THE DATA CENTRE INTERVIEW
The financial and environmental case for retrofitting over replacement The instinct to demolish and rebuild when facing ageing infrastructure is understandable, but Giampiero argues that it is rarely the most rational course.“ The rip-and-replace mentality is often driven by the fear that current designs will be unsuitable in three to five years,” he says.“ However, there is a compelling financial and environmental case for hybrid modernisation and retrofitting.”
On the financial side, full replacement carries significant drawbacks: high upfront capital, extended construction periods and the operational disruption of taking a facility offline. A phased approach – introducing high-efficiency components selectively, targeting the areas of heaviest AI load – allows operators to improve performance incrementally, with faster returns and without large-scale service interruption. Modern power conversion equipment also takes up less physical space than the systems it replaces, meaning operators can increase effective capacity without expanding the building’ s footprint.
The environmental calculation is equally persuasive. Demolition generates waste and carbon; new construction consumes raw materials including copper and steel. Upgrading in place avoids those impacts while still delivering meaningful efficiency improvements.“ The greenest building is usually the one that is already standing,” Giampiero notes.“ By making an old building up to 9 % more efficient, companies can hit their environmental goals without the waste of a brand-new construction project.”
26 June 2026