Energy security/energy transition
The government, especially a Conservative one, would never set up an operation to do so themselves, costing the taxpayer billions. Instead they must entice private firms to do so. Therefore it is crucial to speed up the granting of permission for projects, decrease the number of barriers and the amount of bureaucracy, and to add other incentives for private companies to build sustainable energy farms. Secondly, the upfront investment cost for any private company is extremely unattractive. Green energy farms have very low maintenance and production costs, but not low enough so that the initial investment fee seems like a profitable decision to large companies without new legislation to entice firms. This low rate of return, in addition to the fact that more research into renewable technology decreases the costs, is putting off business from investing now, instead waiting, perhaps indefinitely, until the investment appears to be worth it. Further subsidization from the government could be the solution, but at even more cost to the taxpayer, which would undoubtedly be an unpopular decision. One possible solution for this may be to increase the amount of tax energy companies have to pay when selling oil and gas, or the energy produced using fossil fuels, and further decrease the tax paid on green energy. In addition, an attractive and cost effective option would be a deal whereby energy companies receive major tax relief over an extended period in return for large investment into green energy farms. For example, BP and Shell have both pledged to invest half of their profits until 2030 into green energy projects. To incentivize them to spend further amounts of money now, the government could offer a large tax relief on their corporation tax until 2040, or another sensible date that aids both parties as much as possible. Thirdly, not only is large private investment needed, but also public investment at great cost to the taxpayer, as converting previously gas and oil dependent consumption to electricity requires a much bigger and more powerful grid. For example, stoves, ovens, heating and cars are all polluters that need to be switched to an electricity dependence. However, the national grid needs major upgrades, especially in the North. The other major cost to the government is a new pipeline that will need construction. Major oil companies have agreed that it is not possible to run cars on hydrogen, as there is no way to store enough in a car to make travel efficient. However, this is the agreed way ahead for trucks and other large road vehicles. A new hydrogen pipeline will have to be built, but will lie empty until there is enough demand, at which point, the natural gas pipeline will begin to become empty as the demand dries up for gas. This means at least one multi-billion dollar pipeline will be empty at almost all times. This is a classic case of companies unwilling to build infrastructure without demand, and demand being stagnant without infrastructure. The government will forced to step in if it wishes to break this deadlock. These huge costs to the government are extremely unattractive, as the Conservatives seek to decrease the level of national debt with high tax and low government spending. However, they will be necessary, and under an all but inevitable Labour government, there will likely be far less hesitation. It is important to remember, though, that climate change will be decided in third world countries in Africa and South America, by people who do not care what energy they consume. What they care about, and rightly so, is putting the next meal on the table, lighting their house, and staying warm. No matter how much the UK transitions, it will not fall to us to solve climate change. Therefore, although we should continue to aim for net-zero in the long run, for now the government should prioritize energy security, and the way to best incentivize firms is to use tax relief to entice them into further investment
15
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting