can be also used in enhancing ultra-capacitors, so they licensed it to capacitor manufacturers.
However, the industrial grade capacitor manufacturers in this planet that we live in happen to behave much like OPEC.
There are only few manufacturers and they control the market, and they restrict the manufacturing to only a handful factories - so that they can charge an arm and a leg for their products.
Re: (Score:3)
What is the $/kWh of industrial supercaps right now? The article you linked above had some projected numbers from startup companies, one of which seems to have gone under and the other of which is still in startup mode. I just helped put together an experimental off-grid PV system with 3kWh lead acid capacity at somewhere from $200-$250/kWh storage cost.
Is there anywhere a hobbyist or researcher could buy a few kWh of indsutrial supercaps?
Re:An even more economical way to store electricit (Score:5, Insightful)
I take it then you've never heard of compressed-air power storage?
Same principle as with dams, except very large air tanks are used. Scroll compressors and turbines make it possible the most efficient way of storing excess power as well, and the system is near-zero maintenance, unlike batteries. Demand response is also good and the most useful thing about this system is that it scales down to tiny installations - to the point that it could be used to save power from solar during the day for overnight use.
GrpA
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is no workaround.
When you absorb the heat in water it is still lost. The only effect is that the temperature will be lower.
Re: (Score:3)
The temperature is much lower and so less heat energy is lost during the storage. The rate of cooling is much lower.
And a fair amount of the heat in the water can allegedly be reused:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericagies/2012/01/25/greening-the-grid-lightsail-aims-to-make-power-cleaner-by-making-energy-storage-cheap-and-plentiful/ [forbes.com]
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/07/danielle-fong/ [wired.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:An even more economical way to store electricit (Score:4, Interesting)
We're only discussing this due to an enormous fuckup that should never happen - the sort of thing more braindead than any example of a government stuffup used to push the myth that private enterprise is always better at making use of resources.
Re: (Score:3)
The bad part is, every site that is suitable for pumped storage either already has it, or can't get it because of the environmental permitting. All the best "natural" sites have it already. Sure, you can take the top off a mountain and build a man-made lake where the top of the mountain used to be, but people really frown on th
Re: (Score:3)
hehehe, the two in the UK were built to absorb load of nuclear power stations during excess off-peak generation as you have to keep nuclear power stations running 24/7, only the nuclear power plants weren't built so the 3rd pumped storage station was scrapped and the 2nd was repurposed to smooth out extremely short term over generation and sudden drain being able to go from standstill to full load in 75 seconds. They literally watch TV in the control room to wait for the credits to roll or the moment the fo
Re:PPA's (Score:5, Informative)
Utilities make money by selling electricity, it's typically in their best interest to encourage more energy use. California and some other states have "decoupled" the revenue to try and fix this. Utilities are given fixed pricing; if the customers use less electricity then the utilities pocket the difference, if the customers use more electricity the utility loses money. Now it's an economic incentive to encourage customers to conserve, get rid of inefficient power generators, improve the distribution and transmission infrastructure, etc.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PPA's (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft could incur approximately $70,000 in power costs to avoid the $210,000 penalty, resulting in real savings of $140,000.
"Flamebait headline" is also correct.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:PPA's (Score:5, Interesting)
Since folks seem to be listing their favorite emerging high-capacity energy storage technologies here I'll add my own - liquid metal batteries. Batteries the size of shipping containers containing the three layers of molten materials: a metal base, a lighter electrolyte, and an even lighter metal "cap". Since the electrodes are liquid they don't suffer from the degradation that eventually renders normal batteries ineffective. And as long as they're seeing heavy enough usage the internal resistance provides enough heat to keep everything molten, and the potential charging/dischargeing current is pretty phenomenal since you don't have to worry about destroying your electrodes in the process..
NOT A FINE (Score:4, Informative)
This is a penalty due to a contractual obligation. It's not a fine.
It's still wasteful, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, what kind of sneaky company would ever write it's contracts in such a way that you have to pay for their product whether you use it or not?
That's not the problem (Score:3)
The problem is they want MORE for not using it. Doesn't sound like MS had any problem with paying the $70k. They agreed to buy power at a bulk rate and that rate stands, use it or not. The problem they had is the utility company wanted to charge them more for not using power than for using it. The opted to simply use it.
Think of it like this: Suppose I make a deal with you where you get two tanks of gas per month, for a year, at a fixed price. You do it to get a better price, I do it to get a revenue stream
Re: (Score:3)
What you are missing is that you cannot generate electricity and not have it used. It doesn't bleed off into space. You have to shut generating plants down if the electricity being generated is not being used. Today it is quite well known when electricity is needed and when it is not - except for commercial customers.
What Microsoft did was contract for X amount of electricity and then didn't use it. The generating company had to rearrange a lot of stuff and shut down generators and start them back up ag
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
Probably not.
stupid inaccurate title as usual (Score:5, Informative)
It was a perfectly sane response to the situation, and btw the generation is from hydro so really what added pollution was there?
Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual (Score:5, Interesting)
Title there is ONLY because it was Microsoft.
Any other company, and it would go unnoticed.
Why wasn't the Washington state utility board dragged thru the mud on this one instead of a company acting responsibly to reduce energy consumption?
Re: (Score:3)
This stuff happens all the time. Years ago I heard a similar story about greenhouse farmers in the Dutch Westland. Those greenhouses require lots of energy. After investing in all sorts of efficiency measures, better insulation, etc, energy usage went down to the point that they had to pay extra tot he utility companies. Instead, they opened windows to waste heat and drive up their energy usage, in order to reduce their bill.
It's really common, but it's incredibly backwards and needs to be banned.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual (Score:4, Funny)
Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps you've heard of this company called Apple?
I think they make computers, or something.
Lieutenant Dan got us invested in this fruit company or somethin'.
Then he says we don't have to worry about money no mo'.
That's good.
One less thing.
Strat
Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanapum_Dam [wikipedia.org]
Check your facts.
Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual (Score:5, Informative)
Wanapum Dam is not the only supplier of power to Washington State:
Bonneville Dam [nawindpower.com] provides a significant amount of power to the Pacific Northwest and they are a federal agency.
Sigh.....
Wanapum Dam is the only dam owned by Grant County Public Utility District.
Grant County PUD is the ONLY power company selling power to Microsoft's Quincy Data Center.
It is the ONLY dam germane to this story.
Would you like to throw out any other unrelated facts while you are on a role here?
Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft signed an agreement to use X amount of electricity, almost certainly to get a lower price per kwh. They then used/purchased less electricity than they agreed to, and no longer qualified for the discount (hence the 210k "fine").
What's the problem here?
Can I get the same agreement for my home? I "promise" I'll use 1 billion kwh/month. Same pricing if I don't though.. right?
Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that there isn't a rational basis for not just allowing Microsoft to pay for $70k in power and not use it -- donate it for free back to the energy company, if you will. They have to actually waste the electricity to get lower prices. This situation isn't good for anybody.
- The environment loses because, although this utility is a hydro source, energy is fungible and it's likely that a fossil plant had to make up the difference somewhere in the grid. I could be wrong, it's possible it would just have been dissipated (or just not extracted from the plant in the first place).
- The utility loses out on $140k.
- Microsoft has to burn a bunch of energy to no end.
In this round, Microsoft got off easiest. Last round, the utility got off easiest. But there's no effective difference between this and Microsoft paying $70k and *not* consuming that power, except that the utility potentially can sell $70k of power elsewhere, which is actually good for them, or at worst, non-bad. Why is that not happening?
Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual (Score:5, Informative)
And actually, according to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/technology/data-centers-in-rural-washington-state-gobble-power.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www [nytimes.com]
That's the same argument Microsoft made. The utility company tried to call their bluff, Microsoft wasn't bluffing so they started their heaters, and the utility company folded.
Re: (Score:3)
hmm.. A federal law to block a state and locally controlled issue.... Why not just get rid of the states altogether and you will have your utopia.
And yes, the obligatory, it is not evasion if it is legal. Tax Evasion has a specific legal meaning and working within the law is not one of them.
Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
This is hydro power - not a stack of coal or a pipe full of natural gas behind a valve, and this complicates things. Those fuels sit still until you need them, but water keeps coming regardless.
If Microsoft didn't use all the power, then the company didn't use all the water - which can mean they have too *much* water behind the dams when the spring run off starts next year... and they can't simply dump it because that has consequences downstream. (It's the same as if a customer ordered enough widgets from you to fill half your loading dock, and then not only refused to pay them - they refuse to pick them up either.) Most folks don't realize that hydro utilities must budget their water flow - some for irrigation, some for power generation, some for the fish ladder, some for downstream flow... it's a complicated business.
Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
You can let water through the dam without generating electricity.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember, the dam you're referring to has budgeted they *will* use that amount
Re:stupid inaccurate title as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
so really what added pollution was there?
Heat pollution from running all those electrical devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the hydro-generated electricity produced in Washington does get sold to other States. The use of that electricity by Microsoft meant that some other State probably had to generate electricity by some other means, creating pollution. My guess is that this fee has something to do with the lost revenue since they could have sold that electricity to another State at a higher price if they had enough advanced notice that Microsoft wasn't going to use it. I also suspect that there are incentives for t
This is not a Microsoft issue (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an issue with a utility company. The fact that it was Microsoft is a red herring. If anything, utilities should have a pricing structure that punishes overconsumption and rewards under-consumption. In this instance the utility is ass backwards and they should be the ones who are shamed.
Re:This is not a Microsoft issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Infrastructure costs money to put in.
If you need signisicant extra infrastructure put in for your use, the normal pricing structure is likely to assume that you will use it, not simply (as a data centre might) leave it idle unless other power fails.
The real fail is that Microsoft failed to negotiate a proper contract to avoid the needless waste of resource.
Re: (Score:3)
Infrastructure costs money to put in. So getting charged 100% of the cost of the electricity makes sense. Charging 300% makes no sense since presumably the usage cost would include the cost of extra infrastructure. "We had to increase our capacity to meet your demand." is a fair argument but unless the utility was selling the power to Microsoft at 33% of the actual cost then it makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Charging 300% makes no sense
i don't think that they were fined 300%, but that the reduce the excess by the time Mixrosoft gad used $70k's worth if power. From the article:
The utility board capitulated and reduced the amend to $60k
If nothing else, using that much electricity in one burst is a negotiating tactic as it puts a lot more pressure on the infrastructure than if it had been part of an increase over the entire year. They may have even needed to buy in power from other, perhaps more dirty sources to cope with the peak demand.
Re:This is not a Microsoft issue (Score:5, Interesting)
There's an easy answer. They could simply build some wind mills or slap in some solar panels and then have the utility pay them at 30-80c/Kwh via a FiT(feed in tariff) like we do [nationalpost.com] here in Ontario for green energy. [financialpost.com] I'm sure that it would all balance out in time.
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't build this dam for microsoft.
It was build a long time ago and built at public expense.
Re: (Score:3)
Just put a floor under their electric bill.
X fee to connect, Y per kwh with a minimum of Z
Bracketing them into a higher rate for using less power creates a sawtooth in the pricing graph.
Re:This is not a Microsoft issue (Score:4, Insightful)
The utility companies have no incentive at all to punish overconsumption. They make more money that way.
They have very good reasons to punish underconsumption....if you don't buy enough from them they have trouble covering their costs.
That is why electricity costs always go *up* during economic recessions....people scale back their use and so the companies have to charge more to maintain the same levels of profitability.
And the utilities can get away with this because they are natural monopolies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong, the utilities get away with it because the government, which is supposed to regulate them, is corrupt.
Why are the utilities natural monopolies? (Score:3)
And the utilities can get away with this because they are natural monopolies.
Why are the utilities natural monopolies, other than because of city governments' failure to efficiently estimate the cost of tearing up a road to install conduit [mises.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Except in Texas. ERCOT can set some pretty funky rules by not having to worry about interstate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly. Power companies have an incentive to maximize the use of their existing power generation capability and infrastructure to within a certain threshold. As long as they are running at near-capacity, they are making the most profit possible (usually.)
If they run maxed-out, though, then they have to start paying for infrastructure upgrades and maintenance, which cuts into the profit margin.
This is why the electric utilities in New York City are giving away internet-programmable thermostats, so they
Re: (Score:2)
Scalpers (Score:2)
How many businesses do you know of that encourage customers purchase less of their product?
During the launch of a new highly anticipated gadget, such as a game console or a tablet computer, the manufacturer may place limits on the number of units that each customer can buy so as to discourage scalpers.
Re: (Score:3)
The utility company deals in huge aggregates of power, offering a relatively stable pricing structure by virtue of hedging against their know demand curve.
In the case of overwhelmingly large consumers like a datacenter, utilities offer them reduced rates in exchange for locking in to a given use over
Re: (Score:3)
Company on the hook?
Pay real money that day?
You do realize we are talking about a Hydro plant [wikipedia.org] built in 1959 right? Paid for at public expense decades ago?
There is nothing PAID that DAY.
There is always a market for hydro power because its so cheap in the Pacific Nortwest that you can
wheel it all the way to LA at a moment's notice to handle the cooling load of their summer heat waves
on the spot market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can justify fines for under-consuming. However, there's no way you can justify the fines being higher than the cost of the electricity that was not consumed, as seems to be the case here. This is silly.
Strange fee structure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. And I would go on to say that this is potentially *less* pollution. If Microsoft took the $140k they saved and put it into carbon offsets they would most likely come out with a negative emission balance by burning through the extra power.
Microsoft already committed to going carbon neutral for their data center so I would imagine they probably did the cost analysis as: "We could burn $70k worth of power and spend $35k in carbon offsets and still come out neutral while saving $100k".
Re: (Score:2)
As someone else said, the power generation is hydro, so no pollution. They promised the power company a minimum usage level (most likely to get the power company to invest in infrastructure to support the data center well), they might as well keep up the promise.
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity is somewhat fungible, within transmission limits. There likely was some power draw from non-hydro sources.
But anyway, it's difficult to understand how actually using energy is better for anybody than paying as if you used that energy (and not a cent more) while not actually using it. The only thing I can imagine is if there's some stress on the energy company to dissipate the excess power. I doubt very much that comes close to $140k to dissipate $70k worth of power, though.
Re: (Score:2)
But anyway, it's difficult to understand how actually using energy is better for anybody than paying as if you used that energy (and not a cent more) while not actually using it. The only thing I can imagine is if there's some stress on the energy company to dissipate the excess power. I doubt very much that comes close to $140k to dissipate $70k worth of power, though.
It helps recoup some of the investment the power company made specifically for this data center (I dont see why Microsoft would have agreed to a minimum usage level if they did not want something back from the power company).
Re: (Score:2)
Its Hydro power.
Its essentially free once you hit the tax payers for the initial construction costs of the dam and generation facilities.
There are always other customers.
You flip a switch, close a penstock or two and spool down a couple generators, or you flip another switch and sell your excess over the national grid. You do this without even getting up out of your chair.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but probably someone had to burn coal to make up for that lost hydro power. Especially since hydro tends to be valuable base load electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
If so, it wasn't THIS State Power Utility that burned coal.
This data center is powered by the Wanapum Dam, on the Columbia. They have a reliable watershed, and year around production, and no shortage of customers over the national grid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanapum_Dam [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That it could be sold does not make it less free to run your turbines than to shut them down. (Neglecting wear and tear, which is pretty minimal on hydro plants).
How? (Score:5, Funny)
To avoid similar penalties for 'underconsumption of electricity' this year, the data center burned through $70,000 worth of electricity in three days.
What'd they do, shift all the load to AMD servers?
Re: (Score:2)
What'd they do, shift all the load to AMD servers?
Nah, just cranked the AC on high and left all the lights on and spare servers powered up running Prime.
Turbo button. was Re:How? (Score:3)
What'd they do, shift all the load to AMD servers?
Don't be silly. Every one of the towers come with a huge button named in bright letters TURBO. They pushed that button in every machine.
Re: (Score:3)
What'd they do, shift all the load to AMD servers?
Nah, they found an old Pentium 4 desktop, switched that on, and ran Crysis on it.
But they had to lower the gfx settings because all the lights started to dim.
Re: (Score:2)
Some sort of heater.
That is when Microsoft threatened to waste tremendous amounts of power by simply running giant heaters for no purpose, according to utility officials who said they were briefed on the matter by Microsoft, unless the penalty was largely forgiven. The idea was to burn the power fast enough to move closer to the forecast before year’s end.
Documents related to the case and interviews with utility officials show that Microsoft started burning roughly an additional five million to seven million watts — well over half of the consumption of the entire town of Quincy — in mid-December.
Quincy, Washington has a population of 6750 [wikipedia.org] in case you're wondering.
Bitcoins... (Score:2)
Think of all the bitcoins that could have being generated... RIP
Re: (Score:2)
At current exchange rates, the maximum you can earn from bitcoin "mining" (securing the transaction history) is $86400 per day. The current network hash rate is 270 petaflops. So how much they could have earned depends on how many Pflops they could throw at the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
#2 is totally wrong. The Hydro plant was built before Bill Gates was out of diapers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanapum_Dam [wikipedia.org]
Microsoft moved there because Grant County PUD was having problems selling all their power, and it was dirt cheap to build there.
Since then, power demand has gone up, and GCPud has a multitude of customers, anywhere on the national grid.
Load contracts (Score:3)
The fact that it's M$, as mentioned above, is a fluke. Large power consumers will enter into contracts that say 'we will use Xm to XM power annually with S loadshape, will not consume more than L peak power at once, and will throttle our power use up or down if asked to N times a year fo D days.'
Deals like this help optimize generation and keeps the grid balanced. Unlike in SimCity, you can't just plop down a stack of generators and wait for load to catch up with it, the generators have to output at a fixed 50/60hz (+/- a little). Like a truck engine, the fuel required to keep a particular speed is dependent on the load at any one time. Forecasting this load then becomes an issue that a *lot* of utilities put time, money, and effort into, so that they can ramp up or down as needed, keep to their own contracts of power quality and quantity, and efficiently use the generators they have. It's not like they're happy about selling less power when the loan payments on the multimillion US$ generator comes up each month.
The power customer with simply taking the more contractually prudent course of action ~ spending $70k, rather than spending $210k. The fine is as much to cover the fuel burned on generators that were left spinning for the customer as to thwack them upside the head about contracts.
(disclaimer, I write software for the energy industry)
Re:Load contracts (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot becoming a tabloid page? (Score:3)
Most of us here at slashdot know that energy is produced anyway and we are fairly unable to store it. If anything we're unable to store it in any efficient way. If it is like the first post here says too, that it was produced with hydro-power, then where's the problem?
this was, of course, a stupid clause (Score:3)
Simply stating "Your minimum electric bill shall be x" would have made everyone happy.
Parallel: Punished for Conserving Water (Score:2)
Here in Australia we're regularly reminder to be 'water wise' because we live in such an arid country. (I'm not arguing this point.)
Earlier this year we were whacked with higher water rates (Sydney) explicitly because the water board's revenue fell because general water conservation proceeded too well.
And get this: a desalination plant was recently constructed in Sydney which the government is contractually obliged to run for x hours per year. Because of that, they redirect fresh water from dams (which are
One Newer MS datacenter has it's own substation (Score:2)
One Newer MS datacenter has it's own substation on site and substations are not cheap to build so that cab be why part of the deal was that we where to use X power or pay a fine.
devil in the details again (Score:3, Interesting)
Look a little closer...
Microsoft, when it was looking for a place to locate, chose this rural Washington town because the town offered them electricity at about 1/3 the regular going rate, as long as they purchased a certain amount of electricity from this municipal utility.
It was a contract, one of those things that both sides are supposed to honor.
Microsoft didn't have to "wastefully burn" the additional energy, but they were contractually obligated to meet the conditions of the contract: cheap electricity if bought in bulk.
Microsoft could have just met the contractual obligation by paying what it had promised to pay.
The entire "wastefully burning" energy was done by Microsoft to try to shame the municipality into giving them an even sweeter sweetheart deal, something that mega-corporations are doing in all 50 states. Create enough negative publicity ("Government forces Microsoft to waste electricity!!!") and the municipality would say, "Sure, fine, don't pay us what you promised to pay us when we gave you the land, built the infrastructure that your datacenter required and gave you enormous tax dodges on top of that. Just stop saying we forced you to waste energy!".
This is why you have to look a layer or two deeper than the headline or summary when you see a story that seems a little too neatly designed to create outrage.
Re: (Score:3)
Look a little closer...
Microsoft, when it was looking for a place to locate, chose this rural Washington town because the town offered them electricity at about 1/3 the regular going rate, as long as they purchased a certain amount of electricity from this municipal utility.
Yes, Microsoft should have just paid the fine.
With the stunt they pulled the municipality should declare the cheap energy contract void and charge them full price for power from now on.
Load forecasting is a huge deal. In my province we can end up having to Pay other jurisdictions millions of dollars to take away our excess power when the forecast is off.
Microsoft screwed the municipality twice, first by significantly missing their estimates, creating a low load situation, then again with the heater stunt,
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure Microsoft would have been quite happy to pay what they promised to pay - instead the municipality is trying to charge them three times the estimate (seriously - the consequence for overestimating power usage by $70,000 was $210,000. That is unjustifiable).
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your anti-Microsoft hate spewing.
They should have paid the fine, (Score:2)
Then they should have sounded the horn in their advertising saying they actually pay fines for not using enough power, and link to proof.
See how long the power company keeps fining them, I don't care if they did sign a contract. A monthly minimum amount with the ability to buy more, like mobile phone minutes would have been the better option than a yearly amount with options to fine.
"commercially unproductive manner?" (Score:2)
Typical Slashdot title (Score:5, Interesting)
"Microsoft wisely saves $140,000 by simply using electricity."
"Microsoft deliberately uses electricity to avoid ridiculous fine."
"Microsoft forces utility board to reduce ludicrous fine by $10,000."
"Microsoft exposes power company's pollution-inducing practices."
Re: (Score:2)
Why would there be a fine for underutilization of a scarce resource serving a wide swath of the public power needs in the first place?
The Dam was built and operated with public funds!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I asked a friend who works there. :(
They used it for Folding@Home.
Such a waste.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure if serious...
As awesome as SETI is, and as much as I like SETI@Home (started using it during the 90s, I forget exactly when), I think Folding@Home has a better per-CPU-cycle impact on the human race. Protein folding is a big deal for medical research, and it's very hard to automate efficiently. F@H is a somewhat brute-force approach, but it gets results.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother. What they did seems to have worked fine.
Last cycle the utility decided to enforce the penalty for not using thhe contracted amount of electricity which was more than just charging MS for the additional amount and pretending they used it (which I would assume it what MS hoped they'd do). So this time MS concentrated all the additional usage they needed to use up into as small a time frame as they could manage - in order to make it as painful as possible for the utility to deal with.
And they got t
Re: (Score:3)
There are 24 hours in a day. If you consume a million watts continuously for nonproductive purposes you can waste 24,000 kWH of electricity. If each kWH costs you 3.5 cents, you can waste 840 dollars per day of electricity. If your contract requires you to use $70,000 dollars worth of electricity by the end of the year,or face a more expensive penalty, you can save money by running those heaters continuously for 83 straight days. But the deadline is in only 14 days! What to do? Easy. Just increase the wasta
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft had a contract to buy a certain amount of power and get a good discount. They didn't buy enough power so had to pay a higher price.
I don't think this has anything to do with "idiots in state and local government".
It's a contract matter between the power producer and a corporation.
If Microsoft had been able to convince more people to use Bing and Hotmail they wouldn't be in this position.
(Cue the Bing and Hotmail jokes.)