Renewable vigour
Energy debate , Issue 1672 Old Sparky writes:
ENERGY secretary Ed Miliband is determined not to let a good crisis go to waste, proclaiming it to be a reason for pouring even more money into building wind and solar farms.

"From the moment this war began, we have been determined to go further and faster on driving for clean power," he said. "We can only get energy sovereignty and national security with homegrown power we control".

Alas, this stirring call doesn't explain how the UK will fare over the next 30 years, when it will still require large quantities of imported gas and oil under any scenario (wind power currently generates about 7 percent of UK primary energy; oil and gas ten times as much).

Even Jürgen Maier, the chair of Miliband's much-vaunted new "GB Energy" company, recently went off-script, writing that even though the "end game (is) mostly renewable energy", he saw merits in "arguments in favour of supporting more North Sea oil production".

Nor, wisely, does Miliband make any claim about the cost of his plans, which will, as he clearly knows, make electricity bills higher still, whether or not things get back to normal in the Gulf.

Young Windy replies:
IN THE long term – in fact, even in the medium term – every realistic scenario for the North Sea shows dramatic decline in production.

North Sea experts like Old Sparky appreciate that the main benefit of fields like Rosebank and Jackdaw is that they'll raise a chunk of tax, support jobs and reduce imports. While we wait for the North Sea to go out of business, we may as well use what we've got.

If the Middle East isn't a nest of singing birds within the next few weeks, a bit of extra extraction will help supply concerns, even though it will be too small to have an impact on price. But in the medium term, the most effective security mechanism will be to reduce demand ASAP.

The National Grid operator, Neso, has calculated that a scenario where the UK meets its net zero targets will reduce oil and gas imports by 78 percent – not bad for improving our energy security. In the scenario where net zero targets are not met (or are even scrapped as Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch advise), imports would actually rise by a full third, even if we drill more.

So how to reduce demand, aka the "primary energy" requirements Sparky mentions above? It's all the boring business of converting inefficient sources of "energy services" – petrol and domestic gas – to more efficient electricity. In practice, this means heat pumps, electric cars, solar and batteries.

The UK is just about keeping the EV transition on the road, and solar 'n' storage are increasing each year, but the government remains drastically below its targets for heat pumps, each of which reduces a household's gas consumption by 80 percent.

One final thought: the drill-baby-drill cheers echoing between Reform UK, the Tories and the editorials of the Times and Telegraph don't pay any attention to carbon emissions, which remain real, rising and a serious threat to overall UK security (if in doubt, ask your nearest arable farmer).

Donald Trump doesn't have to worry about what the weather will be like in 30 years – he'll be somewhere hot by then – but many of the rest of us do.