UK departments at odds over energy demands of AI datacentres

Lead

The UK government's ambitions to become an AI superpower and to decarbonise its economy are clashing over the energy demands of datacentres, with two departments holding sharply different forecasts. Meanwhile, new analysis has revealed that the government's carbon emission estimates for AI were revised upward by a factor of more than 100, and that developers for major datacentre projects understated their climate impact in planning documents.

Coverage comparison

The Guardian's reporting, based on documents and expert analysis, highlights a significant discrepancy between the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). DSIT forecasts that AI datacentres will need 6GW of electricity by 2030, while DESNZ's projections for the entire commercial services sector suggest growth of only 528MW between 2025 and 2030. DESNZ has said it does not hold separate projections for datacentre growth.

The Guardian also reported that the government revised its estimate of carbon emissions from AI datacentres, increasing it from a maximum of 0.142 million tonnes of CO₂ in a single year to a range of 34 to 123 million tonnes over 10 years. The revision was prompted by an inquiry from the Guardian and the climate campaign group Carbon Brief, and the government declined to comment on the record.

In a separate investigation, the Guardian found that developers for two proposed Google datacentres in Thurrock and North Weald, Essex, and a Greystoke datacentre at Elsham Tech Park in north Lincolnshire, misstated the emissions of their projects in planning documents. The developers compared one year of emissions to the UK's five-year carbon budget, understating the impact by a factor of five.

Key claims

• DSIT forecasts 6GW of AI datacentre capacity by 2030, while DESNZ projects only 528MW growth for the entire commercial services sector between 2025 and 2030, and does not hold separate datacentre projections.
• The UK government revised its carbon emission estimates for AI datacentres from a maximum of 0.142 million tonnes of CO₂ in a single year to 34-123 million tonnes over 10 years, equivalent to 0.9-3.4% of the UK's projected emissions between 2025 and 2035.
• The revision was prompted by a Guardian inquiry and a Foxglove environmental impact assessment request filed in January.
• Google developers misstated emissions for the Thurrock and North Weald datacentres, and Greystoke misstated emissions for Elsham Tech Park, by comparing one year of emissions to the UK's five-year carbon budget.
• The combined emissions of the three proposed datacentres will account for more than 1% of the UK's carbon budget in 2033, equivalent to the emissions of a city like Bristol.
• The Thurrock datacentre's emissions will exceed those of an international airport, and Elsham Tech Park's peak emissions will reach 1 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent in 2033-34, comparable to all UK domestic flights.
• The AI Energy Council is exploring clean power opportunities for datacentres, and Carbon Budget 7 is scheduled for release this summer.

Perspectives

Foxglove (tech justice nonprofit): Tim Squirrell, head of strategy, said the government's "cluelessness" over datacentre environmental impact is "alarming," and that the developers' figures "look like they are seriously misleading the council and the public."

Global Witness (climate campaign): Patrick Galey, head of investigations, called the potential carbon impact "a historic idiocy," given the urgency of the climate crisis.

Cecilia Rikap (University College London researcher): She suggested the departmental misalignment could indicate either incompetence or "magical thinking" about AI, and that it reveals how corporations control the AI value chain and the UK government.

Greystoke (developer): Acknowledged the discrepancy and promised to provide revised figures to the local planning authority.

Google (via developers): The company did not provide a direct response in the material, but the misstatements were attributed to its developers.

Local councillor Steven Heather: Commented on the planning permission process, as reported by the Guardian.

UK government: Declined to comment on the record regarding the revised carbon emission estimates.