Opinion | Energy Supply: Back to Basics

So the figurehead of the most powerful government in the world has claimed once again that climate change is simply a hoax. Whilst fires, tornadoes and floods might give a bit of a clue otherwise, it seems there is so much economic advantage in appearing to keep the head firmly in the sand, that this is currently likely to continue.

I believe all this is missing the point, however.

Back in the1970’s the (so-called) energy crisis arose, and there were the first understandings that the substance we relied upon for our heating, transport and Tupperware parties was actually not going to last forever. Someone else had control of the source, and we were suddenly beholden to them. So began the idea of limiting the consumption of these resources, and the words ‘energy’ and ‘efficiency’ became friends.

Meanwhile, however, some people on a small island in the middle of the Pacific had been building huge projects which harnessed potentially infinite resources. They built dams, big ones, and impressive machines below the ground to produce great lumps of power. Now, though, we are all beginning to enjoy our wonderful electric cars, our decarbonisation, and our induction cookers – we’re going to need more lumps.

And today, as our fuel prices gallop ever higher, we are in another supply chain issue, this time a geopolitically based one. But as we are always told, there is opportunity in adversity. Even once the Strait of Hormuz becomes a beautiful haven for shipping, there is sure to be another supply chain problem somewhere, and we could be better prepared.

So what is my point? Whilst the electricity generation and retail industry is well renowned for its complexity, I would like to put forward a few very simple thought bites.

Firstly, do we really appreciate the fantastic significance of those power projects, and the foresight and vision it would have taken to push them through? Now, more than ever, surely we need to build upon this, and research, effort and investment needs to focus upon more projects that create truly renewable sources of energy. It cannot make sense to promote those that cling on to the last possible remnants of stuff that will run out. Whether it be peak gas, peak oil or peak uranium, the clue is in the name.

Can we keep in mind the importance of peak electrical load, like the UK’s ‘Coronation Street Effect’ when the electricity grid surges as millions of kettles go on as the programme ends? If we are to move away from burning coal and gas during times of peak load, and allow our decarbonisation projects to be truly so, then more infrastructure projects that creatively tackle this issue will be an important part of the equation.

Are we conscious that the units of power that we use in our homes are the result of a greater number of units of power being generated at the power station, due to the losses in getting that power to us? We can save more than just our power costs by putting that wind turbine in the garden or those solar panels on the roof and the batteries in the garage.

Are we cognisant that we are part of the geopolitical world, and our defence strategy and trade figures rely heavily upon being seen as more than just an attractive place to visit? Only by demonstrating a true commitment to this small planet can we actually be alongside those countries who do not have a geothermal or hydroelectric headstart, and who are putting in huge amounts of effort to reduce their fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions.

Finally, are we concerned about what we are leaving to our descendants? To the best of our current knowledge it is likely that there will always be specific needs for the resources we are currently squandering. By desperately clawing for as much as we can of the last of them now, we are simply making it harder for future generations to deal with the climate problems that are inevitably leaving behind for them.