Grid Constraints in Scotland and location of Data Centres

In the ongoing discussion about so-called hyper-scale data centres in Scotland, one question seems to be whether adding hyper-scale data centres in Central Scotland will reduce wind generation curtailment in the Scotland as a whole

Considering …

• Grid network boundary B4 constraint (typically 4GW)
• Grid network boundary B6 constraint (typically 6.7GW) 
• 10.06TWh of wind generation was curtailed in Scotland in 2025 link of which 8.8TWh was in the north of Scotland
• Proposed data centres (combined capacity 7.2GW) are located between B4 and B6
• NESO data suggests that utilisation at B4 is typically around 45%.

I’d be interested to hear perspectives re

- Why is it better to locate these data centres south of B4; is it simply that there’s other generation available to feed these from the south (notwithstanding B6 constraint) during dunkelflaute, or maybe the availability of ex-power station system connections?
- What is the actual amount of curtailed generation north of B4 that could be utilised by central belt data centres and could this run them 24*7 without local backup generation?

I reckon that although generation was curtailed in the north, it doesn’t follow that that this was solely from a B4 constraint, but possibly a cascade of constrains between supply and demand further south.  

There’s also the consideration of term; within a decade there will be 12GW of subsea links from the north that bypass B4, leading to the question of what happens in the future (assuming that these links don't get cancelled on grounds of costs).

I can appreciate that in the short term, there's an opportunity for reducing constraint costs by adding demand in Scotland.  

I'm 100% unconvinced that data centres is the best way to do this - reducing consumers' bills to increase demand would be simple, quick and socially useful also avoiding the current self-rationing imposed by high prices (which will inevitably get worse)

Parents Reply Children
  • That's not my understanding of the market design.

    The payment to an in-merit generator (BMU) which is constrained off in the Balancing Mechanism by the System Operator comes from consumers' bills as does the payment to BMUs constrained on elsewhere to balance demand.  And in case the market price is 'too low' BMUs with government awarded CFDs get paid a markup to the CFD price.  That too is allocated back to consumers.  

    So constraint costs are socialised to our bills and generators are paid regardless.  

    This, I think, may incentivise government looking for a cheap and quick way to claim that they're reducing bills to see data centres as a 'solution' although quite how this is the case if they receive subsidised energy isn't yet something I've fully grasped/

    The whole thing looks like a massive policy failure to me.  Wind generators allowed to build without there being enough local demand for the energy and / or transmission capacity to ship it elsewhere.  Grid 'blamed' for not having capacity when the fundamental problem is policies and pricing mechanisms that do not encourage generation to locate appropriately to demand.

    It's interesting to note that the subsea cable links being built / proposed come ashore well south of the B6 boundary.  Looking at realtime information online, it appears that the prevalent constraint boundary runs from about Kings Lynn to Pembrokeshire.

    Even if / when gas generators aren't mostly setting market price, constraint costs, CFDs etc will ensure that the energy costs we need to pay will remain stubbornly high.  And future guaranteed prices for new nuclear await in the longer term.

    It's already evident that those with money and space are buying their own battery-solar.  Those who can't will face higher costs and more people will face energy poverty while self-rationing demand.  Data Centres will only increase completion for energy.