There was a recent Energy Security meeting in London. It was generally agreed that, having secure and reliable supplies of energy, was a top priority. Demand is increasing and supplies are getting less secure. Although the US is still set on relying on fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), this clearly isn't an option for most countries. Fossil fuels, for most recipients, are subject to control by potentially unreliable partners. Burning hydrocarbons also adds to climate change, damages air quality and, at their current rate of use, will last for less than 100 years. China, although it wasn't formally present at the meeting, clearly sees climate action as an alternative means for it to build international relationships. Some countries still see nuclear power as part of the mix for their energy security solutions. This is in spite of its high initial costs, reliance on imported fuels and spent fuel legacy. Some delegates thought the US rejection of climate policy, would offer them opportunities by diverting investment on renewables (solar and wind power) elsewhere. The availabilities of critical minerals (currently, largely controlled by China), will, however, be crucial for these developments (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/25/five-things-we-learned-about-the-future-of-energy-security-at-uk-summit). Clearly, Energy Security is national security. Changing circumstances, mean that counties are likely to move, where possible, to solutions where they are not dependent on the vagaries of supplies from external sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment