I'd say that a datacenter actually has the ability to be responsive to energy market conditions more than most other kinds of loads, and no datacenter operates at its max rated power 24x7. Anyway the point is a datacenter of this size would amount to a tiny fraction of the energy load in that country. It's fine if they don't want it; it's their country, after all. But they should own the fact that they're just superficially against Facebook, and drop the stupid greenwashing argument.

The fraction that you mention is not a fraction. It’s equivalent to the city of Amsterdam. In addition that 160mw number is hard to source and just a Google gives me various numbers already. The national news channels always mention the number equivalent to the inhabitants of Amsterdam, so if you’re saying that the addition of a power consumer equal to the capital is a tiny fraction than I find that rather curious.

Your theory is good as a theory but in practice not. The entire power grid is currently not setup to hold a location so perfect for Facebook. If they cared about the environment and the power grid they’d put it somewhere else. As it’s currently it’s the pupation that would be paying for this addition for the grid and there are plentiful other interesting economic things to do with that kind of power use.

Honestly the fact that it’s Facebook does matter but way less than you think.

There's no way that it's accurate that this datacenter is equivalent to the energy needs of almost a million people. Not even close. A household needs ~2kW of grid capacity on average, and there are at least 400k households in Amsterdam. That's 800MW just for the domestic consumption, which excludes transport.

Consider that the EIA says NL consumed 3.818 quad BTU in 2019 ... this is about 1.1e12 kW-h, or 800x what a 160MW data center would consume. This size of data center, though fairly large, would still be much less than 1% of the energy story of that country.

Generally, data centers use far less energy that people suppose, compared to transport and industry.

How do you get to 2kW per household? Even the (ridiculously high) comparisons provided by German utilities don’t claim more than 4500kWh/year for electricity. That’s about 10 kWh/day so about 0.5kW per household (yeah I’m lazy sue me). So the 200 MW kind of fit (factor of 4 off from your calculation). In practice I’d be surprised if it’s even that much. The 4500kWh number is for a 4 person household, and there aren’t 400k 4 person households in Amsterdam. And city apartments tend to be newer (aka more efficient) than the rural parts that also contribute to that average, which is also quite historic.

So I would be surprised if that DC doesn’t require more energy than Amsterdam (at least the population, not sure how much heavy industry is there, but probably not too much)

Would you accept the city of Amsterdam's own official renewable energy policy?

""400 MW is equivalent to the electricity consumption of 200,000 households""

https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/policy/sustainability/renewable-...

That's certainly interesting, but it just doesn't fit with the yearly consumption data available. Even if you take a look at [1], which distributes all electric energy consumption onto citizen you barely get 6000kWh/year. Which brings us (barely) to 2kW per household (btw. I find it kind of surprising, that there is a factor of 3-4 between total and private consumption).

So either they are taking all electric energy consumption and not the consumption of the household as their basis or (and more likely) they are talking about installed peak capacity necessary to provide the required electric energy over the year. But we would have to look where their marketing got their data from.

[1] https://www.worlddata.info/europe/netherlands/energy-consump...