OperationalConditionalprofile from priorscurated

Council Bluffs

Google · Council Bluffs, Iowa, United States · 700 MW

One of Google's largest campuses, expanded repeatedly since 2007.

Supply as reported: Grid with wind PPAs

google.com

Open in the simulation

Build cost

$23.8B

Months to live

gated by 5 construction phases

EBITDA / yr

$6.7B

Payback

3.5 yrs

IRR

11.9%

CO₂ / yr

888 kt

186 g/kWh

Jobs

2,000 / 518

build / permanent

Composite

E 70 · Env 43 · C 75

Conditionalon “Baseline as reported” (70% grid · 30% wind) · Oct 30, 2026 · meta/muse-wonder-1.0

The verdict is CONDITIONAL: do not build Council Bluffs as proposed at 70% grid and 30% wind, but it can proceed if the supply mix changes. As proposed it returns 12% IRR, a payback inside 4 years, and $2B of ten-year NPV, yet its environment score of 43 misses the 45 floor and its 77% draw on regional grid headroom breaches the 60% cap. The viable Hydro PPA + grid alternative at 60% hydro and 40% grid lifts the composite to 68, the environment score to 55, and IRR to 13%, while cutting annual emissions from 888 kt to 559 kt. Community strength is not the blocker at 75 as proposed and 81 under hydro, well above the 40 floor, provided land and local commitments are locked in. The condition is therefore specific: switch mixes, assemble the land, and contract the power before committing the full roughly $24B build.

Conditions

Adopt the viable Hydro PPA + grid mix at 60% hydro and 40% grid instead of the proposed 70% grid and 30% wind, lifting the environment score from 43 to 55, above the 45 floor, and the composite score from 62 to 68.
Assemble and secure the full land requirement beyond the 3 ha of measured open land before land close, with the hydro configuration needing 93 ha in total.
Contract the hydro PPA and confirm grid capacity for only the reduced grid share before construction, so the project no longer relies on a 77% draw on regional headroom above the 60% floor.
Lock in the community commitments below and maintain a community score well above the 40 floor, consistent with 81 under the hydro alternative versus 75 as proposed.

Risks

Only 3 ha of open land is measured on site, while even the hydro configuration needs 93 ha, so failure to assemble surrounding land stops the project or forces a redesign.
Grid dependence remains material at 40% under the hydro mix, and the original design's likely rate impacts for other customers could still drive regulatory delay or political opposition.
If the hydro PPA is delayed or not firm, the project could slip back toward grid-heavy supply, breaching the environment and grid-headroom floors again.
Five staggered phases over about 37 months, plus a GPU refresh in year 5 embedded in the economics, expose the roughly $24B capex programme to supply-chain, labour, and technology-cycle slippage.
Annual emissions remain substantial at 559 kt under the preferred alternative and water use is large, so disclosure and community scrutiny will persist despite clearing the floors.

Scores

70economic

43environment

75community

For the executive

For Google leadership, this is a buildable 560 MW, 661 MW facility on B200 hardware only if you switch the supply story to hydro-led power and solve land assembly up front. Done that way you keep a roughly 37-month, five-phase path to live while improving economics to 13% IRR and a 3-year payback range rather than defending a grid-heavy design that fails two floors.

For the policy maker

For government officials, the original proposal strains the regional grid and falls below the 45 environment floor at 43, so it should not be approved as drawn. The hydro alternative cuts annual emissions from 888 kt to 559 kt, lifts community score to 81, and still delivers 518 permanent jobs, about $310M a year in tax revenue, and about $121M a year in local spend, making a conditional approval defensible.

For the investor

The headline returns are attractive, with 12% IRR and $2B in ten-year NPV as proposed, improving to 13% IRR under the hydro mix, against about $24B of capex. The investment case is conditional, not clean, so underwrite it only with the hydro contract, land control, and grid agreement signed, not on the original 77% headroom draw.

How to build it so the verdict holds

Build the 560 MW IT, 661 MW facility in five 132 MW phases over about 37 months using the viable Hydro PPA + grid mix, B200 GPUs at 80 kW density, a 2,500-person peak crew, and 20% construction automation. Gate every phase on contracted hydro and grid supply actually landing, and keep land assembly and community commitments ahead of energization so the conditional verdict holds.

Play this plan in the simulation

Configuration

Supply mix	60% hydro · 40% grid
IT load	560 MW
Hardware	B200 · 80 kW racks
Crew · automation	2,500 · 20%
Plan scores	68 · E 72 · Env 55 · C 81
Live in · payback	37 mo · 3.4 yrs
Clears the floors	yes

Phasing

Permitting, land assembly for 93 ha, and community agreement before land close — gated by signed control of land beyond the 3 ha measured open parcel.
Hydro PPA execution and grid interconnection confirmation in parallel with civil works — gated by contracted 60% hydro supply and agreed 40% grid draw.
Phase 1: 132 MW hall built and racks energized only as contracted supply lands — gated by power readiness and commissioning sign-off.
Phase 2: 132 MW hall — gated by Phase 1 performance, supply delivery, and community noise and traffic compliance.
Phase 3: 132 MW hall — gated by the same supply, commissioning, and community compliance checks.
Phase 4: 132 MW hall — gated by the same supply, commissioning, and community compliance checks.
Phase 5: 132 MW hall to full 560 MW IT load — gated by final supply delivery, commissioning, and a community score review above the 40 floor.

Community commitments

Local-first hiring for construction trades across the 2,500-person peak crew, with published targets and monthly reporting to the municipality.
Published noise and traffic limits with a named community liaison, complaint response times, and regular public reporting to keep nuisance low.
Heat reuse or water offset agreement with the municipality, documented before Phase 1 energization, plus disclosure of water use and mitigation commitments.
Ongoing local spend and tax transparency, tracking the roughly $121M a year in local spend and roughly $310M a year in tax revenue indicated in the estimate, with an annual community benefits review.
Community benefits fund and workforce training for the 518 permanent operations roles, prioritising Council Bluffs residents, to sustain sentiment and keep the community score above the 40 floor.

Energy mixes the advisor searched

Mix	Viable	Score	Payback	IRR	CO₂ kt/yr
Hydro PPA + grid 60% hydro · 40% grid	yes	68	3.4 yrs	13%	559
SMR long-term 70% small · 30% grid	yes	67	3.7 yrs	11%	417
Gas + solar 50% on-site · 50% solar	yes	65	4.1 yrs	8%	1,015
Renewables + SMR 50% small · 30% solar · 20% wind	no	66	4.2 yrs	8%	69
Solar + wind + grid backup 40% solar · 30% grid · 30% wind	no	65	4.2 yrs	7%	415
Gas bridge 70% on-site · 30% grid	no	63	3.3 yrs	14%	1,815
Grid + wind 60% grid · 40% wind	no	63	3.6 yrs	11%	764
As proposed (70% grid · 30% wind) 70% grid · 30% wind	no	62	3.5 yrs	12%	888
Grid only 100% grid	no	61	3.3 yrs	14%	1,273
Grid + solar 60% grid · 40% solar	no	59	3.9 yrs	9%	770

Energy what-if

Energy supply mix

Grid70%On-site gas0%Solar + storage0%Wind + storage30%Small modular reactor0%Geothermalno mapped resource0%Hydro PPA0%

Sliders are weights; shares are normalized to 100%.

IT load (MW)GPU classRack densityConstruction crewAutomation share 20%

Live estimate

vs. baseline

Composite

Economic

Environment

Community

Metric	This mix	Baseline
Build cost	$23.8B	$23.8B
Months to live	37	37
Blended power	$0.047/kWh	$0.047/kWh
Utilization	65%	65%
EBITDA / yr	$6.7B	$6.7B
Payback	3.5 yrs	3.5 yrs
IRR	11.9%	11.9%
CO₂ / yr	888,178 t	888,178 t
Carbon intensity	186 g/kWh	186 g/kWh
Water / yr	8,987,374 m³	8,987,374 m³
Grid draw vs headroom	77%	77%
Land	168 ha	168 ha
Permanent jobs	518	518
Nuisance index	35	35

Measured open land is 3 ha; the facility and its supply need 168 ha, so land must be assembled beyond the site (sam-3.1).
Grid draw is 77% of regional headroom; rate impacts for other customers are likely.

Region profile country priors

Industrial power	$0.060/kWh
Grid carbon	260 g/kWh
Interconnect lead	18 months
Grid headroom	600 MW
Grid reliability	96%
Construction trades	5,000 @ $38/h
Land index	0.80×
Sentiment	60 / 100
Climate · water	temperate · low stress
Solar · wind	0.60 · 0.95
Geothermal · flare gas	no · yes
People within 5 km	unknown

sam-3.1 segmentation of Esri World Imagery

Baseline build cost

Site measured by sam-3.1 over a 1.4 km view: 3 ha open land, 5 ha built, 0 ha water, 0 ha solar · Built as 5 phases of 132 MW, staggered 4 months · PUE 1.18 from 80 kW · direct liquid in a temperate climate · GPU-hour rate $3.20 decaying 7%/yr per generation; utilization 65% from supply firmness and fill · Blended power $0.047/kWh, 186 gCO2/kWh · Ten-year cash flow at 10% discount with a GPU refresh in year 5

Scenarios

Name	Mix	Score	Payback	Verdict
Baseline as reportedbaseline	70% grid · 30% wind	62	3.5 yrs	Conditional

Loading map…