Rising compute densities expose limits of the ubiquitous PUE metric and force a rethink of data-centre sustainability: the report urges compute-focused efficiency metrics and highlights trade-offs between on-site cooling water use and upstream water/energy impacts while recommending circularity measures across design, materials and operations.

Main Finding

The report finds that continued data-centre (DC) growth creates both circular-economy opportunities and multi-dimensional trade-offs. Key technical and metric reforms are needed: PUE is a flawed, coarse metric and should be complemented (or partially replaced) with a small set of disjoint metrics that separately capture (i) compute efficiency, (ii) power-transformation efficiency (including PSU losses), and (iii) cooling overhead. Energy–water trade-offs in cooling, limited and location-sensitive value of waste-heat recovery, and large knowledge gaps in microelectronics production (especially mineral refining) mean that circularity measures (design, process, materials, business models, and operation) and lifespan extension are robust, economically aligned levers — but their net benefits depend strongly on local electricity-water regimes, grid interactions, and supply-chain constraints.

Key Points

• Limitations of PUE

  • PUE is relative and infrastructure-focused (cooling + power provisioning), not a measure of compute energy or absolute consumption.
  • It misattributes server-fan and PSU conversion losses to “IT” energy and therefore hides important transformation inefficiencies.
  • Infrastructure efficiency (PUE improvements) is largely saturated; future gains from compute-side efficiency are far more consequential.

• Recommended energy metrics

  • Propose three complementary metrics: compute efficiency (work per energy, workload-agnostic), transformation efficiency (end-to-end power provisioning losses, including PSUs), and cooling overhead (energy for cooling/auxiliary systems).
  • The transition to DC distribution with higher voltages and DC architectures is an opportunity to build these metrics into design and reporting.

• Power provisioning trends

  • Shift toward direct current and higher-voltage internal distribution to reduce conversion losses.
  • A comprehensive metric for power provisioning should be disaggregated from cooling and include PSU and distribution losses.

• Water and cooling

  • On-site water use depends strongly on cooling technology: cooling towers and waterside economizers are high-water; dry coolers and airside economizers are low-water but often use adiabatic assistance intermittently (so use some water).
  • Indirect (upstream) water use is dominated by electricity generation (notably behind-the-dam evaporation for hydropower).
  • Trade-offs: water-intensive cooling reduces cooling energy and thus upstream water embodied in electricity; which option is preferable depends on the “wetness” of the local electricity mix.

• Waste heat reuse

  • Waste-heat recovery can increase energy circularity but is constrained: heat quality is limited, applications are location-dependent (proximity to heat demand), and trade-offs exist between minimizing cooling energy (often located in cold, remote sites) and maximizing reuse (near population centres).
  • Metrics should focus on avoided energy (what the recovered heat substitutes) rather than only quantity of heat recovered.

• Production impacts and circularity of hardware

  • The environmental impacts of microelectronics are poorly quantified, especially mineral refining/purification.
  • Extending hardware lifespans is consistently beneficial for sustainability and often aligns with CapEx incentives.
  • Circularity levers span product design, process & business models, material choices, and operations; general frameworks (e.g., 9R) can be applied to DCs and component supply chains.

• Grid interactions and system-level trade-offs

  • Modern DCs present large, concentrated, and rapidly ramping loads (AI workloads accentuate ramps).
  • Mitigation strategies—workload shifting, on-site generation, battery storage—provide grid flexibility but create trade-offs: local pollution/noise, extra embodied emissions and materials competition (batteries, generators), and potential distortions of system-level emissions.
  • DCs can provide valuable flexibility services but this must be evaluated against resource competition and externalities.

Data & Methods

• Type of study: Technology- and policy-oriented synthesis report combining literature review, engineering analysis, conceptual metric design, and trade-off assessment. It is not primarily an original empirical LCA dataset.
• Sources: Academic literature, engineering/industry technical documents on DC topology, cooling technologies, power distribution, water-use metrics (WUE), PSU and distribution efficiency studies, and lifecycle insights on microelectronics production. (Report: Swiss Federal Office of Energy, Final report 21 April 2026; authors Vlad C. Coroamă & Oana Dumbravă.)
• Methods used:
  • Conceptual analysis of existing metrics (PUE, WUE) and identification of conceptual biases and blind spots.
  • Comparative assessment of cooling technologies (dry coolers, air/cooled chillers, water-cooled chillers, waterside/airside economizers, adiabatic assistance) for energy and water impacts.
  • Thermodynamic and electrical-transmission reasoning to evaluate benefits of DC power-distribution changes (higher voltage, DC).
  • Lifecycle and supply-chain discussion for microelectronics, highlighting knowledge gaps (mineral refining).
  • Application of circular-economy frameworks (e.g., 9R) to identify intervention points across product, process, material, and operating domains.
• Limitations noted by authors:
  • Sparse, uncertain empirical data on microelectronics refining impacts.
  • Practical difficulties in defining a universally applicable compute-efficiency metric across heterogeneous workloads.
  • Context dependence of cooling/water trade-offs (region-specific power mix and water availability).

Implications for AI Economics

• Need for a compute-efficiency metric tailored to AI

  • Economic models and deployments that price and optimize AI workloads should not rely on PUE. They need a workload-agnostic compute-efficiency metric (work per joule) that captures heterogeneous AI model types, inference vs. training, and amortized efficiency across accelerators and software stacks.
  • Such a metric would enable better comparisons across providers, more accurate cost-of-compute signals, and improved incentives for algorithmic and hardware efficiency.

• Cost and investment signals

  • Transition to higher-voltage/DC power distribution and liquid cooling requires upfront capital but reduces transformation losses and operating costs. AI data-centre investors should account for trade-offs in CapEx vs. long-run OpEx and for changes in accounting of transformation efficiency in procurement decisions.
  • Water-related costs and constraints create location-dependent operating costs for AI workloads. AI economists should internalize regional electricity “wetness” and local water scarcity into location choices and long-run cost models.

• Valuing flexibility and grid interactions

  • AI workloads can be a flexible grid resource (demand response, temporal shifting of non-urgent training), which has economic value. Quantifying this value requires modeling revenue streams from ancillary services and potential savings from avoided grid investments.
  • Conversely, on-site batteries and generation impose opportunity costs (materials, embodied emissions) and may compete with other sectors’ flexibility needs; economic analyses should include these resource-competition externalities.

• Supply-chain and scarcity risks

  • Poorly understood environmental and material impacts in microelectronics (refining, critical minerals) imply supply-risk premiums. AI economics must factor potential scarcity, geopolitical concentration, and cost volatility of advanced chips and battery/energy materials into total cost of ownership and long-run AI scaling scenarios.

• Circularity and lifespan economics

  • Extending hardware lifetimes and shifting business models (e.g., modular repairable designs, leasing, secondary markets) often yield both sustainability and economic benefits (lower lifetime cost per unit of useful compute). AI firms should include lifespan-extension and circular procurement in capital planning.
  • Software and workload optimization (model compression, sparsity, efficient pipelines) produce outsized returns as infrastructure efficiency gains are near-saturated.

• Carbon/water accounting and policy

  • Carbon and environmental accounting for AI should not use PUE alone. More disaggregated metrics (compute efficiency, transformation losses, cooling overhead) and upstream water-embodied indicators are needed to accurately price externalities (carbon taxes, water pricing, regulation).
  • Policy instruments that reward avoided energy (e.g., via heat reuse credits calibrated to avoided fuel/energy) and that account for local water impacts will alter optimal siting and operational strategies for AI workloads.

• Heat reuse and demand clustering

  • Waste-heat monetization is location- and temperature-quality dependent. AI economic strategies that rely on heat valorization should evaluate whether proximity to heat demand and the quality/temperature of exhaust make reuse economically material or only marginal.

Overall, for AI economics, the report implies a shift from infrastructure-centric KPIs (PUE) toward metrics and economic models that place compute efficiency, power transformation losses, water/energy trade-offs, and lifecycle/resource constraints at the centre of cost and policy analysis.