Clive Moffatt is an energy analyst and former chairman of the UK Energy Security Group
For too long, a vocal minority of activists from across the traditional political spectrum have been allowed to dominate the conversation about Net Zero.
In its recent “Powering Britain” announcement, the Government missed an excellent opportunity to redress this bias in the debate, and begin the process of addressing the concerns of many voters seeking a more balanced approach.
This, in the words of Bernard Looney, CEO of BP, would involve “investing in today’s system as well as investing in the transition” to underpin supply and price security.
Many intransigent advocates of Net Zero, both in the industry and the media, have criticised the Government for not going far enough to drive decarbonisation.
However, it could also be argued that, in terms of underpinning energy supply and price security, the Government is seeking to do too much too quickly by over-playing the feasibility of various new technologies, including carbon capture and storage (CCS), battery storage, hydrogen, off-shore wind generation, and large/small nuclear reactors.
At the same time, it is under-playing the essential role of unabated natural gas in underpinning energy security for the next 20 years.
In particular, there is nothing in the Net Zero strategy that explains either how the Government intends to substantiate the claim that the policy “recognises the vital role that oil and gas will play in the transition to Net Zero” or whether what is being proposed is both technically feasible and cost-effective.
For example, there is still no indication from the Treasury of the overall impact of infrastructure costs on Government sector borrowing or the scale, and the immediate and direct cost to taxpayers and consumers of so-called green levies, which will disproportionally impact those consumers less able to pay.
There are a number of existing, and potential, technological, commercial, and planning constraints which could mean that the green targets now proposed, and indeed the 2050 Net Zero deadline itself, are unattainable.
More needs to be done now to underpin new private investment in existing forms of energy security to avoid a scenario where we have mothballed our existing supply and infrastructure before the promised alternatives are viable. This in turn implies a need to scale back on new investment in intermittent renewables and expensive and limited electricity storage, and delaying the decarbonisation of domestic heating.
To shift to a more balanced position, I would recommend the following additions to the current Energy Bill, which will shortly make its way from the Lords to the Commons:
- Imposing a Public Service Obligation (PSO) on gas suppliers and shippers in the UK to store a greater proportion of their estimated demand for gas for heat and power, thereby underpinning new investment in gas storage;
- Imposing on the Electricity System Operator (ESO) an obligation to ensure that the power reliability margin is not allowed to fall below ten per cent of projected demand, thus empowering the Dept for Energy Security to establish a separate auction for peak unabated OCGT gas generation;
- Removing the 2035 deadline for banning the sale of natural gas boilers for domestic heating, because at the moment heat pumps and/or hydrogen are neither technically feasible, scalable or affordable.
I suspect that such amendments not being proposed for political reasons.
Indeed, given the possibility that the Tories could sneak the next general election by slashing borrowing and controlling inflation and illegal immigration, why should a Conservative Government rock the boat by doing anything now that could be construed by the Opposition and the mainstream media as backing off the Net Zero deadline?
It would appear that Number 10 is quite happy, in the run up to the election, to snipe at Labour for making unrealistic and expensive promises to eliminate gas altogether from the energy mix by 2030, while maintaining it is doing all that it can to achieve the 2050 Net Zero target.
However, another view is that the Government could benefit politically if it acted now to address growing public concerns about feasibility and costs of the transition.
As evidenced in Germany and Italy, the tide is turning against moving too fast and closing our eyes to the technical, commercial and particularly the cost limitations of CCS, offshore wind, and nuclear, and the electrification of heat and transport.
I suspect this trend will only strengthen as the massive level of public financial support required to ignite the desired level of private sector investment to achieve the 2050 target is becoming increasingly apparent.
Clive Moffatt is an energy analyst and former chairman of the UK Energy Security Group
For too long, a vocal minority of activists from across the traditional political spectrum have been allowed to dominate the conversation about Net Zero.
In its recent “Powering Britain” announcement, the Government missed an excellent opportunity to redress this bias in the debate, and begin the process of addressing the concerns of many voters seeking a more balanced approach.
This, in the words of Bernard Looney, CEO of BP, would involve “investing in today’s system as well as investing in the transition” to underpin supply and price security.
Many intransigent advocates of Net Zero, both in the industry and the media, have criticised the Government for not going far enough to drive decarbonisation.
However, it could also be argued that, in terms of underpinning energy supply and price security, the Government is seeking to do too much too quickly by over-playing the feasibility of various new technologies, including carbon capture and storage (CCS), battery storage, hydrogen, off-shore wind generation, and large/small nuclear reactors.
At the same time, it is under-playing the essential role of unabated natural gas in underpinning energy security for the next 20 years.
In particular, there is nothing in the Net Zero strategy that explains either how the Government intends to substantiate the claim that the policy “recognises the vital role that oil and gas will play in the transition to Net Zero” or whether what is being proposed is both technically feasible and cost-effective.
For example, there is still no indication from the Treasury of the overall impact of infrastructure costs on Government sector borrowing or the scale, and the immediate and direct cost to taxpayers and consumers of so-called green levies, which will disproportionally impact those consumers less able to pay.
There are a number of existing, and potential, technological, commercial, and planning constraints which could mean that the green targets now proposed, and indeed the 2050 Net Zero deadline itself, are unattainable.
More needs to be done now to underpin new private investment in existing forms of energy security to avoid a scenario where we have mothballed our existing supply and infrastructure before the promised alternatives are viable. This in turn implies a need to scale back on new investment in intermittent renewables and expensive and limited electricity storage, and delaying the decarbonisation of domestic heating.
To shift to a more balanced position, I would recommend the following additions to the current Energy Bill, which will shortly make its way from the Lords to the Commons:
I suspect that such amendments not being proposed for political reasons.
Indeed, given the possibility that the Tories could sneak the next general election by slashing borrowing and controlling inflation and illegal immigration, why should a Conservative Government rock the boat by doing anything now that could be construed by the Opposition and the mainstream media as backing off the Net Zero deadline?
It would appear that Number 10 is quite happy, in the run up to the election, to snipe at Labour for making unrealistic and expensive promises to eliminate gas altogether from the energy mix by 2030, while maintaining it is doing all that it can to achieve the 2050 Net Zero target.
However, another view is that the Government could benefit politically if it acted now to address growing public concerns about feasibility and costs of the transition.
As evidenced in Germany and Italy, the tide is turning against moving too fast and closing our eyes to the technical, commercial and particularly the cost limitations of CCS, offshore wind, and nuclear, and the electrification of heat and transport.
I suspect this trend will only strengthen as the massive level of public financial support required to ignite the desired level of private sector investment to achieve the 2050 target is becoming increasingly apparent.