Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Replies 11 replies
  • Subscribers 21 subscribers
  • Views 263 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Grid Constraints in Scotland and location of Data Centres

John R.

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

  • To save other folk duplicating what I have just done, for anyone else who did not know, it seems the 'B's refer to curved lines on the map, that represent lines across which energy flow (at HV?) is metered, and possibly, the jurisdiction of different teams. I've yet however to find a map with them all on at once sensibly overlaid with the cable routes, but there are individual maps, one per boundary line here.  I presume it relates either to terrain, or perhaps the capacity per unit area, or maybe the mileage wiring that is already there, but if anyone can clarify the resoning, that would be helpful for me at least. Apologies in advance if its obvious to everyone else.

    So in the absence of a clear understanding of the geography of the question, I won't say much about that, but I observe that data centres don't just need power, they also need a data connection, well many actually, which will tend to pull them further south, and cooling, which tend to pull them near water. And they probably have a shorter economic life-span than lines of pylons, many of those still standing  were put up by folk who are long retired and in some cases no longer with us.  This mismatch of economic time-line tends will lead to apparently unreasonable demand - a new transmission route tomorrow, isn't happening, its hard enough to get LV 100m up the road on that scale !
    I imagine the decisions make perfect sense through the lens of the person making them (normally they do) The question is if all the relevant facts are on the table for that decision to be made.
    Mike.

  • in reply to mapj1

    I wasn't assuming that my post would attract much attention from those outside the power industry, hence my not linking to a boundary map and providing more context.  Sorry about that.

    Yes, these are defined as transmission level zone boundaries, so essentially circuits at 275kV, 400kV and some 132kV in certain locations.

    The constraints represent a power transfer across group of circuits with one likely to be called-out as key e.g. B6 is limited to 6.7 GW due to thermal constraint on the Harker-Moffat 400kV circuit.  Operationally, constraints may also arise for reasons of system stability.

    Not 100% certain, but I recall that these constraints are defined post credible faults - it's been a long time since I worked on power systems.  The power flow won't be generally be metered at the boundary unless there happens to be a sub-station there, so is known from the ends of the circuit that crosses a boundary.

    And yes, asset life for transmission assets is in decades - 40-50 years - while in data centres, servers etc often don't make 7 years.  The data centre buildings and services will obviously be longer.  A data centre providing leased space for clients' servers etc probably isn't too concerned about the server asset life anyway although will defined power and cooling levels per rack.

    I'm sure that the idea of subsidising energy for data centres makes sense to someone.  But I've not seen justification for this presented clearly.

  • in reply to John R.

    Thanks for the clarification - I'd expect the info to be relevant to both power and data types, who presumably don't really talk each other's language ;-) By the way, in terms of those wanting to look at line routes, to see the problems, this website has all the pylons, and even what looks like most of the 33kV wooden poles when you zoom right in; https://openinframap.org/about#6.38/56.896/-3.966

    regds Mike

  • in reply to John R.

    Link to R4 programme on the topic of expensive electricity.

    www.bbc.co.uk/.../m0031h8j

Reply Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines