The UK’s energy security strategy is as much a recipe of failure now as it was before the government decided its last one had failed. And experts in the industry have come forward in their droves to point this fact out.

The majority agree that using less energy in the first place is the best place to start.

This from the New Scientist: “the strategy includes no major new energy efficiency measures and instead summarises policies previously announced. It claims that “by 2025, around 700,000 homes will be upgraded”, but it is far from clear how this will happen.”

 

Last month, the Climate Change Committee warned that the government’s current plans for insulating homes wouldn’t deliver on its targets.

The Institute for Public Policy Research highlighted key issues with what we know so far from what the government has trailed of its ‘British Energy Security Strategy,’ which include:

• The failure to mention reducing energy demand by investing in energy efficiency measures, which could reduce household bills this year.
• The failure to fully back onshore wind, a quick, cheap, and popular means of cleaning our energy supply and reducing demand for volatile fossil fuels.
• The decision to ramp up fossil fuel extraction, when we should be reducing it, and an over reliance on expensive nuclear power which will take years.

 

Luke Murphy, IPPR associate director for energy and climate, said:

“This energy strategy appears to be a recipe for failure. The choices the government appears to have made will see consumers pay more, leave the UK less secure, and expose us all to a greater risk from climate change, than if different choices had been made.

“This plan should have been a route map for the UK to make significant progress towards a more affordable, secure, and clean energy future, but from what we’ve seen so far, it falls short on every test.

“Onshore wind to boost clean energy supply and energy efficiency measures to reduce energy demand should have been at the heart of this strategy, but energy efficiency hasn’t been mentioned and the proposals for onshore wind appear pitiful.

“The government has instead placed a bet big on nuclear, which has a role, but remains too expensive and will take years to make a difference. The decision to ramp up exploration of oil and gas and reassess fracking beggars belief. Phasing out fossil fuels is not only essential for tackling the climate crisis and protecting future generations, but it is also in the interests of our energy and economic security.”

 

Joshua Emden, IPPR research fellow, said:

“Instead of a big boost to investment in energy efficiency and low-carbon heating that would cut hundreds of pounds off bills now, the government has set out vague commitments for the most expensive and slow-to-build energy technologies. After the failure to offer any meaningful support in the Spring Statement, this was yet another missed opportunity to help people who are feeling the squeeze from soaring energy bills.”