Concerns about large data centres in Scotland near homes

[Sheldonsheher]

Why is there not more outcry about data centres in Scotland. As far as I can see it’s a resource grab by tech giant companies to cream off Scotland’s natural resources. They won’t provide much benefit and will decimate local communities. For example hermiston gait right next to a student campus and homes. They will drain Scotland’s resources. Make a mockery of net zero and hose pipe bans. Yes to small data centres away from homes no to mega data centres next to people’s homes.

This is interesting. I have a general interest in debunking stuff, I have no strong opinions on data centers. It is worth mentioning that I have limited internet, so many sites won't load for me.

From that petition, quote " The data centres being proposed in Scotland and the UK are absolutely huge, with energy demands of 200-1000 MW. APRS have calculated from looking through Scotland’s planning portals that there is over 6000MW of data centre energy demand currently in the planning system. And there are additional hyperscale data centre proposals being developed which would add up to around 11,000MW "

"This would more than double our peak power demand in Scotland."

Note how the petition says peak demand here. It does not say peak generation, which is what matters. Scotland has the capacity to produce more than is used. Scotland has excess capacity.

And checking for what Scotlands Capacity is, I get 17.7GW in 2025. That is not double. And that 17.7 GW is renewable generation. So that claim in the petition is false.

Worth remembering that these data centers do no need to run non stop. At peak electricity times ( end of football or corrie), they can be wound down. The chips only consume when working. So just push the pause button on some.

Also, the net is global. So some global centers will we working when others are not. No wind in Scotland, switch the heavy work to Greece.

I assume this is why Scotland is attractive to these companies. Because Scotland has excess electricity capacity to sell.

That leads back to the start of the petition "... require backup generators that usually run on diesel and produce serious air pollution, and can cause electricity prices to rise due to demands on the grid. "

I have no idea about the generators. See above re the global nature of the industry. But rising costs ? Nah, if anything it will reduce costs. Because if all the electricity generating capacity is sold, it reduces payback for capital investment. It is low demand v high investment costs that put the price up.

@RedTagAlan can you point to any lasting benefits Scotland has received from oil revenue? Unlike Norway's sovereign wealth fund, we do not have a single piece of infrastructure, or a single source of investment.

Now all we have left is job losses, and a total lack of interest in keeping open Longannet as opposed to Port Talbot as a recent example of what we can expect in terms of support. When the AI bubble crashes we will be left with half completed or abandoned data centres to deal with at our expense. If they do turn out to cause polluted groundwater, that will be our problem long after the centre is obsolete.

Unquantifiable?

Data centres are 80yr old technology. In a big way for about 20 years.

If you can’t quantify the risks after that, it’s because you are motivated not to.

”I can’t believe you took such a risk by having the vaccine”

“Have you looked at the data?”

”Of course not! It’s unquantifiable! Now just sign my petition”.

Quote " can you point to any lasting benefits Scotland has received from oil revenue? Unlike Norway's sovereign wealth fund, we do not have a single piece of infrastructure, or a single source of investment."

Anything that tax pays. Roads, schools, hospitals, benefits. The money that was spent has to come from somewhere.

And yeah, we had a Tory government. So they would have used it to help keep tax down. And that is a tory thing, not an income from oil thing.

Norway done it different.

@Coffeeandallthebooks

Can't believe the number of people on this thread who think its a good idea to take an unquantifiable risk near your home so that a tech company can make money and avoid tax.

I’ve not seen any post arguing that. Are you reading the right thread?

I’ve seen: support the tax base in a country with a deep deficit and aging population, reduce strategic dependence on foreign states, welcome the reduced health impacts vs almost any of Scotland’s traditional industries, and increase energy efficiency and reduce cost by using excess generated power.

Are you here to debate the issue seriously?

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution. I don’t think data centres count as a conspiracy theory; if they’re the size of 140 football pitches built on former Green land make audible noise with multiple diesel generators and drain the water. Not sure tin foil hats would help and not advised to use foil as ear plugs.

What is the unquantifiable risk?

Seriously, what is the risk ?

Computer servers ? You are using a computer to post on here. And this site is in a datacenter somewhere.

Pollution from cooling ? You mean the same cooling systems that have been used since James Watt put a condenser on a steam engine. In fact, you can go beck to Newcomen with that

Electricity capacity. Scotland has loads of electricity. And it's green. That is why they want to set up in Scotland it seems.

If fact, it looks to me as if this reduces risk to the Scottish Taxpayer and electricity consumer. Because all that investment in green leccy can be paid back if someone is buying it. So it's actually passing the risk from the consumer to the big data companies.

And if it fails because the bubble bursts, then there will be air conditioned warehouses sitting empty just waiting to be converted into indoor event places. Or warehouses/ factories even.

You don’t understand the shear scale tbh.
they run back up diesel generators.
noise pollution do you want to live next to whirring hum 24/7
water pollution
electricity use for the centres proposed more than Scotland’s current use x 1.5
loss of farm land
spoiling the ecosystems
it’s pretty obvious look at what they have built in America . Americans 70% are opposed some areas have a moratorium now.
its always in poorer areas , rural land or suburbs never in the nice parts of town
and to what end who benefits mainly tech bros.

They are building one near us

Couldn't get anyone interested in objecting at planning stage and suddenly after it's being built people are objecting it's ridiculous

It hasn't opened yet, so I don't know how bad the impact will be

Do you want to get a proper campaign going then do it now I thought people didn't care but now suddenly they're up in arms. They just weren't fucking paying attention before.

It's the noise that really worries me

I'm in England and I'm not near a river so I'm very puzzled by that, but yeah

They build them in threes so if you have been earmarked for a location, then there will be others reasonably near

You’re welcome, happy to help.

Unfortunately I don’t have time to debate this at length this morning, I’m heading out to look for a UFO that I read on the Internet landed near my house last night.

You have been asked multiple times to present evidence to support your claims and have failed to do so - others on the thread have - you haven’t. Saying things like “it’s pretty obvious” is evidence of nothing. I’m sure some of your objections to data centres have some merit, but your approach has robbed you of any credibility I’m afraid.

I’ll let you know if I find ET. Have a lovely day flower.

Talking of tinfoil hats, I thought of them reading this thread. But bacofoil, not tin.

It's the same thing really. When the UK needed aluminium, they built the smelters in Scotland and Wales. Because it needs massive ammounts of electricity. So they built the Blackwater dam to generate hydo for Kinlochleven and so on.

Scotland was ideally positioned because of it's features. And now it's the same again. Scotland is ideally situated for renewables, and a new industry want's to use it.

Wind and water. Scotland has both in abundance.

Norway did it 'different'- no, they did it properly. As I thought you cannot point to a single tangible benefit.
So 420 billion wasted in excess spending instead of invested. Any money from data centres will go the same way, there are no plans to ringfence it for local projects, environmental benefits, or financial investment.

In case you haven't noticed, very few people on this thread want a data centre near them. When they won't make any money or bring any jobs or benefits, why should they be forced to accept this?

I think the beauty of building these things close to urban areas is that the waste heat could usefully be recycled through district heating schemes to provide cheap, sustainable, low carbon heating in cold, deprived areas like Scotland ;)

There are already huge pollution problems in past industrial areas.

Ravenscraig for example-public health in that area is demonstrably poorer than other comparable areas. Rolls Royce in my own town has left land behind unfit for habitation due to pollution- they were obliged to clear it up and have not done so.

Levels of cadmium in Rutherglen are still at dangerous levels due to shipbuilding from the 18th century. It is still affecting the health of people today.

So no its not good enough to say we haven't yet found any harm, even if small scale centres (which use refrigerant cooling, not water cooling so completely different facilities) have operated for 80 years there may still be unknown health implications from a facility which does the same job in a totally different way.

As to future compatibility- Google's quantum Willow chip isnt compatible with current GPU architecture. They would need such different racks, chipsets, cooling that it has been estimated it would be easier to pull down current data centres and rebuild than to try and retrofit them.

It's a mistake for a country to invest in tech when you can already see it's obsolescence.

I did point to benefits. Schools, roads, hospitals, benefits paid. All paid from taxes. If you want me to point out what particular schools or hospitals it built, then sorry I can't do that. It's not as if a tax funded hospital is going to have public records of what specific tax was used. Not easily found anyway. And not for a casual forum.

And good luck setting up a Norway style sovereign wealth fund. in the UK. That would go down well at election time. Candidate A saying " Yes, I hear you about tax levels, but what I plan to do is not to spend X% of the tax, instead I am going to save it in a special bank account. and when we have saved enough we can use the interest on that to build a new hospital. In the meantime, make do with the hospital you have, and keep paying our high tax".

When you say, quote " 420 billion wasted in excess spending instead of invested", can you name what was wasted in excess spending ?

I can see it now. Doctor says you need a treatment. But you need to wait 5 years for the fund to mature and pay out before they can pay for it.

Quote " In case you haven't noticed, very few people on this thread want a data centre near them. "

Argument from majority fallacy.

What I have not seen is any data or information presented against it.

https://www.gov.scot/policies/oil-and-gas/

Published by the Scottish Government. In 2022 the oil and gas industry supported 53,000 jobs and contributed £28bn to Scotland’s economy.

The comparison with Norway is very flawed. Norway only contributes to the sovereign wealth fund when it has budget surpluses. Scotland hasn’t had a budget surplus in decades.

The Scottish Government acknowledged during the referendum campaign that Scotland would never have had a wealth fund like Norway.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/pages/15/

Big difference between 19th and early 20th century heavy industry and running a stack of computers in a warehouse.

If running computers had hidden long term dangers, then best put away the one you are using to post here with. Seriously, can you identify what the potential dangers are ?

I posted above about the dangers of evaporative cooling towers. Is there anything new ? Or is it the same as for any existing system already being used ?

Quote " It's a mistake for a country to invest in tech when you can already see it's obsolescence.". It's not the country investing in it. And if they need to change things, as they already do, then that means more money being spent.

Moore's law applies anyway.

And when you say no point investing when something will become obsolete, does that not apply to near everything ? When industry started to build ships on the Clyde, maybe somebody should have told them : " No point, they will go obsolete".

No, our oil money is gone. We receive around 6.5 billion in direct taxation and pay 4.5 billion in subsidy.
The 28 billion figures are attributed, not direct- if you want to use attributed figures, an estimated 18.5 bn is spent on oil related industries as a subsidy.

We can't afford to pay the same subsidies to data centres, as they create no jobs and hoover resources like concrete, water and energy.

I dont understand why you think it would help to quote figures that are publicly available. If it helps, here is a link to Norway's current fund worth 2.2 trillion www.nbim.no/en/investments/the-funds-value/

Here is a link to their debt : https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/norway/government-debt--of-nominal-gdp

Here is a link to our debt:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10842/

There are NO plans to save, invest, or spend any money on infrastructure, so any gains from AI will not benefit us. As Alan stated oil money was used instead for tax breaks- but where is the prosperity that should have been generated from that? I can't see it reflected in our 3 trillion of debt.

I have no ties to these villages and I'm certainly not bitter, I'm pointing out how hypocritical it is for these people to be protesting and so concerned about the environment, when they bought houses metres from the busiest motorway in Scotland, the traffic fumes will do more harm to their children than the Data Centre.
Its laughable that they are campaigning the Scottish Government to derail the plans for the extention of the existing one, a quick Google search will tell you that the Scottish Government are their biggest customers!

The Scottish Government report clearly states the benefit to Scotland’s economy. If you dispute that take it up with them.

Quote " We can't afford to pay the same subsidies to data centres, as they create no jobs and hoover resources like concrete, water and energy."

What subsidies ?

And if they hoover up resources such as concrete water and enegy, are these things all free ? If they use concrete, does it just appear or are people emplyed to make it.

Energy. This from April last year.

"Scotland’s current peak electricity demand is just over 4GW, with peak demand in 2030 expected to be 5GW and between 8.6GW and 11GW in 2050."

That is peak electricity used.

"Scotland’s total current generating capacity is 17.6GW – 10.9GW from onshore wind, 4.3GW from offshore wind and 2.9GW is from other onshore generating sources, so four and half times current peak demand."

That is installed generating capacity. As you can see, lots of spare capacity. And if there is no wind, the data centers get turned down. The work done by a center in another location. It is the people building these facilities that are taking the risk: the risk that there will be enough wind through the year. And it appears there is.

Water cooling systems have been discussed.

What is not being posted is data and info from the "against" side.

Data from here. Not the best sorry, but limited web where I am. And the data does match what else I have seen.

Scotland’s renewable energy system – the growing divide between supply and demand | Wind farm watch (borderswindfarmwatch.com)

And if oil money was used to keep tax down, blame the tories and who voted for them. I have never voted for them. Anyway, another poster has explained how the Norway model works.

It hasn't benefited Scotland to have tax revenue as tax as a whole is paid to the UK and Scotland are given a sovereign wealth grant based on the Barnett Formula.
So yes, we earn that but can only spend what we are given, so no benefit from more money.
But infrastructure spending comes from block grant so any costs associated with data centres, including cleanup if they fail, will be met by us. All the risk, none of the benefit.

Also, think of the noise they will make. Low level hummings which will destroy peoples mental health and affecting animals and birds etc.
SNP must be getting a bung of cash

It might be worth making a note about how electricity generation works. In case anyone is not aware. Because it might change some peoples view.

With wind turbines, if it's windy they spin. And Scotland has about 17 GW worth installed.

The peak demand for electricity in Scotland is between 4 and 5 GW. And electricity is a pull system. A kettle/ motor/ PC pulls the electricity. So Scotland has about 12.5 GW spare capacity at peak demand. Normal demand is less of course. It costs the same to produce 17GW as it does to produce 5GW, because the turbines are spinning anyway.

So does it not make sense to sell that 12.5 GW to someone who wants to buy it ?

And that is why these companies want to set up in Scotland. Because we have excess capacity of green energy. We can make more then we sell.

If they have diesel generators, that will be for backup. If these datacenters relied on diesel power, they would be too expensive to run.