Alberta data center could release heat equivalent to 23 atomic bombs a day

One site, two sources of heat

Davis prepared the analysis earlier this year for the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation (SLCN). The planned site is about 80 miles southwest of the reserve. It is outside the reserve, but on land the First Nation considers traditional territory.

The data center is expected to consume about nine gigawatts of power each day. Gas generators at the site would supply the electricity rather than the grid. Davis’s estimate of 16 to 18 gigawatts of heat includes both the fuel burned to generate power and the data center’s own computing load.

That distinction matters. A conventional power plant sends electricity into a regional network, distributing its heat-producing activity across a wider system. At Wonder Valley, the gas turbines and AI computing equipment would generate heat in one place.

The analysis also estimates annual emissions of about 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, more than 4% of Canada’s total emissions.

Permits in place of a full review

In April, Alberta decided not to subject Wonder Valley to a stricter provincial environmental assessment, saying the project would use standard power and water systems. The decision disappointed legal and environmental experts, though it was not unexpected.

Davis told CBC he could not see how the project could be approved without a full assessment. He has made a similar heat comparison while analyzing another data center project by O’Leary in Utah, which had a comparable estimated heat load.

In September, SLCN applied for a judicial review of Alberta’s decision to exempt Wonder Valley from an environmental assessment. Last month, it sought another review.

On October 30, Alberta’s Ministry of Environment and Protected Areas said the project would still need all required permits. The company must also submit detailed technical assessments of its effects on air, land and water, and show that the facility can be built and operated safely before work begins.

Davis’s concern is that those permits examine parts of a project, while an environmental assessment examines the project as a whole. He says existing environmental rules were not designed with developments on this scale in mind.

I think the gap between those two approaches is the story: the province has not waived scrutiny, but it has chosen a process that may not assess the combined burden Davis describes. The announcement is quiet about how separate technical reviews will account for heat and emissions concentrated at one site.

The approval process may still impose conditions. But if no single review is tasked with judging the full project, the largest impacts could be split across permits while remaining concentrated on the ground.