- 4chan hell raisers finding fame brings heat?
- The 10 dumbest mistakes network managers make
- NetApp quits bidding war in face of EMC opposition
- CompuServe closes after 30 years
- Google to launch open-source Chrome OS this year
This article was contributed by a reader. If you have an opinion or technology experience you would like to share, contact Online Community Editor Julie Bort at bort@nww.com.
Energy conservation is one of the most overlooked ways a company can boost its bottom line without adding staff, space or operating hours. But you’ll need to do a great job of selling for your “green” projects to survive the budget review process. Too often, conservation projects are viewed as nice and optional things to do, rather than as serious savings opportunities. That will change in a heartbeat once you articulate the financial benefits.
One reason the value of conservation projects tends to be minimized is because of the way they are presented to management. Typically, such projects are sold on simple payback, in which the capital cost is divided by the (undiscounted) annual energy savings, resulting in a payback period of years. One problem with this approach is that many managers insist on a payback of less than three years to green-light capital projects not directly related to production. This criterion greatly limits the range of conservation opportunities available. With this method, for instance, an air conditioning system upgrade that costs $20,000 and will save $5,000 per year will have a simple payback of four years. That’s not a financial measurement that’s going to wow them in the boardroom.
A more sophisticated analysis might look at comparative life-cycle costs to develop a net present value (NPV). The NPV shows the positive (or negative) cost of a long-term project in today’s dollars, and is a good way to compare two projects. In this case, the NPV of the green project then would be compared to maintaining the status quo.
The good news about the NPV approach is that it does a better job of showing the value of long-lasting conservation upgrades. The downside is that it requires quite a bit more economic savvy to develop. Surprisingly, I also have found it requires more economic savvy to grasp and often isn’t well understood by management. (In fact, I once analyzed two multimillion-dollar capital projects and discovered one had a NPV of $750,000 more than the other, only to be told by management that “only” a $750,000 difference made the two projects “basically equal”!)
Partner Content
Explore the Ultrium Edge
The powerful tape technology can address data security with tape encryption as well as long term data protection.
Find Out More
Disk and Tape Square Off
Discover what disk and tape really cost and which solution provides lower total cost of ownership and optimizes energy use for your organization
Download this White Paper
Don't Fall for the Myths
The Clipper Group explores the truth behind the myths of tape, digging into the misconceptions in the disk vs. tape debate.
Review this information
information examination
An examination of information security issues, methods and securing data with LTO-4 tape drive encryption
Read this analysis
Comments (2)
IT going green in AustraliaBy Volker Janssen on September 11, 2007, 3:25 amJim Turner's report on funding green IT projects has stirred quite some reaction over here in Australia. Originating from Germany I am always surprised how far back...
Reply | Read entire comment
RE: A surefire way to get funding for green IT projectsBy John H on August 8, 2007, 11:49 amEvery year I get croaked by rate increases. And every year my director tells me we have no money for capital work. At least this puts a new arrow in the quiver. Re:...
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments