Skip to main content

The Geopolitics of energy heat up

The pace of global warming has nearly doubled since 2015, while global energy issues are becoming much more fraught, with wars and market chaos adding to the worsening climate problem.  But the UN says countries should not delay climate action in an era of geopolitical instability.  Instead they should recognise decarbonisation & adaptation as the foundation for security and crisis management. 

However, while some are trying, the US notably apart, in this context, some recent policy shifts in Europe seem to be perverse. For example, as I noted in my last post, France has cut its renewable energy targets back. In addition, Germany is to scrap parts of a contentious heating law mandating the use of renewables in favour of a draft law allowing homeowners to rely on fossil fuels. 

The previous energy law in Germany, produced in 2023 when the Greens were in the governing coalition, required most new heating systems to use at least 65% renewable energy, with heat pumps pushed hard- including grants to cover some of the high cost of installation. However, as the Guardian noted, ‘the far-right, climate-sceptic Alternative für Deutschland party raged against the 2023 law, in particular its promotion of heat pumps, attacking the Greens for forcing households to make expensive renovations and taking away their freedom to choose’. 

The current chancellor, the SPD conservative Friedrich Merz, claimed the change will uphold CO2 emissions targets, while giving homeowners more choice as to which technology to use. But the Greens saw it as putting climate targets in jeopardy. It does sound worrying. Although Germany remains non-nuclear, despite Merz wishing it was otherwise: ‘it is the way it is, and we are now concentrating on the energy policy we have’.

Meantime though, Germany has seen 10GW of offshore wind installed and the EU has agreed to €3bn more in state aid support for more German green power. That’s maybe just as well given that the new Middle East war is likely to reduce the availability of gas and oil. Or will Germany and other EU countries be forced to buy in LPG from the USA? Some say that was Trumps plan all along…although, what seems to have been the ostensible starting point was a dubious US understanding of uranium enrichment issues.  More generally it might be seen  just the latest instalment in the long-running and worsening geopolitical conflict over continued access to increasingly scarce fossil fuel resources, with a key focus always being the balance of political and military power in the Middle East. 

However, whatever the cause, being hopeful, the US- Israel attack on Iran might provide a new incentive for Europe to push renewables harder so as to avoid energy price shocks. That approach has been argued forcefully in the UK, with PM Kier Starmer saying ‘What gives us control is renewables. Our own home-grown energy which is then more secure and more independent. That’s why I think we should go further and faster on renewables. Let’s get control of our own energy…so we don’t have to keep worrying that our bills are going to go up.’ The Climate Change Committee has also said that the UK Government could deliver its long-term net-zero target for less than it spent responding to the energy price crisis resulting from the Russia-Ukraine war.  Certainly, we should learn from that. For example, as Carbon Brief says, it is very odd that we still have the cost of power tied to the cost of gas. 

So what happens next?  It’s a big mess…. maybe the worst so far in energy crisis terms, but also politically.  Russia is the only country possibly to benefit from it all, with the US lifting some the sanctions on Russian oil exports

Will China come to the rescue, with its massive green energy programme? It is certainly  doing better on that than its rival 7G countries.  Or does it have too many internal policy uncertainties for green energy to continue and grow and for emissions to continue to fall? We will have to wait to see - it too is reliant on imported fossil gas.  But it is also exporting and investing in green energy technology around the world.  Is that just the start of a new imperialism, or a hopeful step to a greener world?

Although, as noted above, leaving that issue aside, there are some positive signs of progress globally, and nearer to home UK carbon emissions have been cut. And progress on that looks like continuing. The next round of the renewable CfD auctions (AR8) has been brought forward to July to help improve energy security, with renewable expansion, and the move to Net Zero, being seen as part of a sensible response to the likely impacts of the war on energy prices.  

That’s what Carbon Brief has also concluded –  it says clean energy will cut UK gas imports by more than new North sea drilling. And that’s just with the familiar wind and solar options, plus heat pumps and a bit of energy saving.  But there are also other options that may be able to help. For example, the Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association  says existing biomethane/biogas plants could increase production by almost a third within months if government removes regulatory barriers for home heating.  A new report for DESNZ says green hydrogen for power production and energy storage is also worth a look. And there’s also geothermal - the first big deep hot rock power plant is now running in Cornwall.  In addition, although maybe longer term, there are many possible contributions from tidal schemes – the UK is a leader.  Basically, in an emergency, it’s all hands to the pump and the UK has plenty of options, including many energy saving/efficiency upgrading options in all sectors.  

However, sadly, while there are some bright spots like this, most of the wider global news is dominated by bad trends, such as the endless use of human ingenuity, including now AI, in horrendous new wars. Would it be good if super-rational AI systems refused to work on crazy destructive suboptimal projects and in effect told us to address the global eco-issues instead? Or would that be the start of a machine tyranny? But, surely, we can’t carry on like this, endlessly killing people and wrecking the planet. When will it ever stop?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av...

Nuclear Reliability- an uncertain route

 Nuclear energy provides reliable, baseload, low-carbon electricity that complements the variability of wind and solar’. That, boiled down, is the UK governments view, as relayed in a response by the Department of Energy Security and New Zero to a critique by Prof Steve Thomas and Paul Dorfman. Well, none if it holds up to examination. Low carbon? Not if you include uranium mining, waste handling and plant decommissioning. Baseload? A dodgy idea!  A Department of Energy minister had previously admitted that ‘although some power plants are referred to as baseload generators, there is no formal definition of this term’ and the Department ‘does not place requirements on generation from particular technologies’.  A key point is that nuclear plants are not that reliable- if nothing else, they have to be shut down occasionally for maintenance and refuelling. Add to that unplanned outages, and nuclear plants are not very sensible as backup - especially given their high capital ...

A golden nuclear age

 Nuclear power will help take us into a ‘golden age of clean energy abundance’. So said UK Energy Secretary Ed Milliband, in the run up to the public spending review. He announced an extra £14.2 billion in state support for EdFs proposed 3.2GW Sizewell C European Pressurised-water Reactor (EPR) and also £2.5bn for small modular reactor support, with Rolls Royce having won the UK Small Modular Reactor (SMR) competition. There would also be £2.5bn to support fusion.  Whereas there has been a lot a concern about the cost of Sizewell, given the delays and over-runs with its sister EPR plant at Hinkley, it was argued that the second plant would benefit from the lessons learnt, and certainly Miliband was very single-minded about it: ‘all of the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. In any sensible reckoning, this is essential to get to our clean power and net zero ambitions.’  Not everyone agreed with that, and, in any case, as t...