Abstract:Abstract 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this research is to answer the question, ‘can end user computing (EUC) use phase electricity (UPE) consumption data be captured using analytics software regardless of location?’ In doing so, the field experiment tests a proposed methodology that both addresses current barriers such as mobility and scale (Greenblatt et al., 2013) that limit the availability of EUC UPE field data (Karpagam & Yung, 2017) and challenges current methodologies that cause concomitant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions quantification to be inaccurate by -48% to +107% (Sutton-Parker, 2020). 1.2 MethodsThis is achieved by using a distributed node based analytics software to capture both asset and use profile data sets from one hundred and eleven computer users operating in a subject organisation for 30-days. The values are then used to populate the current and popularised UPE consumption calculation data flow (Kawamoto et al, 2001; Roth eta al. 2002) in order to examine for omissions. To test for accuracy, the EUC UPE consumption of one control subject is measured using both a watt-metre and the analytics software. The rationale being that the watt-metre data is extensively proven to be accurate (Energy Star, 2017) and will therefore expose errors produced by the software in relation to power draw, on-time and resulting kilo-watt hours (kWh) values.1.3 Results and discussionFurther to the data capture period, the findings are mixed. Positively, the new method reduces complexity via the ability to compile both data sets with one tool rather than a combination of two, such as asset management and watt-metre measurement. Specifically, scale and mobility issues are overcome, also allowing for location to be deduced and therefore national electricity conversion factors to be applied when calculating scope 2 emissions. Additionally, the current methodology error range is reduced from 155% (Sutton-Parker, 2020) to 48%. Negatively, data omissions are experienced although surmountable, with the exception of monitors being excluded from the capture process. This is due to the node requiring an operating system to collect data. 1.4 ConclusionWhilst the research question is answered, the identification of energy consumption over reporting causes the analytics methodology to be arguably in need of further development. The rationale being that UPE consumption quantification is key to lifecycle assessment (LCA) and GHG accounting protocol and both require accuracy (WBCSD and WRI, 2004). It is therefore recommended that further research be undertaken to specifically address omissions and to reduce the over reporting aspect identified as caused by algorithms in the software used to calculate hardware power draw.

Evaluating Total Environmental Impact for a Computing Infrastructure

Chasing Carbon: The Elusive Environmental Footprint of Computing

Toward Sustainable HPC: Carbon Footprint Estimation and Environmental Implications of HPC Systems

The world wide web of carbon: Toward a relational footprinting of information and communications technology's climate impacts

Carbon Connect: An Ecosystem for Sustainable Computing

Quantifying End User Computing Device Use Phase Greenhouse Gas Emissions Using Analytics Software

Emissions and energy efficiency on large-scale high performance computing facilities: ARCHER2 UK national supercomputing service case study

Digital Tools for Revealing and Reducing Carbon Footprint in Infrastructure, Building, and City Scopes

The impact of computing infrastructure on carbon emissions: An empirical study based on China National Supercomputing Center

The climate impact of ICT: A review of estimates, trends and regulations

How to Assess the Carbon Footprint of a Large-Scale Physics Project

Reducing the climate impact of data portals: a case study

Crunching Numbers, Sustainably

Impact of computing infrastructure on carbon emissions in China

Measuring IT Carbon Footprint: What is the Current Status Actually?

Estimating the Environmental Impact of Green IoT Deployments

The computational and energy cost of simulation and storage for climate science: lessons from CMIP6

Decoding Environmental Impact with Image-Based CO2 Emission Analytics

SCARIF: Towards Carbon Modeling of Cloud Servers with Accelerators

The Sunk Carbon Fallacy: Rethinking Carbon Footprint Metrics for Effective Carbon-Aware Scheduling

Frugal Computing -- On the need for low-carbon and sustainable computing and the path towards zero-carbon computing