The UK government presumably has limited cash to wager in the 'electricity/economic stakes'. When assessing the odds of 'winning', criteria must include, a) energy security, b) 'kick starting' the economy and c) being seen to do something about climate change. The current field of 'runners' is an odd collection. Horse One: 'Old Smokey'. This is encapsulated in Drax, an old coal-fired power station, privately converted to run on wood pellets. It currently receives billions of pounds in state subsidies because of its alleged 'green credentials'. Carbon dioxide is converted into wood and burned to release carbon dioxide. This process is, however, far from 100% efficient. Drax has also had to supplement its wood pellet fuel with material imported from the USA's deep south. This latter material isn't guaranteed and its transport certainly adds to 'greenhouse gas' emissions (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/06/green-campaigners-fear-uk-to-renew-subsidies-to-drax-power-station). Horse Two: 'Oily Slick' is most recently manifested in the debate around whether the current UK government should re-approve drilling in the North Sea's Rosebank oilfield. Any oil would be extracted by a Norwegian consortium, and would finish up on the international market. The UK wouldn't feel any improvement in its energy security. There also wouldn't be much of an economic stimulus (except for the, already loaded, fossil fuel companies). The generated 'greenhouse gas' emissions, would confirm the UK isn't taking climate change seriously. This 'horse' ought to be a complete outsider (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/03/pm-faces-growing-internal-backlash-over-potential-approval-of-rosebank-oilfield). Horse Three: 'Flashes in the Pan'. This 'runner' links to the proposal to curtail the ability for folk to legally challenge infrastructure projects. It would, for example, make it easier to get a 3rd runway for London's Heathrow airport. This would increase 'greenhouse gas' emissions. Having 'green' aircraft fuels on tap is currently 'just an expensive gleam in their advocate's eye'. The only way in which the UK would be more 'open to business' post a 3rd runway, is by having boosted the profits of the airport operators, airways and holiday travel agencies. In a related vein, the drive to locate more small nuclear power stations to power a desired expansion of data centres, also seems ill-conceived. When operating, nuclear power stations don't emit 'greenhouse gases'. Building them, however, is a different story! Nuclear reactors use concrete and steel. Fuel for nuclear power stations also has to be imported (security?) and waste disposal is very problematic. Nuclear power stations also routinely take much longer to come online than people think. Data centres, not only require massive amounts of electricity, they also need copious supplies of cooling water. They might well result in many more job losses, than their building and operation creates (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/23/legal-challenges-to-infrastructure-projects-to-be-blocked-in-push-for-growth). Horse Four: 'Dobbin'. 'Dobbin' is a collection of old fashioned actions such as a) improving insulation for leaky buildings, b) encouraging home uptake of air pumps, solar panels, small turbines etc., c) facilitating greater use of relatively emissions-free public transport and d) greatly improving the country's electricity and water distribution systems. All, would require training of armies of skilled fitters and other technicians. By using less electricity and improving its renewables generation, these changes would certainly make the UK less reliant on imported oil and gas. The country would be clearly 'doing its bit' to counter climate change. 'Dobbin' doesn't involve the creation of impressive buildings etc. One, however, certainly gets 'more bang for one's buck' with this old nag. I'd put my entire wager down here!
No comments:
Post a Comment