IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i11p2787-d1410022.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards Energy Efficient Cloud: A Green and Intelligent Migration of Traditional Energy Sources

Author

Listed:
  • Syed Muhammad Mohsin

    (Department of Computer Science, COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad 45550, Pakistan
    College of Intellectual Novitiates (COIN), Virtual University of Pakistan, Lahore 55150, Pakistan)

  • Tahir Maqsood

    (Department of Computer Science, COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore 55150, Pakistan)

  • Sajjad Ahmad Madani

    (Department of Computer Science, COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad 45550, Pakistan)

Abstract

Geographically distributed cloud data centers (DCs) consume enormous amounts of energy to meet the ever-increasing processing and storage demands of users. The brown energy generated using fossil fuels is expensive and significantly contributes to global warming. Considering the environmental impact caused by the high carbon emissions and relatively high energy cost of brown energy, we propose the integration of renewable energy sources (RES), especially solar and wind energy, with brown energy to power cloud data centers. In our earlier study, we addressed the intermittency of renewable energy sources, where we replaced the random initialization of artificial neural network (ANN) edge weights with the harmony search algorithm (HSA)-optimized assignment of weights. This study incorporated reliably forecast solar and wind energy into the input parameters of our proposed green energy manager (GEM), for cost minimization, carbon emission minimization, and better energy management of cloud DCs, to make our current study more reliable and trustworthy. Four power sources, on-site solar energy and wind energy, off-site solar energy and wind energy, energy stored in energy storage devices, and brown energy, were considered in this study and simulations were carried out for three different cases. The simulation results showed that case 1 (all brown) was 58% more expensive and caused 71% higher carbon emissions than case 2.1 (cost minimization). Case 1 (all brown) was 39% more expensive and had 80% higher carbon emissions than case 2.2 (carbon emission minimization). The simulation results justify the necessity and importance of the GEM, and finally the results proved that our proposed GEM is less expensive and more environmentally friendly.

Suggested Citation

  • Syed Muhammad Mohsin & Tahir Maqsood & Sajjad Ahmad Madani, 2024. "Towards Energy Efficient Cloud: A Green and Intelligent Migration of Traditional Energy Sources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-29, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:11:p:2787-:d:1410022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/11/2787/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/11/2787/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cameron Hepburn, 2006. "Regulation by Prices, Quantities, or Both: A Review of Instrument Choice," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 22(2), pages 226-247, Summer.
    2. Zhifeng Zhong & Chenxi Yang & Wenyang Cao & Chenyang Yan, 2017. "Short-Term Photovoltaic Power Generation Forecasting Based on Multivariable Grey Theory Model with Parameter Optimization," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-9, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Grüll, Georg & Taschini, Luca, 2011. "Cap-and-trade properties under different hybrid scheme designs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 107-118, January.
    2. Webster, Mort & Sue Wing, Ian & Jakobovits, Lisa, 2010. "Second-best instruments for near-term climate policy: Intensity targets vs. the safety valve," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 250-259, May.
    3. Peter Heindl, 2017. "The impact of administrative transaction costs in the EU emissions trading system," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 314-329, April.
    4. Schindele, Stephan & Trommsdorff, Maximilian & Schlaak, Albert & Obergfell, Tabea & Bopp, Georg & Reise, Christian & Braun, Christian & Weselek, Axel & Bauerle, Andrea & Högy, Petra & Goetzberger, Ado, 2020. "Implementation of agrophotovoltaics: Techno-economic analysis of the price-performance ratio and its policy implications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    5. Dogterom, Nico & Ettema, Dick & Dijst, Martin, 2018. "Behavioural effects of a tradable driving credit scheme: Results of an online stated adaptation experiment in the Netherlands," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 52-64.
    6. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2012. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 131-166, February.
    7. Coulon, Michael & Khazaei, Javad & Powell, Warren B., 2015. "SMART-SREC: A stochastic model of the New Jersey solar renewable energy certificate market," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 13-31.
    8. Martin Zapf & Hermann Pengg & Christian Weindl, 2019. "How to Comply with the Paris Agreement Temperature Goal: Global Carbon Pricing According to Carbon Budgets," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-20, August.
    9. Wood, Peter John & Jotzo, Frank, 2011. "Price floors for emissions trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1746-1753, March.
    10. Yasunori Ouchida & Daisaku Goto, 2012. "What is the socially desirable formation of environmental R&D?," IDEC DP2 Series 2-6, Hiroshima University, Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation (IDEC).
    11. Rik L. Rozendaal & Herman R. J. Vollebergh, 2021. "Policy-Induced Innovation in Clean Technologies: Evidence from the Car Market," CESifo Working Paper Series 9422, CESifo.
    12. Adrian Amelung, 2016. "Das "Paris-Agreement": Durchbruch der Top-Down-Klimaschutzverhandlungen im Kreise der Vereinten Nationen," Otto-Wolff-Institut Discussion Paper Series 03/2016, Otto-Wolff-Institut für Wirtschaftsordnung, Köln, Deutschland.
    13. Freebairn, John, 2012. "Tax mix change to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(1), pages 1-15, March.
    14. Parry, Ian, 2015. "Designing Fiscal Policy to Address the External Costs of Energy," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 8(1), pages 1-56, May.
    15. Botor, Benjamin & Böcker, Benjamin & Kallabis, Thomas & Weber, Christoph, 2021. "Information shocks and profitability risks for power plant investments – impacts of policy instruments," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    16. Thomas Grebel, 2019. "What a difference carbon leakage correction makes!," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 939-971, July.
    17. Darmani, Anna & Rickne, Annika & Hidalgo, Antonio & Arvidsson, Niklas, 2016. "When outcomes are the reflection of the analysis criteria: A review of the tradable green certificate assessments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 372-381.
    18. Pezzey, John C.V. & Jotzo, Frank, 2010. "Tax-Versus-Trading and Free Emission Shares as Issues for Climate Policy Design," Research Reports 95049, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    19. Linda Cohen & Amihai Glazer, 2008. "Regulation with Budget Constraints Can Dominate Regulation by Price and by Quantity," Working Papers 080903, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    20. Shreekar Pradhan & J. Scott Holladay & Mohammed Mohsin & Shreekar Pradhan, 2015. "Environmental Policy Instruments and Uncertainties Under Free Trade and Capital Mobility," EcoMod2015 8102, EcoMod.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:11:p:2787-:d:1410022. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.