UK datacenter developers turn to gas rather than wait for grid power for builds Datacenter developers in the UK are turning to gas for power generation amid lengthy wait times for a connection to the electricity grid. The British government unveiled plans at the start of the year to ramp up the country's AI development, allowing for the building of lots of additional infrastructure – datacenters in …
I don't know enough about DC power systems to know if this is realistic.
Say you have a lot of big bitbarns connected to the grid. For whatever reason, the grid frequency drops to 49.5Hz. A GW of DCs switch to internal power. The grid frequency rises in response. They DCs reconnect to the grid causing the frequency to fall again. Rinse and repeat while the folks trying to balance the grid are losing their fucking minds. Yes, a GW is too much to be counteracted by dynamic frequency response.
The grid frequency rises in response. They DCs reconnect to the grid causing the frequency to fall again. Rinse and repeat while the folks trying to balance the grid are losing their fucking minds. Yes, a GW is too much to be counteracted by dynamic frequency response.
But to tie in to the grid, generators need to be able to handle synchronisation. Which is what battery farmers make a lot of money doing, ie trying to keep a nice, steady 50Hz because wind and solar subsidy farmers can't do that. Plus CCGTs can load follow and ramp up/down power based on demand.
But also this-
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/08/22/natural-gas-price-trends/
As we can see, real prices this year are no higher than they were in 2018.. But ignoring COVID and Ukraine, current gas prices are not excessive by historical standards, and therefore cannot explain why electricity prices are so high now
The meme goes that gas sets the price of electricity, which is why it's so high. Except gas prices have been falling and it's 'renewables' and the attached subsidies that set the price. And there is growing realisation of this truth, and pressure to reduce or remove these subsidies to bring down the price of electricity and thus reduce inflation. So I suspect DC builders are aware of this, and know that by building CCGTs they can provide cheap electricity. Then export any surplus when winds are low, or it's dark, and claim the subsidies for synchronisation & stabilisation.. Especially when CCGTs will make it easier to balance the grid.
And then if sin taxes are removed from CCGTs, costs will be lower and if gas prices fall due to reduced demand as a result of decarbonisation, it'll be trebles all round. Except maybe from the operators of battery/subsidy farms because CCGTs would undercut their services.
I suspect there'd also be arbitrage opportunities for the DC users, ie being able to shift their workloads to places where electricity is cheap and export more electricity where it's high.
Well, these are "enquiries" about a gas connection. I doubt there's multiple instances of 500MW spare gas transport capacity in the UK locations most DC developers favour.
Could perhaps build adjacent to a gas import terminal, but that assumes continuous gas availability which may be hard to achieve, and in the South East that's only the lower Thames estuary (Grain). There's perhaps some options for where the North Sea pipes come ashore at Bacton in rural Norfolk. Other than that they're looking at former industrial sites that used 500MW of gas, I'm guessing that's not a long list.
As a rural-Norfolk dweller, could I mention how pissed off we already are with energy projects being dumped on us? There's only so much compulsory purchase and destruction of businesses, communities and lives that you can get away with before the pushback turns from vocal to direct.
No different to Wales and Scotland having many skylines "blessed" with wind turbines, rural England having agricultural land turned over to solar farms etc. Parliament has achieved fuck all for a good many decades, but by god, they'll joyously sacrifice you on the altar of climate change. And add the costs to everybody's 'leccy bill.
Or whose livestock REALLY appreciate the sunshades provided by the solar panels and chill under them on sunny or torrentially rainy days, but otherwise don't pay a jot of attention to them.
Others are throwing up glamping pods at minimal outlay for very very profitable short term rent.
Yet farmers are ALL according to the media apparently virtually destitute and far beyond skint and can't afford to pay 1/2 the normal rate of inheritance tax
What you've described is something akin to a subharmonic oscillation which can occur with power grids. A 0.3Hz subharmonic oscillation was blamed as one possible trigger of the recent Iberian power outage. Essentially a load of power stations, including renewables, all tripped simultaneously as something didn't appear 'right' to them, and it caused the grid to collapse in full.
There are precautions put into grid tied loads around ramp rates and switching frequency which should minimise them, though these systems are extremely complex and interactions can still occur.
that they are out of scope, no?
If they have a GW connection then they don't need to be a gas turbine power station.
100A for synchronisation perhaps,...
And if they do, they have to have a plan for did/reconnection, and are part of that group of quite clever techs keeping the Grid up.
If they do, then a battery, solar roof, turbines near the corners etc are a better plan.
"National Gas said it could not disclose specific details relating to any of the requests for reasons of commercial confidentiality, but it told the FT that the five sites combined would require roughly 2.5 gigawatts of capacity, enough electricity to power a couple of million homes.
Private business can do it, government cannot. Civilisation requires energy, this isnt negotiable. The UK needs a government willing to drop the green religion nonsense and get power generation on the grid
"Yeah, allowing private enterprise to dictate the agenda has worked out so well for the UK over the last 40 years."
Well except that private enterprise hasn't dictated any of the agenda, and I should know having worked as a strategy manager for two of the largest energy suppliers for over a decade. Almost all of the capital deployed is private, all of the costs to pay for that are simply added to energy bills, but all of the decisions are made by or in direct response to government policy. EVERYTHING in the energy sector is under the rigid control of government. In addition to direct legal obligations, prohibitions, subsidies and taxes, there's also government's defacto control over all the system codes that dictate what is permitted and how it will work.
Why's there no coal fired plant in the UK? Because government policy changed the rules so that it became economic.
Why was Hinkley Point C approved when the commercials make no sense? Government policy (after a decade of dithering).
Why are government already talking about plans to build Sizewell C, a project that former EdF execs describe as being the last EPR that will ever be built, simply because the EPR design is overly complex, overly costly, and UK regulators have doubled down to make the complexity and cost even greater than the reference EPR design? Government policy.
Why are we building huge amounts of guaranteed-return but low grade output solar farms? Government policy.
Why are we betting the farm on wind power without any affordable storage or standby generation? Government policy.
Why are people building lots of international connectors to countries that in future years probably won't have much in the way of exportable surpluses? Government policy.
Why are bill payers (and to an extent taxpayers) on the hook for the circa £3-4bn cost of badly managed energy suppliers going bust? Government policy.
Why are tens of billions being promised to unrealistic hydrogen energy ideas? Government policy.
Why are renewable power plant being paid for energy that the grid can't accept? Government policy.
Why has around £20bn been wasted on useless bloody smartmeters? Government policy?
Are you seeing the trend here yet?
"Sure - until a lobbyist picks up the dinner tab. Amazing how flexible rigid control gets over steak and wine."
Some areas of government policy are very susceptible to lobbying - anything "sexy" from the perspective of a special adviser looking to score a few points for the minister by association with large or famous companies. Hence the push on AI, the grovelling to US corporate tax dodgers, the puffery on domestic science and research (that government don't actually support or understand). But on things like energy, transport, retail, education, health etc, I can assure you that government resolutely ignores most forms of lobbying or even constructive feedback. In energy they prefer the sound of whale song and the dream of net zero to listening to people who know what they're talking about. I offer as an example smart meters. Energy suppliers were clear in their responses to government consultation that they did not have the skills or money to implement the government's eco-wet-dream of smart metering, and that we were unconvinced by the savings government used to justify the programme. Government stuck its fingers in its ears, singing la-la-la-la-can't-hear-you, and made it a legal obligation on them. A decade and a half later we've got an utterly failed programme of smart metering with programme costs of £20bn for next to zero benefit. Who'd have guessed?
Your own example proves the point. You call smart meters a £20bn failure. But failure usually comes with consequences - sackings, clawbacks, investigations. None of that happened. Nobody lost their job, nobody lost a bonus. The money just flowed neatly from the public purse into private pockets. That’s not failure, that’s the system working exactly as intended.
And the fact that consultation responses were ignored doesn’t mean lobbying doesn’t work. It just means the government was listening to different lobbyists. Public consultations are a box-ticking exercise - the policy is usually already written. That’s how the game is played
@wolfetone
"Yeah, allowing private enterprise to dictate the agenda has worked out so well for the UK over the last 40 years."
Dictate what agenda? They are setting up power generation that they need. The UK gov for the last couple of decades hasnt been doing so and instead intentionally throwing the money at not providing power generation.
>” They are setting up power generation that they need.”
Very tempting to say: finally…
It is about time businesses started to include the full capital costs of their largescale ventures in their investments, rather than simply expecting others and specifically governments/tax payers to subsidise them. In this instance the DC operator will have to directly handle and account for the emissions…
>” The UK gov for the last couple of decades hasnt been doing so”
It does seem one of the skills of Westminster politicians, since at least the 1980s, has been the ability to keep kicking the ball down the road… why upset voters and invest/spend when you can make excuses and leave it for a future government…
The problem here is exactly that private companies are not building the grid out quick enough, almost the entirety of the UK electricity and gas grid is privatised. The only bit that isn't right now is UK ESO (grid stabilisation services) and that was only brought back into government control a year ago.
@Tom66
"The problem here is exactly that private companies are not building the grid out quick enough"
How can they, the grid isnt under private control. Power generation is most certainly not under private control, we know this as the government shuts down power generation and has unreliable sources built instead. Not the grid problem isnt a grid problem, it is a government pushing unreliables problem which then needs excessive grid upgrades to make it work a little bit more of the time.
"almost the entirety of the UK electricity and gas grid is privatised."
It is tempting to say this but then imagine trying to do anything. Imagine trying to source gas, the gov bans Russia and fracking. Imagine trying to build a fossil power station, the government wants net zero so no. Imagine wanting to build a nuke, the gov holds the project up for a long time and picks the winners. Imagine wanting to make a bunch of turbines where they are useless, the gov throws money at it and customers get the green tax on their bills and a shortage of power leading to higher prices.
This is to keep the lights on and civilisation going in the UK. The UK gov complains about a lack of gas storage while commanding that fossil fuels are to be banned before such storage would make any money for anyone providing it. This is not a private problem, these data centres aint waiting for grid permission and government stupidity. The private businesses are building their own generation
@Roland6
"BTW I didn’t post as AC."
I dont believe it would be you. You tend to write content in your comments and put your name to them (and regardless of if we share the same opinion I do appreciate that).
"Hint: It’s National Grid Plc"
In the same way as the water companies are private yet are told how much to charge, how much to invest and into what. An entity run by the government even if its 'arms length' does not make it private.
@Roland6
"I'm not a Conservative MP, but I'm sure, of those I have known, many would want to disavow you of that line of reasoning."
They may want to but if its private they need to be able to do the job themselves without it being through gov dictat. The communists stole the businesses, the fascists put themselves in charge of what the private entity was to do. I dont consider either method good.
"They may want to but if its private they need to be able to do the job themselves without it being through gov dictat. The communists stole the businesses, the fascists put themselves in charge of what the private entity was to do. I dont consider either method good."
Well said! So communists stole the British National Grid under the orders of that hated Bolshevik, Stanley Baldwin. Then later, the fascist Thatcher put her cohort of goon in charge. So glad you are here to explain these historic event in such simple ways! You are a treasure!
"Private business can do it, government cannot."
Keep fighting for the rights of private concerns to make oodles of profits for the wealthy off the back of the plebs public services!
Keep them distracted with talk of "green religion" nonsense! (While they happily accept choking to death on their own effluent.)
You are a true ally, Madam. A true super heroine. "Miss Information"?
We at the top are grateful for your services.
You can have all the energy you want.
The only pertinent questions are:
- What are you willing to pay for it?
- Who is detrimentally affected by providing it?
Which tell you why government aren't doing it.
Honestly, I think we should just charge a huge premium on any large and unusual power usage, regardless of the unit rate being charged. Literally a "high-user tax" on it.
Then watch as all the datacentres scramble to buy more efficient systems and/or supply their own power rather than just keeping buildings full of floors full of racks full of servers full of cards running at maximum 24/7/365.
@Lee D
"You can have all the energy you want."
Agreed
"- What are you willing to pay for it?"
At the moment we pay a lot to not have it. The intention is to spend vast amounts to get far less.
"- Who is detrimentally affected by providing it?"
Our current situation is the inverse. Who will be detrimentally affected by the lack of it.
"Honestly, I think we should just charge a huge premium on any large and unusual power usage, regardless of the unit rate being charged. Literally a "high-user tax" on it."
To a point maybe but why not start by actually generating power? The UK governments have been focused on intentionally not providing power which is already ramping up the costs and a green tax on our bills for this 'pleasure'.
"Then watch as all the datacentres scramble to buy more efficient systems and/or supply their own power rather than just keeping buildings full of floors full of racks full of servers full of cards running at maximum 24/7/365."
I kinda like that they are building their own power generation. At some point when our grid fails to have enough, as has almost happened a few times, people may start to realise that the failure is on the government for taking the competency of generating and delivering power but failing to provide it. Especially as the costs keep rising due to the governments decisions.
At some point when our grid fails to have enough, as has almost happened a few times
... due to dodgy gas generators. As I think you yourself pointed out recently. ("Unreliables" is the term you coined?)
The grid is not a battery. You cannot just pump energy into it that is not going to be used. That's just not how it works.
The UK is talking about “AI Growth Zones” while the grid can’t even handle plugging in a few new bit barns. Developers are being pushed back onto gas turbines like it’s 1974, all while the government insists every household should have an electric car. We can’t power a single datacentre, but apparently we’ll be fine charging 30 million EVs overnight.
Meanwhile, ministers boast about “world-class infrastructure” while allowing facilities with no proper grid redundancy to call themselves datacentres. Let’s be clear: if a site doesn’t have at least two independent grid feeds, two separate power sources, and its own backup generation, it’s not a datacentre. It’s a shed full of computers with a marketing budget.
Not enough staff, not enough kit, not enough money. Which may not be a bad thing, as the AI fad will deflate before they have wasted too much cash building big empty sheds. I guess they could recycle them as places to hold migrants, away from angry gangs of Reform activists.
All of this will become moot in a few years when Labour get kicked out and Kyle toddles off to a top job with his tech bros.
Given the way the economy is going, companies are more likely to save money by using their old systems until GAFA EOL them, and then revert to paper. I am actually considering switching back to sending some offers out on paper. It is a malware-proof solution and will only take a couple of days extra. As I have to wait 30 days for payment anyway, that is not an issue.
The new 'dash for gas' is a real nostalgia fest. I remember the original. That was to make the most of North Sea reserves. Now they are closing the rigs down, so we will presumably be importing more from the US to keep Donald happy. Good job that whole climate change thing turned out not to be such a problem, eh?
not enough money
There is plenty of money - see record profits. It's more about the classist and feudal mentality people at the top have and general contempt for working people. Why the pleb should earn decent wages if they can go to food banks etc. Oh, the pleb doesn't want to work for pittance? Lemme call Home Clownoffice to get me more poverty accustomed immigrants to exploit.
"There is plenty of money - see record profits."
I think we're drifting away from the topic here of DC owners hoping to build their own power plants, but I'll take the risk and assert that in the UK energy sector, the real money is not made by energy suppliers or even by asset owners, but though secured lending for energy projects. A bottomless wishlist of government projects, most project development and performance risk is loaded onto the constructors and manufacturers, there's zero bad debt risk because the guaranteed returns are simply added to energy bills, there's usually no inflation risk because (idiotically) the guaranteed returns are linked to CPI, if the grid can't take the power the asset owner still gets paid. Why would banks want to lend to SMEs, or to businesses who employ people and take real commercial risk when they can fill their boots with free money in the net zero gold rush? And because it's so de-risked, it's perfect for financial engineering into nominally different risk tiers, for securitisation, for syndication etc.
Then successive governments gormlessly look at their shoes and wonder why there's no growth in the UK economy.
Precisely what will a huge expansion of computer processing power enable us to do that we cannot already?
Shall it hasten colonisation of Mars? Will we finally discover that our universe is a simulation? Is abject poverty to be eradicated? Perhaps, it will be channelled into weapons production?
At the backs of Mr Blair's and Mr Starmer's minds maybe this is a profitable wheeze for staving off invasion by hordes of Slavic and Chinese people; good luck with that, whilst Britain's aircraft carrier is being towed around Taiwan, people easily cross the Channel in small boats.
Whilst acknowledging the huge potential of UK shale gas to provide a bridge to a zero carbon future, I’ve also always been clear that shale gas exploration must be carried out safely. In the UK, we have been led by the best available scientific evidence, and closely regulated by the Oil and Gas Authority, one of the best regulators in the world.
After reviewing the OGA’s report into recent seismic activity at Preston New Road, it is clear that we cannot rule out future unacceptable impacts on the local community.
For this reason, I have concluded that we should put a moratorium on fracking in England with immediate effect.
Business and Energy Secretary Andrea Leadsom.
Not only does the UK not have the power infrastructure to meet its planned EV targets. We now learn it does not have the infrastructure to meet its data centre targets either.
Additionally, the workaround will almost certainly mean that it can't meet its carbon targets either.
Aren't Data Centres ideally suited to SMRs, or do these not actually exist in the real world yet?
I really despair for the future.
