Emissions from the new data centres set to drive the UK’s AI “revolution” could be hundreds of times higher than government estimates, according to analysis by Carbon Brief.
There are dozens of data centres being developed across the country, potentially driving a surge in electricity demand.
Amid uncertainty about the scale and pace of this expansion, there are mounting concerns that new data centres could pose a threat to the nation’s climate goals.
UK government analysis concluded that the emissions from data centres would be negligible, even if they expand rapidly – a finding one campaigner tells Carbon Brief is “nonsense”.
In contrast, Carbon Brief analysis finds that emissions from powering data centres could be far higher than the government figures suggest, if at least a small amount of the electricity they need is generated by burning gas.
Data centres could run entirely on low-carbon electricity, but some in the sector have argued that the government’s AI ambitions require the UK to use more gas power.
If new data centres source a large amount of their power from gas, it could cause carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions equivalent to at least Denmark’s annual total.
‘AI superpower’
Data centres are energy-intensive computing facilities that are required to train and run complex AI models, among many other things.
The UK is one of the top-ranking nations for data-centre capacity, with roughly 1.8 gigawatts (GW) of facilities consuming more than 2% of national electricity. This could grow rapidly in the coming years as the government aims to make the UK an “AI superpower”.
Companies have already “achieved financial commitment” to invest in 71 new data centres that, if built, would require around 20GW of electricity, according to energy regulator Ofgem.
(For reference, the UK’s average electricity demand in 2025 stood at around 37GW.)
This potential increase in electricity demand has raised concerns from campaigners and some MPs about the impact of data centres on the UK’s climate targets.
Last year, the government’s plan for meeting its 2035 climate target noted that AI growth was “not factored into” emissions projections, although energy secretary Ed Miliband has said new data centres are captured in modelling of “overall electricity demand growth”.
The government is targeting a “clean power system” by 2030, with just a small amount of gas generation remaining. Extra demand from new data centres could require a rollout of clean power that is even faster than the growth already underway.
If clean-power growth does not keep pace, data centres could, therefore, prolong the use of gas power, either by requiring more gas to remain on the grid or by facilities building their own on-site gas generation.
There is significant uncertainty around future emissions from UK data centres, which will depend on the number of centres built, how clean their power is and when they come online.
The government published an analysis of its AI strategy’s climate impact last year, alongside a data-centre “roadmap”.
The analysis, released by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) suggests emissions from future data centres will be minimal – reaching a maximum of 0.142m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) from 11.2GW of AI-related computing power by 2035.
(There is an additional 2.4GW of data-centre demand in this scenario that is not associated with AI, for which emissions are not calculated.)
This figure is based on what DSIT describes as a high-emissions, high-AI growth scenario. Yet it implies that each unit (kilowatt hour, kWh) of electricity supplied to the 11.2GW of AI data centres would be associated with less than 2g of CO2. In other words, their electricity supply would need to be almost completely decarbonised. The government aim is for 50gCO2/kWh by 2030.
In addition, the DSIT figure – for emissions associated with the entire UK data centre fleet in 2035 – is much lower than the emissions estimates reported in planning applications for individual UK data centres made by Google and other companies.
Gas power
The chart below, based on Carbon Brief analysis, shows how data-centre emissions could be far higher than the government’s figures suggest.
Even if gas-fired electricity only accounts for 5% of their supply – indicated by the smallest blue column below – emissions from 11.2GW of data centres would be around 2MtCO2. This is more than 10 times higher than the government’s top estimate for 2035.
If the same data centres rely more heavily on gas, emissions could be hundreds of times higher, exceeding 30MtCO2. This is roughly equivalent to the annual emissions of Denmark. Emissions could rise even higher if capacity increases in line with the extra 20GW of data-centre demand that Ofgem says is in the pipeline, as indicated by the red columns
If data-centre expansion reaches 20GW and those centres rely heavily on gas power, then the figure could be as high as 70MtCO2, the annual emissions of Sweden. This would also be nearly 500 times higher than the government’s upper estimate, which it says is based on a “pessimistic decarbonisation” scenario.
(The numbers are not directly comparable as, unlike the AI-specific 11.2GW figure, it is unclear how much of this 20GW would be for AI, specifically.)
The government’s modelling states that AI emissions in 2035 would be “equivalent to below 0.05% of the UK’s projected total emissions”. It also says “this could be equivalent to the annual emissions of approximately 5,000 to 23,600 UK households”.
On the contrary, Carbon Brief’s analysis suggests data centres could, in fact, be equivalent to as much as 20% of the UK’s projected total emissions in 2035.
As for the number of households, Carbon Brief estimates that future data centres could result in emissions equivalent to as many as 11.4m homes, roughly a third of all UK households.
Dr Tim Squirrel, head of strategy at Foxglove – part of an NGO group calling for more government scrutiny of data-centre emissions – tells Carbon Brief the DSIT figures are “nonsense and threaten to derail our carbon budgets”. He says:
“The figures that DSIT projects here wildly downplay data-centre emissions, even by the standards of the most optimistic energy transition scenario. There is no way that the amount of compute they anticipate can be built and produce the miniscule emissions they’re calculating.”
In its analysis, the government attributes the low emissions figures to “more efficient models and hardware” and “the UK’s ambitious targets for electricity grid decarbonisation”.
When asked by Carbon Brief, DSIT declined to provide any more information about its analysis.
Clean growth
While the UK is prioritising data centres for AI, there is mounting industry pressure to allow gas-power expansion for this “critical” infrastructure, as is happening in, for example, the US and Ireland.
Developers in the UK have reportedly already “turned to gas” via private electricity supplies, due to struggles securing a connection to the public network.
Yet, new data centres could be completely emissions-free if they are powered entirely with on-site clean energy or using electricity from a decarbonised grid.
As it stands, most data centres are connected to the electricity grid. Some enter power purchase agreements (PPAs) in which they financially support renewable-energy operators, allowing them to describe their electricity as clean.
Katie Davies, head of energy and infrastructure policy at techUK, a trade association representing the technology sector, highlights this expansion of PPAs as important for driving the growth of wind and solar power:
“In doing so, data centres actively contribute to additionality by unlocking extra carbon-free capacity that might not otherwise come online.”
A report last year by Aurora Energy Research found that data centres could provide a “route-to-market” worth up to £35bn for 19GW of UK renewables. However, it added:
“If renewables capacity and networks don’t keep pace, additional data centre demand will likely be met by carbon-intensive sources of generation.”
The UK’s “AI opportunities action plan” includes the establishment of “AI growth zones“, which the government says will be in areas with “available clean energy”. It is also overhauling the grid connection queue, which Davies says is important:
“Reducing this queue through strategic alignment and the removal of speculative applications will be vital to ensuring [data-centre] operators do not have to turn to higher-carbon energy sources as a last resort.”
Responding to Carbon Brief’s analysis, a government spokesperson said:
“We want the UK to be at the forefront of AI, but we are clear this must be done sustainably. That is why our AI growth zones are supporting development in areas with access to clean power, while the AI Energy Council is exploring how AI can be powered by responsible, clean-energy sources.”
Methodology
There is considerable uncertainty around data-centre power demand and emissions, with much of the relevant information not in the public domain. Carbon Brief has performed some rough calculations based on available data.
The government figure comes from an annex to DSIT’s UK compute roadmap. DSIT analyses the emissions impact of expanding the UK’s data-centre capacity to between 7.4GW in a “low compute-demand scenario” and 13.6GW in a “high compute-demand scenario” by 2035. (The majority of the demand in each scenario is from AI.)
DSIT also uses an “AI environmental impacts model” to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from AI compute, only covering the 11.2GW AI component of data-centre capacity. It concludes that AI emissions in 2035 could range from 0.025MtCO2 to 0.142MtCO2. This includes both “direct” and “indirect” emissions, indicating that it covers more than just emissions from the electricity used to power the data centres.
A widely reported consultation by the energy regulator, Ofgem, found that there are proposals for around 140 new data centres in the UK, which would require 50GW of electricity if they were all built.
In reality, it is highly unlikely that all of these data centres will be completed, with a “significant number” expected to fail when trying to secure funding or planning permission.
The 20GW figure used in this analysis is based on the 71 “mature” projects that have “achieved financial commitment with final investment decision”, according to Ofgem.
Carbon Brief used the top government figure of 0.142MtCO2, even though it represents a “pessimistic grid decarbonisation” and “high compute demand” scenario.
To calculate the emissions from powering data centres in the future, Carbon Brief assumes a data-centre “load factor” of 90%, which is in line with other analyses. The analysis uses different shares of gas in the centres’ power supplies to indicate a range of future possibilities, assuming emissions from gas power are 0.4MtCO2 per terawatt hour.
The post Analysis: CO2 from UK data centres could be ‘hundreds of times’ higher than thought appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: CO2 from UK data centres could be ‘hundreds of times’ higher than thought
A new report says the United Kingdom must invest in more widespread cooling, particularly for the most vulnerable populations, as climate change accelerates.
Extreme heat is one of the most dangerous climate change risks in the United Kingdom, according to a new government-backed report that warned the nation is “built for a climate that no longer exists.”
An Unusually Early Heat Wave Breaks Temperature Records Across Western Europe
Just one year ago, Lars Christian Bacher said his career embodied the energy transition – moving from CFO of Norway’s state-controlled oil company Equinor to leading one of Europe’s few home-grown battery makers.
Morrow Batteries was on a mission to compete alongside the industry’s dominant Asian, mainly Chinese, battery producers as Europe sought to reduce its reliance on imports, Bacher told a group of foreign journalists on a sunny day in Oslo last May.
But seven months later, Bacher stepped down as CEO, and earlier this month, Morrow Batteries said it had filed for bankruptcy after its financial situation “deteriorated”.
Coming a year after Swedish battery maker Northvolt filed for bankruptcy, industry analysts said Morrow’s descent into financial difficulties would likely deal a fresh blow to investor confidence in European battery manufacturers – potentially keeping Europe dependent on Chinese energy transition technology for longer.
While bigger European battery makers such as ACC, Verkor and PowerCo – linked to car-makers Stellantis, Renault and Volkswagen, respectively – are still in business, Europe needs to reduce its reliance on China, experts say.
“It’s just such a critical technology that you cannot rely on somebody else,” said Julia Poliscanova, batteries lead at the Brussels-based advocacy group Transport & Environment.
State-backed eco-batteries
Established in 2020, Morrow Batteries expanded its workforce to more than 200 and has the ability to produce three million batteries a year at its factory in the forest outside the coastal city of Arendal, on Norway’s picturesque southern tip.
Investors in the startup included industrial engineering companies Siemens and ABB, and it received a 550 million krone ($59 million) loan from state development agency Innovation Norway. State-owned energy and investment companies were also among its shareholders.
Morrow has promoted its batteries as particularly sustainable, with solar and hydropower supplying energy to the factory. Its lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries do not contain nickel or cobalt, distancing them from the environmental and social problems often linked to critical minerals mining.
“From a sustainability point of view, this is as good as it gets,” Bacher said last May.
He did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the company’s decision to file for bankruptcy proceedings.
It aimed to sell these batteries for energy storage, increasingly important as variable solar and wind power comes to dominate European grids, and for off-road and commercial vehicles. Those sectors, rather than electric cars and motorbikes, were being targeted because they were subject to less ferocious competition from Asia, Bacher said.
Industry experts say Morrow started smaller and slower than Northvolt, was selective about its target customers and secured deals with Finnish environmental technology company Proventia Oy and an unnamed German defence company.
But it still ran into financial trouble.
Cash crunch proves costly
In a statement announcing the bankruptcy, Morrow’s board said it had been trying to secure a new industrial investor and finance, and that “several of the ongoing efforts had reached an advanced stage”.
But these talks “could not be concluded within the constraints imposed by the group’s liquidity situation”, it said, blaming the failure on “the capital requirements inherent in an early industrialisation phase” combined with “increased capital costs, delays in the industrialisation process and a more restrained investment market”.
Northvolt’s bankruptcy may have also damaged Morrow’s attempts to raise money. Last May, Bacher himself acknowledged that it “didn’t help”.
Morrow also cited oversupply in the global battery market, and the resulting downward “price pressure”. The price of LFP batteries fell by nearly half between 2022 and 2025, eating into producers’ profit margins, according to the International Energy Agency.
The hefty state investment in Morrow has generated controversy in Norway following its bankruptcy. The leader of the right-wing Progress Party (FrP), Sylvi Listhaug, has said Norwegian taxpayers’ money was wasted on an unviable business.
But others, like Poliscanova and the head of the European Battery Alliance trade association Emma Nehrenheim, told Climate Home News that if Europe wants a battery industry, it will need to back home-grown manufacturers whole-heartedly.
“Valley of death” kills startups
As European battery manufacturers work to perfect and scale up their technology and processes, they face “a valley of death” with severe competition and little patience from investors or battery customers who “can easily buy them from China”, Poliscanova said.
Startups like Morrow typically raise project financing to get them off the ground, according to Nehrenheim. In the period between that finance ending and reaching profitability, they have to rely on money they set aside as a project reserve.
If they underestimate this reserve, which she said is easy to do when setting up a new factory making a new product, they need more money to bridge the gap. This can come from specialised bridging investors, from customers or from governments.
For Morrow, however, the money did not arrive in time.
Nehrenheim – who was previously Northvolt’s chief environmental officer – said it was a characteristically European failure from investors.
“We’re not good at this,” she said. “We’re not bold enough to compete with Silicon Valley or the Asian (countries), who have been scaling industry now for decades.”
Clean energy sovereignty vs price
Since Northvolt’s bankruptcy filing, the European Union has announced policies to support European battery makers.
It is introducing a €1.5 billion ($1.7 billion) “battery booster“, providing interest-free loans to battery manufacturers. It is considering putting tariffs on imported batteries, subsidising European battery makers and tying electric car incentives to locally made batteries through the Industrial Accelerator Act. None of these policies are yet in place.
With trade disputes rising up the agenda of UN climate talks, Poliscanova conceded that such moves are protectionist, although she said she prefers to call them industrial policy.
“Honestly,” she said, “the EU and the UK are the two large global blocks left that don’t have such industrial protectionist policies. India has it, Brazil has it, China has it, the US has it – we’re literally the last fool standing thinking that [the World Trade Organization] is the way to go.”
Li Shuo, China Climate Hub director at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said that the trade-offs between cheap foreign batteries and more expensive European ones “need to be discussed honestly”.
“How much higher are Europeans willing to pay?” he said. “How much delay in climate deployment is acceptable? Can we really decarbonise and de-risk at the same time? How long can politicians condemn cheap Chinese imports while consumers simultaneously demand affordability?”
While European policymakers want to fight China, the average European just wants a cheap battery, he added.
Closing the cost gap
But once European battery makers scale up, the price gap with Chinese batteries will shrink, Poliscanova said.
While German LFP battery cells are 90% more expensive than those made in China, scale-up could close this gap to a “sovereignty premium” of just 25% by 2030, Transport & Environment estimates.
Nehrenheim acknowledged that most of Europe’s batteries will continue to come from Asia or the United States. “I’m very happy for that because they’re scaling fast and they get great support subsidies in their respective countries to supply us to help us in the [energy] transition,” she said.
But European-headquartered companies must make at least a quarter of the region’s batteries, she said, otherwise if supply is disrupted – whether by geopolitical factors, a pandemic or natural disaster – the industry will have nothing to scale up from.
Nehrenheim said she was almost 100% confident that Morrow’s factory will continue to produce batteries. The company said it expected a court-appointed bankruptcy administrator to assume control over the company’s assets and operations.
Citing investors’ €1.4 billion ($1.62 billion) reprieve of Swedish green steelmaker Stegra in April, Nehrenheim said there were reasons to be hopeful about Morrow’s survival as Europe demands batteries for diverse uses beyond cars – from energy storage to drones and forklift trucks.
“Somebody will pick this up,” she said.
The post After another battery startup bankruptcy, can Europe ever cut reliance on China? appeared first on Climate Home News.
After another battery startup bankruptcy, can Europe ever cut reliance on China?
Climate Change
‘Energy Vampires’: Greenpeace calls for moratorium on data centres as new report reveals frenzied rollout would derail energy transition
SYDNEY, Wednesday 27 May 2026 — A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and independent expert Ketan Joshi reveals how the frenzied rollout of AI data centres in Australia is set to derail the renewable energy transition, entrench gas and turbocharge climate pollution, prompting calls for an urgent moratorium on data centre approvals until appropriate guardrails are in place.
The report, Energy Vampires: the AI data centres draining Australia, reveals the staggering scale of data centre growth in Australia, set to follow a US path of emissions blowout and rising community opposition to the resource-hungry facilities. The report exposes the links between the data centre lobby and the gas industry, who are using data centre growth to justify extracting more gas.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling on the Federal Government to urgently implement a moratorium on the construction and approval of new data centres, until appropriate regulations and safeguards have been put in place to protect the climate and communities.
Key findings:
- Data centres are already failing to cover their own demand with additional renewable energy, and resisting calls to mandate that they do.
- At its peak, Australia’s biggest proposed data centre, the 1GW Mamre Road Data Centre Campus in Western Sydney, will generate annual emissions equivalent to 560,000 petrol cars, or all domestic flights within NSW in 2023.
- There are early signs of a data centre-fuelled gas boom in Australia, including proposals for new on-site gas, as seen in the US.
- Cloud Carrier’s proposed gas-fired data centre in NSW would wipe out the state’s entire projected 2028 emissions cuts.
- Even if only 1 in 4 new Australian data centres were powered by new on-site gas, it would result in 2.8x higher total emissions compared to using grid power.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “Australia is completely unprepared for the magnitude of impacts of the AI-driven data centre frenzy. Data centres are being rolled out at a feverish pace, with some of the largest planned for Australia consuming as much energy as Adelaide. The recent federal and state energy minister communique is a positive first step towards regulating the data centre industry, and managing its impact on the energy transition and the communities where they’re being built.
“But we should all be concerned by the extreme lack of scrutiny being applied to the companies leading the data centre charge in Australia and their proposals. Without strong, legislated standards, we risk replicating the disastrous US pattern, where Big Tech corporations have carte blanche to drain energy and water, and build new, polluting gas and diesel-powered plants to fuel their operations. This has seen mounting community opposition that transcends party politics, something we’re beginning to see here in Australia.
“Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on new data centre approvals and construction until we have clearly defined, enforceable regulations and standards in place to govern this industry — essential if we hope to avoid the alarming outcomes outlined in this report.
“Australia is not a playground for Big Tech corporations. It is time our leaders stepped up and took seriously their role as custodians of our resources and protectors of our society and environment.”
Ketan Joshi, independent report author and climate expert said: “Impatience is not a virtue. The reckless data centre buildout is heaping massive new load onto the grid, meaning renewables have to run harder just to stay in the same spot. Currently data centres increase coal and gas output and delay shutdowns, while plugging polluting gas into data centres does the damage directly instead.
“Unless the data centre industry builds no new fossil fuels and far more new renewables than new demand, we end up worse off. Australia’s gas industry sees a lifeline in an unchecked data centre frenzy, and the feeling seems to be mutual.
“Data centre demand projections keep jabbing upwards each revision, and emissions projections keep getting worse. Everywhere in the world facing this frenzy sees the same trend.
“Data centre moratoria have bipartisan support in countries around the world as the only path to reintroducing careful, considered governance of data centre growth. In the context of an irrational, unjustified panic, a temporary pause brings reason and rationality, along with bringing power to communities.”
-ENDS-
Images and an interview clipreel of Greenpeace spokespeople at the Mamre Road data centre in Western Sydney available here.
Media contacts:
Lucy Keller on 0491 135 308 or lucy.keller@greenpeace.org
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测