Of those 177, sixty-seven are confirmed leakers, meaning their contents are leaching into the soil and headed toward the Columbia River. Most have exceeded their anticipated 50 year life span, creating fear of a catastrophic tank failure.

Thousands of tons of radioactive and hazardous waste has been buried in unlined landfills and 450 billion gallons of liquid waste has been poured into ponds, ditches and drainfields at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the state of Washington.

These figures come from an article in today’s Washington Post, which I don’t intend to re-write. My purpose is only to call your attention to this article and hope you will read it and sense the gravity of the situation in that state.

More than a million people living downstream from Hanford are being threatened by a huge plume of groundwater contaminated with radiation and heavy metals moving their way.

The Bush administration’s proposed cleanup budget has trimmed $800 million from cleanup funding, and increased funding for nearly all other categories in the government’s nuclear program.

And they want to mine more uranium, build more nuclear power plants and pile up more spent radioactive material with no where to go, but possibly our drinking water and riding along with that breeze we inhale.

If you’d like to review some Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports on nuclear issues, I suggest you start with these eye openers.

• GAO report on the Hanford facility as recent as Jan 22, 2008.
• GAO reports on nuclear cleanup issues as recent as Nov 15,2007.
• GAO reports on hazardous waste issues as recent as Nov 13, 2007.
• GAO reports on uranium mining cleanup as recent as Oct 26, 2007.

You may find some duplicity in the reports, but there’s plenty of information to keep the interested person quite busy.

Whether I am blogging or working for a more traditional media outlet, I can get almost any information I need simply by using the internet. So with a paperless home office, and no travel to speak of, just about the only ecological cost of doing business is the electricity that my computer uses… my computer, and, well, all of the servers that transport the e-mail, photos, and other data that I need.

How much electricity might that require, exactly? It turns out that our worldwide increase of internet-based data transmission relies upon a growing number of data centers, or Web server farms, as they are sometimes called. A single server farm consists of an enormous warehouse holding data storage systems and tens of thousands of smaller, state-of-the-art servers which process the information for all of our online activities. In recent years the construction of new data centers has increased dramatically, driven by the fact that most software applications will soon be delivered as online service products rather than via physical means (such as CD-ROMs). An article in Fortune magazine last year described the building boom of these server farms; a good single case study is the spate of data centers that have recently located along the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest.

Microsoft led the pack in 2005, acquiring 75 acres of land in Quincy, Washington. (Its data center opened for business in April.) Several other corporations followed suit, with Yahoo choosing Wenatchee, Washington, and Google settling on the Oregon side of the river. The companies are attracted in part by the cheap price of hydroelectric power in the region, according to Datacentres.com. Since the cost of electricity to operate — and cool — a server farm accounts for a large percentage of the facility’s operating budget (up to 15% or 20%, according to a Microsoft TechNet magazine article published in October), this is a major factor influencing a company’s decision regarding where to locate. A U.S. EPA report released earlier this year estimated that in 2006, data centers used 1.5% of the nation’s total electricity consumption - 61 billion kWh. A Reuters article from April equates the power usage at Microsoft’s Quincy facility to that of 40,000 homes.

Addressing the Spike in Energy Consumption

Fortunately, if Microsoft’s business strategy is any indication, the companies see the benefit of going green. In a Microsoft fact sheet dated November 2007, the company outlines its green building commitment: “All new construction is being built to the Silver LEED standards,” and the data center at Quincy “is designed to have a minimal or nonexistent carbon footprint.” The fact sheet also emphasizes the point that hydroelectric power is itself a clean and renewable energy source. In an interview on Microsoft’s Channel 10 site, Michael Manos, Senior Director of Data Center Services at Microsoft, cites environmental considerations as “driving efficiency” and states, “Being green is in line with running a business.”

Ironically, it may be the very excesses associated with server farms that will end up driving a rapid improvement in their sustainability efforts. Dave Ohara, a consultant who specializes in implementing green initiatives and author of the TechNet article cited above, points out that up until now the cost of electricity has been lumped together with other overhead costs. Therefore, business executives have not targeted energy consumption as an area offering their companies an opportunity for cost reduction. With the amount of money being spent on power at data centers, now, however, that is changing. Ohara’s report in TehnNet states:

Energy consumption is one indicator that executives can use to measure the effectiveness of decisions made regarding the lifecycle of IT hardware. AMD, Intel, and server and component OEMs are all making references to the performance-per-watt of their platforms… With the range of people involved in developing IT solutions — from facilities, application development, architects, operations, and business units — performance-per-watt answers the question of “What am I getting in return,” and it lets you see how solutions compare in terms of energy efficiency.

Image Credit: Wikipedia