But does he render what he says in the tin? The answer is straightforward. It fails. At the heart of most energy security definitions is the reliability of supplies for households and businesses. This is usually complemented by a focus on affordability. It is not good to have energy available, but the price is too high for businesses or households to run to warm up. The new strategy does little to address the direct effects of high fossil fuel prices. While the government has announced some help for households through loans and reduction of the municipal tax, this is simply not enough. The energy price ceiling has already been raised to almost £ 2,000 per year and a further increase is expected in the autumn. This adds to a wider cost-of-living crisis and high levels of inflation. While more money is needed to help people pay their bills, this must be accompanied by measures to prevent these acute effects in the future. This means making homes more efficient and moving away from fossil fuels for heating. It has been almost a decade since effective energy efficiency policies were scrapped and replaced by new approaches, such as the Green Agreement, which have failed miserably. As a result, steady improvements in efficiency and economic benefits for households have virtually stopped. A new home upgrade plan is urgently needed. This would not only reduce our dependence on gas, but also reduce our bills and carbon emissions. According to many titles, nuclear energy is the “central element” of the strategy. The government’s plans are ambitious, but delivery will be difficult. The new nuclear power plants will not have an impact for many years. The Treasury Department’s fingerprints are visible in the cautious reservations to the strategy, including the insistence that new projects are “subject to value for money and approvals”. This reflects the long history of rising nuclear costs and the economic risks to which consumers or taxpayers will be exposed. British nuclear programs have been the subject of many false eggs. In 1979, Energy Secretary David Howell announced a plan for 10 nuclear reactors over the next decade. Only one reactor was built at Sizewell in Suffolk. In 2010, the coalition government agreed on another eight-reactor program. This new project has also produced only one plant: the Hinkley C in Somerset, which is due to start operating in 2026. While nuclear power can reduce emissions and improve some aspects of energy security, the new projects will only be implemented if the industry manages to collapse court costs. The government pulled its fists and avoided measures that would have a more direct impact on energy security At the heart of the strategy is the growing ambition for offshore wind power, which is set to expand at least fourfold by 2030. This is a genuine British success story from which politicians must learn a lesson. Initially very expensive, it was supported by a number of policies from successive governments – and this dramatically reduced costs. Pushing further with an increased goal makes a lot of sense. But it will require more investment in electricity grid infrastructure, not just the wind turbines themselves. However, the government’s willingness to learn from success has clear limits. When strategy turns its attention to land winds and solar energy, logic fails. The cost of both technologies has also dropped dramatically in recent years. They are receiving some warm words, including the ambition that solar capacity will be expanded fivefold by 2035. There are also innovative plans for some local communities to share the benefits of the new onshore wind farms. However, the goal of doubling capacity by 2030 was reached at 11 a.m. and there are still very restrictive design rules for dry wind energy. The realization of these increased ambitions for electricity from renewable sources will require further market reforms. At the moment, cheap energy from renewable sources does not translate into low bills for consumers. This is because gas plants often set the wholesale price and their cost is very high. Reforms are needed to enable businesses and households to access the economic benefits of cheaper renewable energy sources. Reforms are also needed to ensure that the system has enough flexibility to cope with ever-increasing wind and sun-dependent production shares. Finally, what about the role of fossil fuels, which are at the root of the crisis? Plans to produce more in the UK are understandable, but they are not the long-term solution to climate change or energy security. They will have very little impact on prices, but could help squeeze some Russian imports. However, the promise of a new independent fracking study is distracting. It is clear that fracking in the UK is not as easy to implement as it was in the United States. Its contribution to gas needs will be moderate at best. Industry claims that fracking could generate a large share of UK gas demand are unreliable, based on the data we have so far. In short, the government has pulled its fists and avoided measures that would have a more direct impact on energy security – mainly by reducing the amount of energy we need to use. Instead, it has created a mix of proposals for energy supply. While some are credible, a major nuclear program would require huge amounts of political and economic capital. History shows that this will be very difficult to achieve. Professor Jim Watson is director of the UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources
