Climate change: Can the Russian energy crisis help to curb global heating?

Can the government wean the UK off Russian gas while keeping energy affordable and meeting its climate change goals?

Boris Johnson has promised to soon develop an energy strategy that does all three things.

Can he pull it off and what political hurdles does he face?

Some journalists have been informed that the prime minister may encourage further research into fracking – where rocks are cracked underground to release gas.

But otherwise, the launch won’t offer radically new policies – rather an acceleration of existing plans.

One thing is clear: there will be no new coal-fired power plants.

But Mr. Johnson’s reasoning is being pulled in two directions.

The Department of Economic Affairs (BEIS) and most experts tell him existing fossil fuel reduction plans to protect the climate will help protect the UK from skyrocketing global oil and gas prices.

They want government support for home insulation to reduce demand for gas heating. They say that alternatives such as electric heat pumps should be deployed quickly. And they want a much faster deployment of renewable and nuclear energy.

Conservative commentators share the desire for new nuclear power plants but insist the UK should also resume fracking to protect the UK from rising fuel prices.

The Prime Minister wants to announce short-term to long-term plans.

Immediate cheap – or even free – results can be achieved by reducing our use of gas and oil, for example.

The International Energy Agency is urging everyone to turn the thermostat down a degree – it says it can save up to 10% on heating energy (and costs).

Insulation is another no-brainer quick hit — and it makes your home more comfortable. A “sausage” draft excluder for a door also makes a small difference, as does a simple draft excluder. It’s an easy success to only heat the spaces you use.

A speed limit of 85km/h – the most efficient driving speed for many cars – could be imposed during the energy crisis to cut CO2 emissions, although a libertarian PM could resist it, and the RAC Foundation said it certainly would it would be more effective to make fewer journeys and to brake and accelerate more gently.

Trains could reduce their maximum speed and reduce service to avoid empty runs.

The public could accept the restrictions if they were convinced of an urgent need.

Some analysts want the government to quickly phase out sales of new gas boilers and cooktops. Boilers running on imported gas would be replaced by electric heat pumps powered by electricity from UK wind farms.

That would immediately reduce demand, but it would require a challenging increase in heat pump installations when there are too few installers and a bad supply chain.

Others want a government energy-saving campaign like the one used in the 1970s to deal with the oil crisis, with cheeky slogans like “save energy – bathe with friends”.

What is medium term?

This is where the fracking debate comes in. When fracking began in Britain, there were high hopes that Britain could emulate the cheap energy boom in the United States.

But there were problems. The operators could not foresee the effects of the fracking process, neighbors complained about slight tremors and house prices. In addition, geologists began to express doubts – not about the amount of shale gas in Britain, but about our potential ability to extract it from the ground.

Economists then warned that any fracked gas would be resold on the world market lest it sharply drive down UK prices anyway.

Former gas giant Centrica boss Iain Conn – previously a shale fan – told BBC Radio 4’s Today program: “I don’t think it’s possible to drill enough wells to make a significant difference to the UK’s supply cause.”

In 2019, the government imposed a moratorium on fracking, which a statement #10 said would last until companies could ensure shale gas could be extracted without significant tremors. That’s the official line – but a Downing Street spokesman said nothing had been ruled out.

The prime minister could hypothetically announce an inquiry that might or might not be in favor of fracking – but at least would ease the political pressure on some of his backbenchers.

Wind energy is also medium-term. Onshore wind power is cheap and polls consistently show that the general public likes it. That hasn’t stopped some newspapers from calling them “hated” wind farms.

The government previously responded to pressure from local opponents and enacted rules that effectively allow only one protester to destroy a project.

Operators say they need to change those rules.

The development of offshore wind farms currently takes up to 20 years. But operators say new turbines could be spinning in as little as two years if the government allocates more resources to the financially strapped agencies that give their consent.

Then offshore oil and gas operations are a medium to long-term bet. They take an average of 28 years to start production, but even that could be sped up.

There is no longer a gold mine for fossil fuels in the North Sea. Many stocks are exhausted and all products are sold at world market prices anyway. But ministers decided before Vladimir Putin’s war that getting British gas with British jobs and taxes was better than liquefying foreign gas, which has more environmental impact.

This has been controversial: The International Energy Agency wants to stop all new fossil fuels because enough has already been found to ruin the climate.

The same MPs who are calling for fracking are also backing new nuclear power plants – but they are expected to take decades to build, and the recent Chernobyl reactor incident in Ukraine will not make the permitting process any easier.

Some environmentalists also support nuclear power to cover renewable energy when the wind isn’t blowing.

But the government didn’t go for it until recently because of public fears, the lack of waste storage and, importantly, the cost. Nuclear power comes in at around £90 per megawatt hour, while new offshore wind power costs around half that.

But after decades of Tories and Labor trembling, the winds are clearly blowing in the direction of nuclear power. And Mr Johnson will offer a re-push on Sizewell C and a push on mini-reactors. Nuclear enthusiasts say Britain needs a slew of new nuclear weapons to play a meaningful role in the energy mix.

It is potentially a critical moment in UK energy history.

The government has been criticized for failing to deliver on its climate change promises, but Putin’s missiles could have turbocharged plans to improve energy security while cutting emissions.

Labor has seized the moment by calling for a so-called energy sprint – the expansion of renewable and nuclear energy.

It says insulating 19 million homes over a decade would cut UK gas imports by 15% and save up to £400 on the average energy bill.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak has so far refused to commit to a comprehensive long-term home renovation and energy efficiency strategy that could keep bills down.

Labor believes progress has been delayed because the government feels the breath of climate skeptics over its shoulder.

Liberal Democrats and Greens have long been calling for tougher action on energy-saving and low-CO2 household electricity.

So fracking could make headlines in the upcoming Prime Minister’s speech.

But the real test will be whether the government is finally willing to invest the money and policies to meet its climate goals, keep bills down and protect us from Mr Putin’s war.

Follow Roger on Twitter @rharrabin