Energy security/energy transition
suit, as a secure and affordable supply of energy must be secured before we can make it clean and locally produced, which is the aim of major energy firms.
As seen by the by-election in Uxbridge, there is still a majority in the UK that would rather have affordable, secure energy and fewer climate-saving restrictions than an increase in tariffs and taxes to penalize the use of polluting cars and fossil fuels. It is already seen that both major parties are distancing themselves from green policies, as they realize that the majority of swing voters would rather lower the cost of living than have the UK contribute almost negligibly to the global climate change effort. Therefore, for the current government, energy security is a more important policy than the energy transition. However, there is of course an argument for the energy transition. If the government invests in new fossil fuels that will need to be replaced later, more money is being spent in the long run than if we accelerated to green energy now. The time to act on climate change is now, and of course the UK cannot sit back and say that it contributes so little to climate change that we shouldn’t bother to act ourselves ; the UK must continue to lead the way in green energy production. The time to act for climate change was years ago, and through British research, other countries too can follow suit. The research done in the UK can make sustainable technology cheaper and more accessible for the countries that need it most – those in South America and Africa. Not only is it more cost efficient to prioritize the energy transition but we will also see the effects of the transition on the UK economy even sooner. Due to the UK not being oil rich itself, the only way to locally produce affordable, secure energy is through green sources such as wind and solar, in both of which the UK is world-leading. The UK is the global leader in offshore wind energy, so much so that we are exporting much of it via a new cable in the North Sea to the demand in Germany. Should the UK therefore continue investment in wind and solar, as it is clear that our technology now is good enough to supply large quantities efficiently? Probably not. While the technology is sufficient now, it will only get cheaper and more reliable as time goes on, another reason to put off the transition and just focus on security for now. Is an acceleration of the transition even needed? Recent reports by the International Energy Agency have shown that for the first time, global investment was greater in solar than oil. It predicts that in 2023, 60.7% of all energy investment will be in clean energy. This includes improving grids, researching low-emission fuels such as green and blue hydrogen (green is made using electrolysis of water whereas blue is made with natural gas) and nuclear projects. ‘ If these trends continue until 2030 ’ it is expected that ‘ spending would exceed that required to meet the Paris Agreement carbon reduction goals, limiting climatic warming to 1.5C ’ . This report suggests that we can prioritize our energy security without putting the planet at further risk, though it does imply that the trend in increasing levels of investment in renewables year-on-year needs to be continued. Although it is true that the benefits of gaining energy security could be achieved through the energy transition, a number of major obstacles stand in the way. Firstly, the amount of time it takes for private firms, e.g. BP, Shell, to be given permission to build solar farms and wind farms, is too long. For wind farms, the minimum time it takes to create an application and for it to be reviewed is 10 months. The key to secure our energy, and transition it to renewable sources, is to incentivize private firms to do so.
14
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting