5 ms·

Energy is their #1 cost so they bargain heavily for large subsidies.

lucb1e 5y ago
So the problem is whoever is in charge to say yes to discounts? Genuinely wondering because I keep not understanding this situation and I'm Dutch. Indeed, if people worry about that it'll use up all the green energy then let facebook pay for replacement renewable infrastructure that supplies MW equal to what they use, to be placed and functional anywhere in NL within X (1?) year(s) after the datacenter is turned on (we're not that big, we can swallow those transmission losses).
- hetspookjee 5y ago
  The way energy consumption is taxed is in a staffled manner. In the highest staffel the consumer wouldn’t pay any taxes on their top use. The plants thet hit these amounts are for example the reffineries. It’s not as straight forward as just paying more unfortunately as the rules are so much in favour of big consumers one first needs to change those rules before you have the ground to ask them to pay more.
  - lucb1e 5y ago
    Do I understand you correct that the highest tax bracket for energy is actually the lowest tax bracket? It works inversely to how income taxes work?
    - hetspookjee 5y ago
      That is, how absurd is may sound, entirely correct. I belief on a yearly basis we subsidise about 18B on just big energy consumers. Here is the source at the bottom table: https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/belastingdienst/zakelijk/overige_belastingen/belastingen_op_milieugrondslag/tarieven_milieubelastingen/tabellen_tarieven_milieubelastingen https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/...
- stingraycharles 5y ago
  It’s not even about “saying yes” to discounts, it’s trying to actively persuade Facebook et al to build their DCs in NL, and using subsidies and discounts to entice them. See also an article that explains in more detail that it actually required a lot of lobbying to get Facebook interested: https://tweakers.net/reviews/9690/facebook-in-de-polder-metas-megadatacenter-bij-zeewolde.html https://tweakers.net/reviews/9690/facebook-in-de-polder-meta...
- Scarblac 5y ago
  I suspect our laws say that they just have to be given access to the grid at the same terms as any other company. And we're having to transition to green energy, and having great difficulty doing so, as you know. So a new thing that adds 10% extra national electricity usage isn't exactly welcome right now, imo.
  - lucb1e 5y ago
    > that adds 10% extra national electricity usage I read elsewhere that we're talking about 160MW, that's 1.4 GWh -- if it would run at peak power all year long. The netherlands uses about a thousand TWh of energy in a year. (Electricity or other energy doesn't really matter because it's all going to have to come from renewables in the end anyhow.) That's not 10%, not 1%, not 0.1%, not 0.01%, not 0.001% but 0.0001%. Don't want to defend facebook but let's keep at least keep the order of magnitude correct

So the problem is whoever is in charge to say yes to discounts? Genuinely wondering because I keep not understanding this situation and I'm Dutch. Indeed, if people worry about that it'll use up all the green energy then let facebook pay for replacement renewable infrastructure that supplies MW equal to what they use, to be placed and functional anywhere in NL within X (1?) year(s) after the datacenter is turned on (we're not that big, we can swallow those transmission losses).

hetspookjee 5y ago
The way energy consumption is taxed is in a staffled manner. In the highest staffel the consumer wouldn’t pay any taxes on their top use. The plants thet hit these amounts are for example the reffineries. It’s not as straight forward as just paying more unfortunately as the rules are so much in favour of big consumers one first needs to change those rules before you have the ground to ask them to pay more.
- lucb1e 5y ago
  Do I understand you correct that the highest tax bracket for energy is actually the lowest tax bracket? It works inversely to how income taxes work?
  - hetspookjee 5y ago
    That is, how absurd is may sound, entirely correct. I belief on a yearly basis we subsidise about 18B on just big energy consumers. Here is the source at the bottom table: https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/belastingdienst/zakelijk/overige_belastingen/belastingen_op_milieugrondslag/tarieven_milieubelastingen/tabellen_tarieven_milieubelastingen https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/...
stingraycharles 5y ago
It’s not even about “saying yes” to discounts, it’s trying to actively persuade Facebook et al to build their DCs in NL, and using subsidies and discounts to entice them. See also an article that explains in more detail that it actually required a lot of lobbying to get Facebook interested: https://tweakers.net/reviews/9690/facebook-in-de-polder-metas-megadatacenter-bij-zeewolde.html https://tweakers.net/reviews/9690/facebook-in-de-polder-meta...
Scarblac 5y ago
I suspect our laws say that they just have to be given access to the grid at the same terms as any other company. And we're having to transition to green energy, and having great difficulty doing so, as you know. So a new thing that adds 10% extra national electricity usage isn't exactly welcome right now, imo.
- lucb1e 5y ago
  > that adds 10% extra national electricity usage I read elsewhere that we're talking about 160MW, that's 1.4 GWh -- if it would run at peak power all year long. The netherlands uses about a thousand TWh of energy in a year. (Electricity or other energy doesn't really matter because it's all going to have to come from renewables in the end anyhow.) That's not 10%, not 1%, not 0.1%, not 0.01%, not 0.001% but 0.0001%. Don't want to defend facebook but let's keep at least keep the order of magnitude correct