Why our energy strategy needs redirection, not delay tactics

Joe Collison is managing director of CES, a specialist electrical contractor delivering renewable installations and technology, including solar PV and energy storage solutions, across Shropshire, Wales, the Midlands and wider UK.

Energy security means national security

“Energy security means national security” that’s my take-away from Telford MP Shaun Davies’ speech recently in the House of Commons.

Mr Davies called for the government to invest in renewable and nuclear energy – a move to help cut pollution, lower energy bills and protect the country.

He highlighted how tackling climate change was a “top topic” amongst children and young people when he visited schools and colleges in his Telford constituency. And rightly made the point that in an environment where energy costs are high and rising, businesses are looking to renewable energy instead.

Mr Davies asked the secretary of state for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband, for energy security and net zero to be a “key mission” for the Government, to protect the planet for generations to come.

Obviously, regardless of politics and this isn’t a political post, this plea to Mr Miliband is one I would echo. We need clean, home-grown power.

The carbon capture question

But I have to question the current approach to carbon capture and hydrogen investments though. These technologies, as currently prioritised, risk becoming delay tactics extending the life of fossil fuel industries rather than speeding up our journey to net zero.

The government has committed billions to carbon capture and blue hydrogen projects – but they have limitations. Blue hydrogen, derived from natural gas with carbon capture, keeps us tethered to fossil fuel infrastructure and often fails to deliver the emissions reductions promised.

Yet, the UK government considers blue hydrogen part of its strategy to transition to low-carbon energy and meet its net zero target by 2050.

A better bridge: business energy independence

It’s positioned as a ‘bridge technology’ until green hydrogen (produced using renewable electricity to split water through electrolysis) becomes more widespread and economically viable. Realistically though, given the laws of physics, hydrogen will always need three times more units of electricity to produce a single unit of hydrogen for energy or transport applications. That’s surely why electrification makes far more sense? Both economically and environmentally.

There are other ways of bridging this gap too, for example, by actively encouraging businesses and organisations to take responsibility for their own energy supply. Yes, I know you’d expect me to say this, but when there is Government funding out there to support the installation of technologies such as solar PV and energy storage. If you would like to know more about what funding is available, give me a shout on LinkedIn and I can point you in the right direction!

Giving businesses control over how and when they generate their own energy gives industry energy independence while kickstarting their own green policies – creating a genuine path to decarbonisation rather than prolonging our fossil fuel dependence.

Solar and storage: the practical solution

Hydrogen does have its place in our energy future – but in specific applications like agriculture – not in the broader areas where our government seems determined to invest.

I think our future energy grid needs to harness the unrealised potential of renewable electricity, supported by nuclear – the latter is simply not economically an option. We can’t build it cheap enough to have enough of it.

Solar, wind and energy storage can be the foundation of a balanced approach providing reliable baseload power and energy security while genuinely reducing emissions.

Taking action locally

Thanks Shaun Davies MP for taking the voice of the next generation and growing businesses to Parliament. I might email this article as a letter to my MP Julia Buckley too, and let’s see if we can’t get Shropshire on the map for its approach to growing a low carbon economy.