So happens to be on the WCG front page, left bottom:

The Greening of IT: How Companies Make a Difference for the Environment,
http://citizenibm.com/2012/02/world-community...formation-technology.html

Lets call it ROE, not Equity but Environment.

--//--

Thanks everyone for your remarks, but I need to point out two things: first, as my original post said, I am NOT running on unused computer time. I am running WCG on a dedicated pool of servers in their very own server closet. As such there very real costs to the project. (60 amp power draw to the servers, dedicated UPSs, dedicated room AC, dedicated network access, etc...).

Second, I agree with all the 'humanitarian' reasons given. This is why I do the project and hope it continues. However, because my employer has a budget based in dollars, I have to respond to their legitimate request for ROI information. They get bombarded with requests for philanthropic donations. I need to show them in dollar value why they should support my project rather than shut me down and give the money I am costing them to another charity. I don't need to convince them WCG is a good idea, I need to convince them it is a BETTER idea than their other options for philanthropic donations.

Also, my company does not believe in advertising it's philanthropic activities. It is viewed as profiting from the misfortune of others. So there will never be any 'positive' cash value to the budget from running the project.

So, that said, what I'm looking for is what asedt proposed: "How much the computations would cost if they did them some other way." Does anyone know what super computing costs if done the traditional way, ie renting time from IBM?

Thanks!!

Because as I said above...throwing money at a 'normal' aid project gets used up by all the salaries, bookkeeping etc, etc that donating to WCG does not. Do you send people to the areas you donate to...probably not, like alot of people/companies you just send a check and say 'use it as you see fit' and then you HOPE they use for the benefit of the people in need, not salaries of the Executives politicking on their private jets in Maui or Monaco! Well with WCG you get to chose how much and exactly what the money is spent on and you KNOW it is going for what you want it to, finding the answer to the question. No money spent on salaries, no money for new jets or refurbing the old ones either, no hotel rooms and spa visits, just research plain and simple. Every year there is a list of how much money gets donated actually ends up in the places we would like it to, some charities are as little as 3 cents on the dollar, some are much better. There may be one or two that use 100% of the money for research or whatever, but that could change next week with a new board or new regime at that charity. With WCG it ALWAYS goes towards research because YOU make that choice!

I must admit that now that you gave a best picture of what you where doing, your problem is to pit WCG against some other form of filantropic project.

To give an example, your question is of the form:

Is the spending I have done for WCG better spent if I had used it to finance a malaria vaccine testing campaign in a thirld world country.
or

Is the spending I have done for WCG better spent if I had used that money to finance the building of a school or hospital in destroyed parts of Haiti.

etc. etc.

Sorry but here there is no way I can answer. All are important and you should do both. One is for the long term and the other is for the short term, but both are needed. If you have to make a choice it cannot be through dollars spent but what you have to do is ask your bosses that they must first of all decide what is the objective they are pursuing in terms of philantropic action.

Once they have decided what their objectives are then WCG may or may not be inline for them. But dollar per dollar to compare I think it is not the right way to go. The right way is for your bosses to meet the scientists behind the WCG projects and talk to them. If your bosses are convinced by their research then again and if it is inline with their line of thought then fine.

If your objective is to compare the cost of running your servers and hiring CPU power on a server farm or on a supercomputer, then the calculation has to be made. I can give you here my personal experience.
As an example I run 21 devices in my private home (mainly in the basement) with all the nuisance that this may generate. I have checked what would it cost me to run the equivalent power by renting servers in a datacenter. It was much muchmuch more expensive.

After reading some of the answers and replies I think I misunderstood what you were asking.
ROI is what sent me off on a tangent.
If you donate $1000 to a charity when do you break even, the answer is never.
The financial term ROI is not be the best term to use.
Try to refocus the goal on what is the best use of this idle equipment, and can it be used to accomplish the company's philanthropic goals better than writing a check to a charity.
Management loves statistics and numbers.
BOINC and WCG have a wealth of stats that can be used to dazzle them.
With WCG you can show them results.
They love results!

Regarding medical costs of cancer, I just read a book titled After The Cancer, What now??? by Darrell Smith.
The author had numerous cancer surgeries over 14 years, so many that I lost count.
But I do remember the cost of the first surgery, it was $200,000 for the hospital.
That does not include anything but the hospital, all other specialists, etc... are billed separately.

Good luck!