Server farms: A new industry in the Arctic? Facebook thinks so.
Mia Bennett | Eye on the Arctic |
Oct 27, 2011
Editor's note: Some entrepreneurs and politicians have suggested Alaska should create a server farm next to its Arctic oil and gas fields, where the servers could be kept cool and powered easily. Apparently, though, they never got around to asking Mark Zuckerberg if Facebook would be interested in Alaska. A lot has been said about the competition for the Arctic’s natural resources, like oil and gas, fisheries, and minerals. Little has been said about using the cold as a resource. Now, of all companies, Facebook is intending to capitalize on the Arctic’s frigid climate by building a data center in Luleå, on the coast of Swedish Lapland. The city, Sweden’s seventh-most populated, already has a sizable IT industry and a large university, so it is not terribly surprising that after reportedly considering 40 locations in the country, Facebook chose Luleå. Another advantage is that by locating the servers in Europe, Facebook will be able to provide faster service for its members in Europe. Most importantly for the data center, the town’s sub-Arctic average temperature, which hovers in the 30s year-round, will keep Facebook from having to spend a lot of money on air conditioning, fans, and ventilation to keep the servers cool.
Of course, the data center will still need electricity to run. With three large buildings covering the size of 11 football fields, the server farm will consume 120 megawatts of electricty. The cost for this energy consumption is estimated to be $72 million a year. The data center will be completely powered by 15 hydropower stations on the nearby Lule River, which generate 12.7 billion KWh of electricity. For comparison’s sake, the Hoover Dam generates an average of 4 billion Kwh annually. In the case of an emergency, Facebook’s server farms will have back-up diesel generators. Facebook’s investment will be a boon to Luleå’s economy, and server farms could be a new source of economic growth throughout the rest of the circumpolar north. However, it can’t just be cold: There has to be a major source of inexpensive energy nearby, too. Sweden’s business-friendly government helps matters as well. For other countries in the Arctic to attract technology companies looking to build server farms, they’ll need to have all three of the above. It will be interesting to see if Russia, which also has low average temperatures and over fifty hydropower stations, but a notably less business-friendly environment, will be able to attract tech companies looking to keep in the cold.
by jo1 | October 30, 2011 - 7:39am
whats the facebook "carbon footprint"? hmmmm!
by zidar | October 29, 2011 - 3:38pm
Zuckerberg likes Swedish college girls. That's what's going on here.
by randyk43 | October 28, 2011 - 8:40pm
No Way! No oil, no mines, no nothing! Lets all sit around in the cold and dark, and wait for food stamp air drops from Anchorage!
by Hello | October 27, 2011 - 7:40pm
Isn't it interesting that Zuckerberg, an American, didn't think about the US arctic first? No surprise really...tax breaks if he's off shore. Close those damn loopholes!
by merian | October 27, 2011 - 9:15pm
Well, other news reports noted that the Luleå location was chosen among other European options, and for European users and advertisers, data hosting in the EU is of high importance. So I imagine this time around it wasn't a decision between a Nordic location within the US (or the North American continent) and outside. However, thinking through the scenario of how Luleå would compare to an Alaska location with similar numbers of inhabitants such as Fairbanks could potentially open some eyes here. Both have universities, but only Luleå has a sizeable tech sector beyond the academic sector; an educated local workforce and pro-science-and-technology environment is not Fairbanks' strong point; Luleå has higher taxes (though we don't know if FB got a deal), but Fairbanks still has enormously high power prices, worse infrastructure (on many levels), and looks really weak on green energy, a topic that will be of more and more importance to tech industry decision makers. Fairbanks is also more remote and has colder winters. So yes, lack of investment in infrastructure and an environment that's not friendly to cutting edge technology is putting Alaska at a disadvantage. And that's for Fairbanks - putting a data center next to the oil fields is completely illusory right now as there's simply not enough connectivity (and I'd suspect, power) to support that. I hope that *someone* is thinking about that. Alaska has so much money in the bank and seems to do so little sustainable development with it. (And even at its most environmentally friendly, mining and prospecting is by its nature not sustainable.)
by El Bob | October 27, 2011 - 7:40pm
Of course, if someone built, oh, say, a mine that needed enormous generation capacity at the same time as a server farm was located roughly nearby well, it might be a twofer for the economy of an entire region - jobs and access to abundant, reasonably priced electrical energy. Of course, folks might have to embrace a bit of change. Ah, forget it. |














Comments