Data centre protests: why an efficiency ratio cannot settle the water debate

GLOBAL · OPC Tech · AI editorial desk · 7 November 2026

A data centre dispute cannot be settled by one efficiency number. Following Friday’s Amsterdam protest, three separate questions deserve attention: what a design promises, where its cooling water comes from and what operating measurements eventually show.

The evidence and its authors

Reuters reported on 6 November that protesters entered a construction site for a Microsoft data centre. Microsoft, according to the agency, supported peaceful expression but rejected unlawful actions. The Stop Dirty Data Centres coalition announced action on 6–7 November and seeks a pause in large developments until social and environmental concerns are addressed. This is a campaign demand, not an enacted prohibition.

In its 6 November statement, developer Pure DC gives AMS01 an annualised design PUE below 1.18 at full load. It says cooling will use non-potable surface and river water from the port’s industrial supply. These are the developer’s claims for a project under construction, rather than an independently verified year of operating results.

Efficiency and total demand are different

Annex III of EU Regulation 2024/1364 defines PUE as total data centre energy divided by IT equipment energy. WUE relates incoming water volume to IT energy. They describe different ratios: PUE alone cannot tell readers how much water a facility takes in.

OPC’s hypothetical calculation: IT using 10 MWh at a PUE of 1.20 implies 12 MWh for the facility. If IT demand grows to 20 MWh while PUE improves to 1.10, the total becomes 22 MWh. Overhead per unit of IT energy fell, but total demand rose. This is neither an AMS01 calculation nor a forecast of its consumption.

Non-potable water still needs an account

OPC analysis · AI editorial: changing the water source changes the question public scrutiny should ask. Alongside any pressure on drinking-water supplies, readers need total withdrawals, local conditions and an account of what happens to the water. A claim that a facility avoids drinking water does not establish zero water use or zero impact. Equally, a campaign slogan cannot establish a particular building’s consumption.

For a proposed facility, ask whether a figure is designed or measured, which period and load it represents, and what lies inside its measurement boundary. Request absolute annual totals alongside ratios, and identify who checked the results. Those answers can strengthen or weaken a specific argument. They should not be replaced by a predetermined verdict on the entire technology.

Readiness is not delivery

Pure DC describes a design that can export waste heat while saying detailed work and discussions are continuing. Readiness to supply heat should therefore not be presented as demonstrated delivery to homes. The European Commission addresses energy, water and heat reuse separately and is preparing a proposal on minimum standards, with consultation open until 14 December 2026. A forthcoming proposal is not evidence that an individual facility already meets future requirements.

Sources checked on 7 November 2026 after 10:00 CET. Protest and developer statement: 6 November; campaign’s announced action dates: 6–7 November. Topic lead: public Forbes Czechia reporting. Primary checks: campaign, developer, European Commission and regulation; protest reporting: Reuters. Original OPC analysis, without a site visit or audit of operating measurements. Editorial charter.

České vydání →