[J] JOIN

Centres de données IA

Enquête communautaire sur l’écosystème des centres de données IA : installations, exploitants, capacité, sources d’énergie, consommation d’eau, fournisseurs et contrats énergétiques. Ajoutez une installation que vous connaissez et vérifiez les contributions des autres.

Installations vérifiées
376
Capacité
98 768 MW
+83 026 MW prévus
Part des 3 premiers exploitants
42 %
des MW suivis
Liens avec des fournisseurs
148
96 entreprises

Anomalies à examiner

Notre méthode de signalement

Des indicateurs descriptifs, pas des affirmations éditoriales.

Patterns warrant review, not accusations. These flags surface entries that deviate from peers or expose data gaps. They are descriptive, not editorial. Investigative judgments belong in published findings with sourcing and right of reply.

Permits granted unusually fast

0

Issued <14 days after application — verify regulatory process.

→ permit timing review

(awaiting Phase 6 seed)

Operators with 3+ ownership layers

0

Chain depth ≥3 — shell stacking signal.

→ ownership review

(awaiting Phase 6 seed)

Subsidies > $1M per claimed job

10

Disclosed subsidy ÷ claimed jobs exceeds $1M.

→ benefit-cost review

Facilities with no sources

1

Verified entries that lack any cited URL.

→ review provenance

No power source disclosed

5

No primary energy source recorded — can't assess emissions.

→ data gap

Stuck since announcement

1

Announced 5+ years ago, not yet operational, not cancelled.

→ verify status

Countries with high operator concentration

25

HHI ≥ 2500 — single operator dominates national MW.

→ market structure review

  • AE
  • BE
  • CN
  • ID
  • IL

Operators ≥30pp behind clean-energy commitment

23

Public commitment vs. actual carbon-free MW share.

→ claim verification

  • Meta
  • Amazon Web Services
  • Microsoft
  • Oracle
  • Google

Single-supplier dependency (3+ categories)

0

One vendor serves 3+ functional categories at the same site.

→ supply concentration review

Écart d’écoblanchiment

Engagement en faveur des énergies propres comparé aux MW réellement décarbonés.

OperatorCommitmentByActual carbon-freeGapStatus
Meta100%20209.4%+90.6ppwide gapsrc ↗
Amazon Web Services100%202518.8%+81.2ppwide gapsrc ↗
Microsoft100%202550.6%+49.4ppbehindsrc ↗
Oracle100%20250%+100ppwide gapsrc ↗
Google100%203054.1%+45.9ppbehindsrc ↗
Digital Realty100%20300%+100ppwide gapsrc ↗
TeraWulf91%202444.7%+46.3ppbehindsrc ↗
QTS Data Centers100%20255.1%+94.9ppwide gapsrc ↗
Switch100%201688.1%+11.9ppclosesrc ↗
Vantage Data Centers100%203025%+75ppwide gapsrc ↗
Verne100%202016.7%+83.3ppwide gapsrc ↗
atNorth100%202031.4%+68.6ppwide gapsrc ↗
YTL Corporation100%2050100%0ppon tracksrc ↗
NTT Global Data Centers100%20400%+100ppwide gapsrc ↗
Cologix100%20300%+100ppwide gapsrc ↗
Aligned Data Centers100%20240%+100ppwide gapsrc ↗
Stack Infrastructure100%203011.8%+88.2ppwide gapsrc ↗
Naver100%20400%+100ppwide gapsrc ↗
Data4100%20300%+100ppwide gapsrc ↗
SoftBank100%20300%+100ppwide gapsrc ↗
OVHcloud100%20250%+100ppwide gapsrc ↗
Equinix100%20300%+100ppwide gapsrc ↗
CyrusOne100%20300%+100ppwide gapsrc ↗
Hydro66100%2015100%0ppon tracksrc ↗
Telefónica Tech100%20300%+100ppwide gapsrc ↗
Scaleway100%20170%+100ppwide gapsrc ↗

Gap = commitment % − actual carbon-free MW % (solar/wind/hydro/geothermal/nuclear). Public commitments per operator press; actual derived from facility power-source field. Operator press claims and sourced facility data — community findings flow can dispute either side.