- It is cheaper by approx 43% to power a data centre with a largely renewable microgrid vs a nuclear SMR. Renewables can meet the majority of the constant demands of a large data centre - but gas is still required as a stopgap source of power today, with batteries supporting.
- It is cheaper by almost a third (31.7%) to power a data centre with 95% renewables (in line with the CP30 target) vs a nuclear SMR.
- Renewable microgrids could be deployed in around half the time of nuclear SMRs (~5 years vs 10 years) and with much greater certainty.
- Our model outputs a microgrid that meets consistent yearly data centre demand without needing the grid. To further minimise risk to data centre operators, no/low-utilisation grid ties can provide additional microgrid reliability.
Comments
You must log in or register to comment.
I’d be curious why they didn’t consider a renewable micro grid supported by an SMR, in addition to the gas supported micro grid. SMR sizing? Extra poor cost competitiveness?
Clearly we still need some on-demand baseline power. What’s the long term strategy? Are people betting that battery tech will outpace SMR tech to no longer require on-demand baseline?
but gas is still required as a stopgap source of power today, with batteries supporting.
Use hydrogen instead, and you can go to 100% green energy.
Be advised that this website relies on some Chromium-only trickery.
renewable microgrids […] compared to nuclear small modular reactors
A 95% renewable microgrid with 5% gas backup - in line with the UK’s Clean Power 2030 target - was modelled at almost a third (31.7%) lower cost than scenario 1 in today’s prices. In this model, the gas is restricted to just under 80MW (2/3rds the size of the data centre) and the model correspondingly chooses a larger battery for storage, and increases the size of wind and solar technologies.
I’m confused; how does 5% equal 2/3 the size of the data center modeled?
They include a link to the model: https://github.com/ryanjenkinson/data-centre-modelling
