Data centers aren't the problem -- poor prioritization is

DNV's recent report whether the energy transition comes into a debate that is already running high. Headlines like “data centers will outperform other Norwegian industry” attract attention, but often obscure the most important thing: The question is not whether Norway gets data centers, but on what terms.

Data centers fill a key need in a digital economy and vie for power capacity with today's industry. According to Energy Facts Norway The industry is the largest energy user in Norway, with a total consumption of around 72 TWh (excluding the oil and gas sector). At the same time, Norway's normal annual production is about 157 TWh of power. This provides a good benchmark for understanding orders of magnitude in future scenarios of a possible data center consumption.

DNV estimates that the data centres' power demand will increase from about 1.6 TWh today to around 6 TWh in 2030, and in a possible scenario up to 29 TWh in 2060. Until 2030, growth is well within the range of variations Norwegian industry has had in the past. Aluminum and ferroalloys have had major upscaling and downscaling, wood processing has declined sharply, and new industries such as seafood and modern processing industries have grown. Power consumption in industry has never been static — it moves between sectors over time.

A level of 29 TWh in 2060 is quite different and foreshadows a development that is difficult to determine from 2025. For such volume to be possible, three conditions must fall into place simultaneously: significant energy efficiency improvements in data center technology, a steady rollout of new renewable power, and a power system that handles far higher power outputs without creating bottlenecks. A data center consumption that takes a fifth of all power generation is technically possible, but politically, naturally and economically demanding.

We need real priority discussion

The crucial question is therefore not whether Norway can supply 29 TWh to one new industry, but whether it is wise. That capacity can come does not mean that all data centers seeking grid connectivity should be built, or that data centers should be given precedence over other industry, power-intensive exports or nature restoration. DNV's scenario is a reminder of the consequences of different choices -- not a plan.

The answer to “why give power to data centers over other industry?” depends on what data centers can contribute. In a European economy where data, IT and digital security are becoming a bigger part of value creation than raw materials, data centres can be better industrial investments than several of the industries with which they are compared. They provide local infrastructure, heat recovery, new industrial collaborations and jobs that strengthen communities of expertise. But this assumes industrial thinking -- not that we treat data centers as random power customers who “must have space in the grid.”

At the same time, it is obvious that not all data centers should be prioritized. We need a new prioritisation regime that differentiates between different types of digital activity. There is a big difference between health data, European security infrastructure, KI training and video streams. The value, risks and societal role vary dramatically, and if we are to safeguard both safety and business development, the priority framework must reflect this.

As Truls Gulowsen in Naturvernförbund wisely points out, nature must also enter into the assessment. Large digital facilities must be located where the capacity exists, where heat can be harnessed, and where natural interventions can be defended. Data centers are physical interventions in both acreage and power system -- not neutral power consumers.

Data centers are not going away. That's why we need a real priority discussion: What data centres do we want, where should they be located, and what should they contribute? If we succeed, data centres will become a responsible and long-term part of Norwegian and European value creation. If we fail, they become a source of conflict, mispriorities and unnecessary land pressure.

‍