Tom Gillingham
Significant residual oil and gas reserves. Wind. Mountains and an abundance of rain for pumped hydro. Fast flowing tidal streams. And yet, when it comes to energy, Scotland still risks talking itself out of the opportunities this mix represents.
As a species, we like the apparent simplicity of binary choices. Apple or Android. Oasis or Blur. Renewables or fossil fuels.
The latter is a false dichotomy, but the weekend brought the latest example of how this is, nevertheless, becoming a staple of political thinking. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch pledged more North Sea oil extraction, with ‘net zero’ damned in the same breath.
The sooner this ‘either/or’ obsession ends, the more quickly Scotland can raise its gaze from its navel and capitalise on our duality of riches.
However, this requires an imperfect reality to be acknowledged.
Short of complete economic collapse, a tapering need for hydrocarbons will persist in the UK for the foreseeable future.
The independent Climate Change Committee estimates that the UK requires 13-15 billion barrels of oil and gas by the country’s net zero target date of 2050. Half of this could come from the North Sea.
That’s uncomfortable for some. But once we acknowledge it, there is an opportunity to have an honest conversation about the upsides if we stop suppressing existing assets, reserves and skills while simultaneously building a greener future.
All oil has a startling carbon cost. Imported oil’s is inherently higher.
On the renewables side, we are staring down the barrel of some of the most complex infrastructure and grid build this nation has ever seen.
As a result, some people believe any flavour of energy optimism is misguided. In LinkedIn posts and in the comments sections of news articles, the sceptics revel in explaining why we are all, in fact, doomed.
This gloom has some reasonable foundations. The scale of oil and gas job losses in Scotland is alarming. Renewable projects face myriad challenges. The global economy is not exactly rosy.
But what about the people who aren’t ready to throw in the towel? Those who still want to live and work and prosper here?
In communications terms, we’re in desperate need of a Scottish equivalent of John F Kennedy’s frank yet inspiring exhortation to get the US to the moon. “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”
A successful energy transition will be incredibly hard, but creating false dichotomies between technologies elevates that difficulty level unnecessarily.
Even if we’re not trying to plonk a flag on our nearest celestial body, acknowledging and challenging adversity can result in positive outcomes.
Around the time of JFK’s stellar speech, I’m sure plenty of people here were ready to the write off the viability of the North Sea on account of some of the most dangerous waters on earth. But Scottish engineers found a way.
What about a seemingly pie-in-the-sky vision of building hydroelectric and pumped hydro storage projects across inhospitable highland terrain in the immediate aftermath of a shattering global conflict? Sure. No bother.
This sort of national mission – focusing on the economic and societal prize in realistic but positive terms, rather than obsessing over what we can’t have – could be something to unite a potentially disparate future Scottish parliament.
Whether it’s green hydrogen, floating offshore wind, tidal stream, (whisper it here) small nuclear reactors, or admitting that skilfully managed North Sea extraction might be the best of our available options, Scotland has the resources, skills potential and internationally recognised ingenuity to do it all.
All that’s missing is a consensus that energy abundance is possible and desirable. Coupled with a will to pursue it because it is hard to do, and therefore worth it.