Pillar sub-scores
A pillar mixes what is endured and what is chosen; a grade is not the average of the pillars. Energy ●●●●
EnergyE
Water ●●●●
WaterE
Land & biodiversity ●●●●
Land & biodiversityE
Local impact ●●○○
Local impactE
Transparency & governance
Transparency & governance–
“Rated E on site; project data insufficient to grade project & process.”
Tracked indicators
| Indicator | Value | Reading | State | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy | ||||
| Local grid carbon intensity How much CO₂ is emitted to produce the electricity the site will consume, based on the regional grid. The lower the value, the better. | 310 gCO2e/kWh | Measured | Fictional grid intensity dataset (test) — accessed 2026-07-01 | |
| Grid connection capacity / proximity How easily the site can be connected to the power grid: available capacity and distance to the nearest substation. | constrained | Measured | Fictional connection capacity map (test) — accessed 2026-07-01 | |
| Grid congestion / connection queue How congested the local grid is: the more saturated, the more the connection competes with other users. | high | Measured | Fictional connection queue registry (test) — accessed 2026-07-01 | |
| PUE (announced energy efficiency) The announced energy efficiency: total electricity used versus what actually powers computing. Closer to 1 is better. The lower the value, the better. | Not disclosed | — | Missing | — |
| Water | ||||
| Local water stress Water tension in the area: in an already water-scarce region, withdrawals weigh more heavily. | high | Measured | Fictional water restriction registry (test) — accessed 2026-07-01 | |
| Water body status The ecological health of the affected river or aquifer, per the EU classification (from 'high' to 'bad'). | moderate | Measured | Fictional water body status report (test) — accessed 2026-07-01 | |
| Basin withdrawal pressure How intensively water is already withdrawn from the basin: a heavily-tapped basin ill affords a new user. | high | Measured | Fictional withdrawal database (test) — accessed 2026-07-01 | |
| Cooling technology + announced water volume The cooling technology chosen and the water volume it will consume, as announced by the operator. | Not disclosed | — | Missing | — |
| Land & biodiversity | ||||
| Overlap / distance to protected areas How close the project is to protected natural areas (Natura 2000, nature reserves…). | near_1_to_5km | Measured | Fictional protected areas layer (test) — accessed 2026-07-01 | |
| Soil status (artificialized / natural / agricultural) What the land was before: already built (brownfield), natural, or farmland — sealing farmland or nature weighs most. | agricultural | Measured | Fictional soil status inventory (test) — accessed 2026-07-01 | |
| Ecological corridors (TVB) Whether the project severs a wildlife corridor (green-and-blue network). | corridor_nearby | Measured | Fictional ecological corridors layer (test) — accessed 2026-07-01 | |
| Project ground footprint The project's ground footprint in hectares: the larger, the greater the land impact. The lower the value, the better. | Not disclosed | — | Missing | — |
| Avoid-reduce-offset measures / heat recovery Measures to avoid, reduce or offset harm, and to reuse the heat produced. | Not disclosed | — | Missing | — |
| Local impact | ||||
| Municipality socio-economic profile The host town's social profile. A safeguard: a project must never improve its grade by locating in a vulnerable town. | sensitive | Measured | Fictional census profile (test) — accessed 2026-07-01 | |
| Absorption capacity (project size vs municipality) The project's size relative to the town: a very large project in a small town disrupts more. The lower the value, the better. | 1385 MW per 1000 inhabitants | Measured | Fictional census, municipality population 650 (test) — accessed 2026-07-01 | |
| Technological hazard / nearby Seveso sites The presence of hazardous industrial sites (Seveso) nearby, adding risk to the surroundings. | seveso_low_within_5km | Measured | Fictional industrial hazard registry (test) — accessed 2026-07-01 | |
| Announced jobs The number of permanent jobs announced, relative to project size. More is better. The higher the value, the better. | Not disclosed | — | Missing | — |
| Announced tax revenue The tax revenue the project would bring to the town, as announced. | Not disclosed | — | Missing | — |
| Observed level of opposition The scale of observed opposition: appeals, petitions, mobilizations reported by the press. | Not disclosed | — | Missing | — |
| Elected officials' position (voted facts only) Elected officials' position as expressed by official votes only (council decisions), with no personal judgment. | Not disclosed | — | Missing | — |
| Transparency & governance | ||||
| Consultation / consent / governance (procedural proxies) The quality of the democratic process: public inquiry held, environmental authority opinion, appeals, CNDP referral. | Not disclosed | — | Missing | — |
| Documentation transparency / file availability How genuinely accessible the project's file is to the public: published studies, figures and commitments. | Not disclosed | — | Missing | — |
Operator response
The operator can send us a response about this datasheet. When a response is received and publishable, it appears here, clearly attributed and dated.
A factual error? Use “Report an error”, attaching a source or supporting document.
State of the available data
22 indicators tracked · 12 measured · 0 announced (unverified) · 10 missing.
Grade history
- Site grade at this dateDInitial scoring of fictional fixtures on draft methodology (engine bring-up)Project & process grade at this date–
- Site grade at this dateECalibration iter-2 (methodology 0.1.0 (h)): base thresholds recalibrated so the site scale can express E — F2 agricultural 25->0 (ENAF category fix), F1/F2 and E1/E2/E3 weight rebalance, W1 high 30->20. Beta (the sparse tier-1-only fixture) moves D 35.0 -> E 30.0.Project & process grade at this date–
Methodology 0.1.0 · Scored on 2026-07-09 scoremydatacenter.org