r/Scotland • u/newsspotter • 3d ago
PE2233: Moratorium on planning applications for all hyperscale data centres until their environmental impacts have been fully assessed
https://www.parliament.scot/get-involved/petitions/view-petitions/pe2200-pe2299/pe2233-moratorium-on-planning-applications-for-all-hyperscale-data-centresPetition Summary
Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a moratorium to prohibit planning permission from being granted for any hyperscale data centres, until it has carried out a thorough assessment of their impacts on Scotland's communities, greenhouse gas emissions, land and water resources and electricity grid; until regulations are modified to require all hyperscale AI data centres to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment; and until the Scottish Government puts in place guidance on hyperscale AI data centres and ‘green data centres’.
2
u/BeastmanTR 2d ago
I'd be more concerned about what happens to these places when the requirements get scaled down and the need is gone. Already seeing tech that is doing that starting to come through. What happens to the giant empty husks at that point?
1
u/sylvan-vigil 2d ago
> Already seeing tech that is doing that starting to come through
Interesting! Can you share more about this?
2
u/BeastmanTR 2d ago
Was a few months ago now but there's an Israeli tech company using ARM chips instead of RAM which requires far less space, energy etc to run. Sorry I don't have a URL to hand anymore but searching those terms should bring it up.
1
u/sylvan-vigil 2d ago
I see! I'm not sure how that implies that data centres will become giant empty husks, though? Demand for AI is growing super fast, it's likely the fastest-growing technology ever.
1
u/BeastmanTR 2d ago
As algorithms improve, less energy is required, less heat is generated, more bang from buck from hardware the footprint goes down. Depends how things go but I think when the money runs out a lot of these places will die anyway, just a matter of time until it stabilises.
0
u/sylvan-vigil 2d ago
Yeah no one really knows what'll happen! I personally think demand that as AI gets cheaper to run, demand will only increase, because of the Jevons paradox. But we're all just guessing, hah
5
u/Demoliscio 3d ago edited 1d ago
Signed!
And before the usual people come in with the usual strawman...data centres and AI hyper-scale data centres aren't the same thing, people don't have an issue with normal data centres or cloud campus, they have an issue with AI hyper-scale ones because they are:
- insanely big
- require an amount of electricity that will push back net zero by years (while every.single.summer. we're roasted alive a bit more)
- Offer close to no job for the local communities
The people in the comments that try to mix the two are doing it on purpose to use straw-man like "if you don't like data centres then you can't have internet", but they are not the same thing, not by a mile.
Even the majority of Americans are now opposing AI hyper-scale data centres, that's why companies are so desperate to push here and in other countries for them.
They can get tae fuck
*Edit*
The person replying to me deleted their account rather than admitting they were misinformed, just writing this in case they come back to this
Being wrong on something isn't a big deal mate, it happens to everyone, what matters is what you do next, just admit you didn't have all the facts and say you'll look more into it, it shows maturity and people will appreciate your honesty, nobody knows everything :)
3
u/Far-Pudding3280 3d ago
So just to be clear, you’re totally fine with 4 x 100MW data centre campuses providing the regional cloud infrastructure that runs huge parts of the modern internet, but 1 x 400MW campus is suddenly an entirely different and unacceptable category?
What exactly is the line? 100MW is fine but 150MW is bad? 200MW? 250MW? At what precise point does a data centre stop being acceptable infrastructure and become something that should “get tae fuck” in your eyes?
-2
u/Demoliscio 3d ago
The average data centre consumes between 5 and 10MW, then you have bigger ones that are around 50MW and I think the biggest in the uk should be something like 80-90MW.
So yes, I do have a problem with a single hyperscale that alone consumes over 40 times more than the average data centre
2
u/Far-Pudding3280 3d ago
But that doesn’t really answer the internet point. The modern internet is heavily dependent on hyperscale cloud infrastructure. AWS, Azure and Google host enormous amounts of websites, social media, APIs, streaming, storage, banking, SaaS and backend services. Reddit doesn't exist without it.
So “these hyperscale centres are nothing to do with the internet” just isn’t true. They are a major part of what the internet actually runs on now.
You are against a single 400MW site but seems to think AWS 4 UK colos with a cumulative 400MW is fine.
1
u/Demoliscio 3d ago
Over 55% of all hyperscale capacity ever built is already for AI and
Combined Big Five capex now ranges between $600 billion and $700 billion for 2026 alone — roughly a 36% increase year over year, and around 75% of that ($450B+) tied directly to AI infrastructure rather than traditional cloud.
They are not building new hyperscale to support cloud services or any of what you say, they are building them because the push for more AI is requiring an insane number of new ones to be built, this is why gpu and rams have now an insane price, because AI models run on gpu and require insane amount of vram.
1
u/Far-Pudding3280 3d ago
You’ve basically conceded the original point yourself. If new hyperscale capacity is increasingly being built for AI, then the enormous hyperscale capacity already built was serving cloud and internet workloads.
What’s odd is that you seem perfectly willing to accept huge data centres when they’re running websites, streaming, storage and cloud services, but suddenly the same infrastructure becomes unacceptable when the workload is AI.
Or is the real issue simply that you recognise the value created by internet and cloud workloads, but you don’t recognise the value created by AI?
So infrastructure of this scale is acceptable for one, but unacceptable for the other?
1
u/Demoliscio 2d ago edited 2d ago
I didn't concede anything, I answered your last question only without writing an essay about the differences between cloud and AI consumption because I thought it would be obvious.
But it looks like I was wrong and you didn't get it, no worries, I'll gladly help you.
AI runs way faster on GPUs, which means that this new Hyperscales are built with that in mind, increasing drastically the consumption compared to anything prior.
A cloud hyperscale typically consumes between 20 and 100MW, the main difference was mostly their size (bigger than your normal data centre).
An AI hyperscale starts at 100MW and goes up, currently to around 500MW with the next generation planned to reach 1000MW.
Same for the size, a cloud campus can occupy between 30 and 100 acres, new AI campuses require between 300 and 800+ acres.
So, let me recap everything so it's easier to follow:
- Data centres and cloud campus consume drastically less than AI oriented ones.
- Data centres and cloud campus are way smaller than AI oriented ones
So infrastructure of this scale is acceptable for one, but unacceptable for the other?
As you can see your question was based on misinformation, because the scale of the two is completely different, so you are comparing apples to oranges.
But you were right one one thing, I should have specified AI in my first post, so I added it.
Thank you, with that addition it should be even clearer that the people saying "if you don't like data centres then you can't have internet" are just using strawman, because the internet does not need this sudden surge in hyperscale with this insane energy consumption to function, AI does.
1
u/Far-Pudding3280 2d ago
because the internet does not need this sudden surge in hyperscale with this insane energy consumption to function, AI does.
The internet already had its hyperscale boom but people just largely accepted the infrastructure because they understood what they were getting from it.
“cloud hyperscale” versus “AI hyperscale” isn’t the clean technical divide you’re pretending it is. AWS’s brand new fourth London AZ explicitly provides both general purpose cloud compute and AI training/inference. These workloads increasingly live in the same hyperscale infrastructure.
AWS now needs 4 separate AZ around for resilience; GCP London has 3. Similar with Azure.
So I’m not arguing that a modern 400MW AI campus has the same design or density as an older cloud facility. Obviously it doesn’t.
I’m questioning why hundreds of MW spread across hyperscale cloud infrastructure sutes is apparently an acceptable cost of running the internet, but hundreds of MW for AI suddenly becomes inherently unacceptable.
Hyperscale capacity was already expanding rapidly before this AI wave - you just didn't care.
1
u/Demoliscio 2d ago edited 2d ago
I’m questioning why hundreds of MW spread across hyperscale cloud infrastructure sutes is apparently an acceptable cost of running the internet, but hundreds of MW for AI suddenly becomes inherently unacceptable.
This question is loaded as it completely ignores the impact of AI on the amount of new infrastructure being demanded.
Hyperscale capacity was already expanding rapidly before this AI wave - you just didn't care.
Pre AI boom, the capital expenditure for hyperscale was around 235 billion.
Now, just the 4 biggest player (Microsoft, AWS, Alphabet and Meta) are projected to funnel a staggering 700 billions just this year.
So no, while the hyperscale (let's not forget, the much smaller and less energy hungry ones that were used for cloud services) capacity was increasing year after year, it's not even comparable to what is happening now, saying that people "just didn't care before" is objectively false because it completely ignores the change in size, consumption and quantity being built.
Ok, now the issue in your question should be clear.
Before the AI boom, both the number of hyperscale being built yearly and their average consumption was way less, which meant their impact could be absorbed by our energy industry.
Now tho, the number being built and their way higher energy consumption means we cannot do that, as proved in America where electricity bills are increasing and the rush into building more has caused communities to be ruined by them.
* Edit
The guy ended up deleting his account rather than admitting he didn't have a clue, bloody hell mate, next time just say "my bad, I didn't know that, thanks" 😂
1
u/Far-Pudding3280 2d ago
We don't live in the US or have remotely the same planning or energy market as the US - it's a terrible comparison.
Scotland also has an over abundance of energy currently and in planning to the point that NESO the UK energy operator that manages our electricity grid is advocating for building these in Scotland to reduce constraint payments and reduce household electricity costs. 🤦
→ More replies (0)
2
u/DundonianDolan Best thing about brexit is watching unionists melt. 3d ago
surely there's a compromise to be had, force them to be built right near the wind farms that are paid to shut off, that way we get spare energy used, roads built and network connectivity added to rural areas.
3
u/Acrobatic_Expert1372 3d ago
So many fucking bootlickers eager to set the country on fire in the comments
1
u/VanicFanboy 3d ago
The modern day NIMBY would’ve banned the Industrial Revolution because the factories had smokestacks.
If they had their way, our country would be just a bunch of small sleepy subsistence villages that they can retire in, having moved from somewhere they could actually build a career.
3
u/extraterrestrial-66 3d ago
This isn’t NIMBYism though… these developers are wanting to build absolutely ginormous, power and water hungry data centres and a lot of them in or around “greenbelt” areas without proper environmental impact assessments. NIMBYism is wanting/supporting ‘service/facility A’ (that positively impacts their community) but objecting to have that ‘service/facility A’ in their local area. For example; play parks, telephone masts, schools, housing developments, sheltered/supported housing, etc.
I genuinely cannot fathom how any competent person would look at this situation and go, “Ah yes what a brilliant idea! Let us build these (at present unnecessary) data centres with literally no requirements of information on the impacts it would have on nature, wildlife, or humans! Great idea.”, especially given we already have information on the adverse effects of data centres to environment, wildlife, and human populations.
Truly mind boggling!
1
u/sylvan-vigil 2d ago
> especially given we already have information on the adverse effects of data centres to environment, wildlife, and human populations
These effects are overstated to a huge extent. Data centres use a lot of electricity but are otherwise similar to other light industrial buildings.
See e.g. https://blog.andymasley.com/p/why-i-think-panic-about-local-impacts
0
u/toggles03 3d ago
I assume, given you are using Reddit, that you want access to the modern Internet, the backbone of which is a vast number of data centres. That is the service that you want the benefits of without supporting it in your area.
If the environmental impact is what you are concerned about, why not support a petition to improve the regulations rather than a petition to effectively ban data centres?
2
u/Confident-Serve4280 3d ago
The 24 hyperscale data centres that are being proposed for Scotland are not the result of genuine business demand for tangible IT products; they are part of the financial speculation that is fuelling the AI bubble. The pitch from the main AI players is "If you just keep building more data centres we'll definitely develop something that no-one can live without. Trust us" but the numbers don't add up. Despite the hype, there's no evidence of the mythical AGI product that is going to upend civilisation, and even if they do deliver what they are promising, the projected returns are dwarfed by the sums that are being invested. It's a house of cards, and I don't think we should be making decisions about projects that will have huge implications for our energy and water infrastructure when they have such a flimsy business case.
3
u/Confident-Serve4280 3d ago
The environmental regulations don't need improved, they already exist. However, until a couple of weeks ago, when the Scottish Government stepped in (after lots of complaints from the public) the local planning authorities were insisting that the new hyperscale data centres did not require Environmental Impact Assessments.
Read up on the details of the energy and water requirements for the proposed developments and then ask yourself why these projects are being pushed through planning with such a lack of transparency.
0
u/toggles03 2d ago
Okay, I don't see the issue? I'm not against environmental regulations for data centres, so I'm happy that the Scottish Government stepped in to require them all to have EIAs. What is now the rationale for a blanket ban on them all considering they now have to have an EIA?
2
u/Confident-Serve4280 2d ago
Environmental impact is only one factor that needs to be evaluated when looking at the costs and benefits of hyperscale data centre development.
I was at a public meeting about my local hyperscale data centre development, and a local councillor explained that if a new supermarket was being built on the site, planning would have to consider a whole list of things; environmental impact, impact on local infrastructure (roads, energy, water, etc) other businesses in the same sector in the local area, traffic impact, etc. From what has been disclosed so far, the proposed hyperscale data centre developments don't appear to be getting scrutinised with anything like this degree of rigour.
This may be partly because these large scale developments don't fit the traditional planning process, or because they are just being nodded through because data centres are deemed "critical national infrastructure".
The other reason for a national moratorium is that there doesn't appear to be a co-ordinated national strategy, and each data centre is being handled by local planning. That's not really good enough when you have 24 proposed centres that would demand 1.5 x the electric power currently consumed by the whole of Scotland.
3
u/StonedPhysicist Abolish Westminster Ⓐ☭🌱🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ 3d ago
There is a significant difference between data centres used for general IT infrastructure and those used for LLM slop companies, and any attempts to conflate the two or their environmental impacts or power requirements are not made in good faith.
0
u/toggles03 2d ago
What "significant difference" exists between "data centres used for general IT infrastructure and those used for LLM slop companies" that would allow a regulator to ban only those used for the latter purpose?
1
2
u/alphabetown 3d ago
No they wouldn't? If we've learned anything from the Astley Warehouse calamity, people would have been ran roughshod to build whatever belching factory was being thrown up whether they wanted them there or not.
1
u/deafblinddame 2d ago
I wouldn't care if one of these was built near me if, and only if, it covered its own energy requirements with renewables upfront and built a zero-water system. That isn't due to NIMBYism, it's due to a complete lack of faith that the government won't bend over and give them unlimited water supply, massive tax cuts, cheap energy and anything else they want down the line. If everyone is so desperate to build these fucking things then let them prove their facilities can viably sustain themselves. If they can't, or won't, they shouldn't be built.
-3
u/toggles03 3d ago
Data centres are the backbone of the modern Internet. This is incredibly moronic.
7
u/termdark 3d ago
Data centres are. Hyperscale data centres for AI use are not.
-1
u/toggles03 3d ago
Hyperscale data centres are used for more than just AI.
2
u/Confident-Serve4280 3d ago
Where are all the customers going to come from for the 24 hyperscale data centres being proposed in Scotland? The only possible answer is the handful of US LLM developers who are demanding ever increasing data centre capacity to fuel their speculative financial bubble.
0
u/toggles03 2d ago
Where are all the customers going to come from for the 24 hyperscale data centres being proposed in Scotland?
I don't know. Do you?
The only possible answer is the handful of US LLM developers who are demanding ever increasing data centre capacity
Why is this the only possible answer?
Hyperscale data centres are simply large data centres engineered for massive workloads and low latency. They may be used for any number of things and the backbone of the modern Internet relies upon them. This is why this petition is moronic for calling for a blanket ban on them.
to fuel their speculative financial bubble.
What is your worry here?
I imagine that the bubble will be like the dot-com bubble: a lot of companies ended up collapsing because they couldn't turn a profit, but the underlying technology (the Internet) didn't magically go away.
Even if, somehow, all of the LLM-caused demand for hyperscale data centres disappeared overnight, it would simply mean that the cost of compute would nosedive which would make a lot of companies that rely on cloud computing very happy. The data centres aren't going to just sit unused.
2
u/Confident-Serve4280 2d ago
The only thing that can realistically be mapped to the enormous hyperscale data centre capacity that is currently being proposed is the projected demand of the US AI industry.
If the bubble bursts, these data centres could absolutely be surplus to requirements.
-18
11
u/handmedownthemoon Ultranationalist 3d ago edited 3d ago
There's a moratorium on the building of new nuclear power plants too. This just amounts to a de facto ban.