Without energy to power the world not only do the lights go out; the internet stops; mobile phones will die; supply chains go down; shops will close; factories will close; trains and planes will cease to run and so on. Putin has spent huge volumes of explosives on destroying Ukraine’s power sources, which also destroys morale, but somehow the Ukrainians manage to conduct a war, and their citizens survive and fight on.
As if that strategic focus in war on energy destruction did not illustrate enough the vitality of power sources to modern life, the recent almost total outage in Spain, whatever the cause, illustrated the absolute dependence on energy every day and the helplessness of society when it disappears. Energy today is surely a grave necessity without which lives as we know them are not really possible, such that it is the fourth critical necessity next to air, food and water.
ENERGY SECURITY PRECEDES MILITARY DEFENCE
Being energy independent so far as is possible is fundamental to the security and democratic independence of any country, including the UK. Energy dependency as an Achilles heel of the EU, especially Germany, was up in lights as a strategic disaster when Russia invaded Ukraine. Dependency on Russian oil and gas has significantly weakened the EU. For Germany, the energy strategic incompetence of Angela Merkel was also highlighted when she required Germany to abandon nuclear as a power source many years ago, amid a safety risk panic.
The UK can be relatively energy independent. If it is not and continues a policy of not developing its own oil and gas reserves and using them but rather continues on the path of expensive imports of both from places such as the Middle East, it runs the risk of supplies being cut off in adversity, when for any reason shortages globally occur and the highest bidder is the winner. If energy supplies from abroad significantly reduce, then the military will simply have to stay in their barracks, fighter planes will not take off and tanks will stand idle. This is to ignore the massive effects on civilian lives.
Energy independence is a necessity to secure the freedoms of the UK. This is more important than the timing of any drive to net zero carbon emissions from power generation.
IS GOVERNMENT NET ZERO APPROACH IDIOCY?
Climate change is existential. All nations moving to stop emitting carbon altogether ultimately is essential. Unfortunately, so far the world is missing targets because so many major countries are growing emissions. Trump and China are still building coal-fired power stations. The UK has been well organised in its solar and wind energy programmes. But the UK accounts for maybe 1% of global emissions. By 2050 it seeks to be carbon neutral. And by 2030 under current Government plans it seeks to be net zero as regards power generation. It is evident that carbon reduction will be achieved by a mix of solar, wind and nuclear, until other green sources like hydrogen are developed commercially. Current UK nuclear power stations are on their last legs. Replacement is years away. Small nuclear reactors are to be developed more quickly but a provider has not even been chosen yet. Solar and wind depend on the weather and so switch off as weather dictates: another source, mainly gas, has to kick in but this Government is reducing gas supply. To build solar or wind fields or farms the UK depends on the hostile state of China, for equipment or materials. As a source they are still expensive.
It is widely recognised that the UK will need oil and gas fuel sources for a long time, decades, as will the world globally. The UK now imports substantial amounts of oil and gas as described above. This is totally unnecessary as the UK has plenty of its own, and they are cheaper than imports. The UK policy of not developing and using its own oil and gas, including by fracking, is incomprehensible and seemingly stupid, given the reliance on imports for decades to come. UK industry pays the highest energy costs of all G7 countries and is therefore hampered at a severe disadvantage when it comes to manufacturing or steel production. And so Government is impeding growth and damaging industry unnecessarily in pursuit of costly racing to net zero. And green levies add several hundred pounds to household bills, so impeding consumer living standards and spending elsewhere.
The Government sees technology and especially artificial intelligence as an area where the UK can lead. These demand data centres using huge amounts of power. The USA is expanding gas energy power stations to cater for huge AI power demand. For AI alone, the IEA estimates power demand will double worldwide by 2030 to accommodate AI development. Gas power has to be expanded in the UK to create electricity. And so, carbon capture needs investment. It’s not happening.
New green energy driven machines including cars require considerable volumes of batteries: the UK programme for their production is negligible: Government must act? Government wants an undeliverable speed for the phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles replaced by EVs. Charging points are one shortage, but simply the required electricity to charge them, on top of AI needs and tech generally, will not exist without gas.
Numerous commentators, experts, say that net zero on its planned trajectory has such a high cost for negligible carbon reduction effect worldwide that it makes no sense and damages the UK. But still the Government is deaf. It is also being dishonest pretending that their programme will bring growth. Even the Unions largely oppose it although not for reasons outlined here. If growth drives every decision as the PM, Keir Starmer, and his Ministers say , then net zero would be substantially abandoned in its current form. If not, then they are misleading the public, or lying.
SOME LIGHT?
Commentators say that new technology will substantially improve energy efficiency. Superconductors to distribute electricity which waste hardly any power are perhaps in view, according to recent articles. AI promises efficiencies they say. Will hydrogen from air or nuclear fusion break through finally and solve the world’s energy needs? Given the pace of scientific innovation, especially with AI, it would perhaps be surprising if in 10 years’ time the energy world did not look very different. But for now, decisions need to be based on knowledge, with a willingness to change policy as developments happen.
The PM likes to vaunt making hard decisions. An easy one is the need to ditch current net zero and replace it with a policy which maximises energy independence and so the nation’s security, uses its own resources over imports and sponsors all the capabilities needed to move to carbon neutrality over a sensible timeframe. Until then, the UK working and non-working people will suffer the burdens of dogmatic idiocy over pragmatic sense.
See also: – Is Net Zero Target Religious Dogma
Leave a Reply