Think it's Time to Start Drilling

If we care about removing carbon we should prioritise the most cost effective projects to do so. If we care about cost of living and economic growth we should choose the cheapest good energy source.

this makes no sense

Unfortunately we would need 25 Hinkley Point C power stations to replace the UKs current gas demand per year.

You might get away with less, because a lot of gas is used for heating and heat pumps use about 1/3 as much power as gas equivalent. So say 1/3 of that, or 8x Hinkley Point C.

Sounds do-able. Until you realise that that is just the gas. Add in oil and there is a similar amount, without the efficiency reduction. So another 25x Hinkley Point C.

So something of the order of 32 Hinkley Point C's to replace all our current gas and oil (fossil fuel) usage that is mainly in a non electricity generating capacity.

One of them is taking 10 years to build, and costing £50 billion. And we haven't even got to the stage where we might be finding out stuff that is wrong with the build yet (see Finland).

We haven't even figured out where to put and process the old waste from the old nuclear stations we have shut down. Trying to find a geological depository has gone on for years. Let alone 32 new monster power stations.

sorry i don't understand the analogy - if we drill more it will not bring down our electricity prices, or petrol prices, it gets sold on the international markets goiving oil and gas companies more profit.

the quickest eaiest way to remove ourselves from being a slave to oil prices is renewables.our energy prices are cheapoer because of them already and could be even more with simple govt action.

Decisions are taken at the margin though.

Should you buy a new coat if you have a perfectly good one already?

Your method would say: well, is the new coat cheaper than what I paid for my current one? If yes, I should buy a new one.

That’s not a sensible way to make the decision.

A better objection would be: the existing coat isn’t a “good” one. (It’s highly polluting).

My point is that the coat can be made good (the pollution can be far more than offset) with significantly less money that we have instead spent on a new coat.

If we care about removing carbon we should prioritise the most cost effective projects to do so. If we care about cost of living and economic growth we should choose the cheapest good energy source.

By combining these issues we are doing neither well.

The energy source that comes closest to doing both is nuclear, which is what we should prioritise.

I believe there are shadow fleets with Iranian oil going to China and has been for many years.

Those figures are misleading

The gas figure (£30-50/MWh) is the most problematic claim. This appears to be the short-run marginal cost of running an already-built gas plant (essentially just fuel costs), not the full cost of building and running new gas capacity. Government estimates put the levelised cost of new gas CCGT plants at around £114/MWh for 2025 — more than double the post’s figure. So the author is comparing the total system cost of wind (including storage) against the running cost only of gas, which is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
You’re right that renewables are currently cheaper. Wind power reduced wholesale electricity prices by around 25% in 2024 — without it, average day-ahead prices of £73-76/MWh could have been as high as £96-101/MWh.

A few shadow fleet vessels have been intercepted lately. The most recent one by the Belgians. Why would the shadow fleet be going through Hormuz? They usually go from the Baltic ports to various Russian-friendly countries like India. Europe's reliance on Russian gas has plummeted and the pipeline serving Hungary and Slovakia has been cut off.

If the Saudis weren't making so much money from oil then they wouldn't be able to afford the same extravagant lifestyles.

No, any extra drilling just gets sold abroad, more profit for the few.

renewables is the only answer.

break the link between home energy and oil and gas

I feel like people constantly have to have this very slowly explained to them.

Bicycles on the other hand do not. With one I'm basically immune to petrol prices.

Trains for longer distances.

EVs are powered by electricity from gas fired power stations.

Thanks. Well I can't see any way off cutting them off (Russia) any time soon. Can you? And how?

In what way are we disrupting the shadow fleet? It seems there are still a few boats getting through the strait of hormuz, I am guessing these are the shadow fleet maybe so not cut off.

How do you propose we tackle the wastefulness of SA, etc? They're not going to suddenly stop exporting.

Well Russia's war is funded by fossil fuel purchases, if we can cut them off then the war (and the environmental harm it causes) will stop. We do at least appear to be making progress with disrupting the shadow fleet.

Meanwhile the wastefulness of various places (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Texas) is also funded by oil revenues.

Evs come at a great cost too to the environment.

We can't really afford the pivot to renewables

I'd argue we can't afford not to. If we had done it earlier, we wouldn't be exposed to this now and at the mercy of hostile states. Energy independence is a national security imperative, I can't understand why anyone doesn't recognize this. Just drilling more and kicking the can down the road is only going to lead us into a worse mess.

(Also feeling pretty smug about my EV right now 😉)

I think the best thing the UK can do about this is to divert funding from (very expensive) domestic decarbonisation like wind power + storage, towards far more cost-effective interventions overseas.

What cost effective interventions are these?

Top oil producers - United States, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, and China, Iraq, Iran, UAE, Kuwait, Brazil abd Venezula.* *

Just wondering how we are supposed to intevene in these countries especially as US seems to be trying to do so and causing more problems.

Plus long term coal, oil and gas will run out and we will need to shift just perhaps not how we are trying to do so now.

I also think climate change is real and serious.

I think the best thing the UK can do about this is to divert funding from (very expensive) domestic decarbonisation like wind power + storage, towards far more cost-effective interventions overseas.

Yes, I agree that it's definitely a good thing from the relying on dodgy countries perspective but it still won't make a difference environmentally.

The less we rely on fossil fuels the less we are dependant on dodgy countries to supply them.

I think we should be focusing on reducing our reliance on oil and fossil fuels full stop.

We are globally.

Renewables overtake coal as world's biggest source of electricity

Developing countries, especially China, led the clean energy charge but richer nations including the US and EU relied more than before on planet-warming fossil fuels for electricity generation.

...

Even though China is still adding to its fleet of coal-fired power stations, it also remains way ahead in clean energy growth, adding more solar and wind capacity than the rest of the world combined. This enabled the growth in renewable generation in China to outpace rising electricity demand and helped reduce its fossil fuel generation by 2%.
India experienced slower electricity demand growth and also added significant new solar and wind capacity, meaning it too cut back on coal and gas.
In contrast, developed nations like the US, and also the EU, saw the opposite trend.
In the US, electricity demand grew faster than clean energy output, increasing reliance on fossil fuels, while in the EU, months of weak wind and hydropower performance led to a rise in coal and gas generation.

I don't think the focus or speed is right in UK and the high engery costs are likely stiffling economic growth but the overall direction towards renewables is the right approach.

If we put a fraction of the investment into tackling climate change that we put into war, we could solve so much. It’s depressing how short-sighted and selfish the human race in general is - happily ignoring the biggest problem of them all while trashing the planet. I think we should be focusing on reducing our reliance on oil and fossil fuels full stop.

There were two different projects one a tidal estaury one and one a bay one near us - both have had Environmental push back and ultimatley failed to get permission depsite several efforts and the money for the projects went away.

Eveyone rails at China but they have massively increased the world solar and wind electcity generation and have made serious inroads into electric vehicles.

The USA is the problem child and points fingers to hide that.

The U.S. military alone is the world’s largest institutional consumer of petroleum and a top global greenhouse gas emitter, generating an estimated 55–60 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. If considered a country, its emissions would rank higher than many industrial nations, with roughly 60% of emissions from operational fuel use and 40% from its vast infrastructure.

Yes. Renewable energy doesn’t supply anywhere near enough.

Ah, another free thinker with zero understanding of climate science.

Man made climate change is not a lie that's been repeated. It's a fact.

The thought of it may be too much for you, knowing that it is an existential crisis. You may want to deny it, and take solace in conspiracy theories, but that doesn't change the fundamental truth.

The world is heating due to the actions of humanity. Essentially the world as we know it is fucked.

Because tidal power is very expensive to install and maintain due to corrosive nature of seawater. It barely covers the costs of what it creates (it's not constant either).

It can only be installed in a few places around the country in comparison with wind and it's not as environmentally friendly as you think. It causes species avoidance, injury and seabed habitat loss. The size of area required is much greater. It also prevents fishing.