Think first, then build

Why the Google data centre in Kronstorf needs a broad debate

A member drew our attention to an article by Solidarwerkstatt Österreich that takes a critical look at the Google data centre planned or under construction in Kronstorf. The central message: before infrastructure of this size is created, there needs to be an open, democratic and objective discussion about its consequences for energy supply, the environment, water, land, prices and social control.

Kronstorf is a municipality of around 3,500 inhabitants in the Linz-Land district of Upper Austria. According to Solidarwerkstatt, Google’s first Austrian data centre is being built there. It is to become a major data hub for Central and Eastern Europe. That is exactly why the question arises whether such a decision may be regarded merely as a location and investment project – or whether a course is not rather being set here for society as a whole.

Data centres are not neutral halls full of computers. They are energy-intensive large-scale infrastructure. They consume electricity, require land, generate waste heat, need cooling and concentrate digital power. In the case of Kronstorf, Solidarwerkstatt points to 50 hectares of former farmland that are to be used for the project. In addition, it points to considerable groundwater extraction for cooling and the return of heated water to the river Enns.

A single project with enormous energy demand

Electricity consumption weighs particularly heavily. According to Solidarwerkstatt, the data centre could require up to one gigawatt of power when fully built. At full capacity, this would mathematically mean almost nine terawatt hours of electricity per year. The article puts this order of magnitude in relation to Austria’s total electricity consumption and points out that this could correspond to around twelve per cent of Austria’s total electricity consumption.

For comparison, Solidarwerkstatt cites the scale of Austrian wind and solar power generation. The data centre would accordingly be of a dimension that cannot simply be covered on the side from the existing energy system. The article also mentions Austrian Power Grid’s assessment that consumption could be as high as that of 900,000 households – more than all households in Upper Austria combined.

For us, the decisive point here is: anyone who takes self-sufficiency, regional resilience and decentralised supply seriously must critically question large consumers of this kind. Not because digitalisation should be rejected in principle, but because every new large load in the electricity system has real consequences. If households, municipalities, businesses and regional energy communities are supposed to save energy, build storage and strengthen local generation, then it must also be asked whether a single corporate project eats up these efforts again.

Water, land and waste heat are not side issues

Besides electricity consumption, ecological burdens are also at stake. According to the Solidarwerkstatt article, water is to be taken from the groundwater for cooling and returned to the Enns heated. A possible rise in water temperature of two to four degrees Celsius, depending on the water level, is mentioned. It is also criticised that large amounts of waste heat would be discharged unused into the river every day.

This touches on a basic question: why are large digital projects often sold as progress while their material prerequisites are hardly made visible? Cloud, AI, streaming and data analysis seem abstract and immaterial in everyday life. In reality, however, they need real energy, real land, real lines, real cooling and real resources.

If farmland disappears, water is heated and power grids have to be expanded for new large consumers, this affects not just a corporate site. It affects the region, energy prices, security of supply and ecological carrying capacity.

What do we need this computing power for?

The article also raises the question of the benefit to society. Data centres serve cloud services, business software, data analysis, streaming, artificial intelligence and many other applications. Some of these can be useful – for example in medicine, research or efficient infrastructure management. Other applications are questionable or serve primarily consumption, surveillance, military interests or the further centralisation of digital power.

This is exactly where an honest debate is needed. It is not enough to speak in general terms of “digitalisation” or “innovation”. The more precise question is: what kind of digitalisation do we want? One that makes people more independent? One that supports regional cycles? One that strengthens education, health, decentralised energy and local cooperation? Or one that concentrates ever larger amounts of data in the hands of a few global corporations?

We stand for self-empowerment, regionality and practical independence. From this perspective, not every technical development is automatically progress. Progress only arises where technology serves people, the community and nature – not where public resources are consumed for private data power.

Public costs? Private profits?

A further point concerns the economic balance. According to Solidarwerkstatt, despite the enormous dimensions, only 50 to 100 jobs are forecast for the Google data centre. At the same time, high demands are being made on electricity supply, grid infrastructure, land use and the environment.

This raises a legitimate question: who bears the costs, who receives the benefits? If public infrastructure, regional resources and ecological resilience are claimed while the added value flows mainly to an international corporation, a political and social review is absolutely necessary.

Especially at a time of rising energy prices, energy must not be allocated according to the principle: whoever has the most capital gets the greatest access. Energy is a basis of life. It determines housing, mobility, production, food, care, education and social stability.

Democracy before a large-scale project

Solidarwerkstatt therefore calls for a halt to construction and a broad public discussion before facts are created on the ground. Topics to be discussed include the provision of energy resources, the effects on climate targets and electricity prices, the social purpose of the computing capacity, economic and social conditions and democratic control.

This approach is understandable. Not every large technical investment may be decided solely according to location logic, corporate interests or short-term economic expectations. Especially in the case of critical infrastructure, transparency, impact assessment and democratic participation are needed.

From the point of view of a GAIA member, the Kronstorf case is more than a local conflict. It is an example of a bigger question of direction: do we want a future in which more and more energy flows into centralised digital structures – or a future in which energy, data and infrastructure serve the common good?

Conclusion Independence needs conscious decisions

The Google data centre in Kronstorf shows how closely energy policy, digitalisation, environmental issues and democratic control are interlinked. Anyone who takes independence and freedom seriously must not only look at new technologies, but must ask whom they serve, who controls them and what resources they consume.

Think first, then decide – this principle is no obstacle to progress. It is the prerequisite for technological development not working against people, regions and nature, but being embedded in a free, decentralised and responsible future.

Original source:

Solidarwerkstatt Österreich, Erst denken – dann entscheiden! Nein zum Stromfresser Google! (Think first – then decide! No to the power guzzler Google!)

• solidarwerkstatt.at