Energy abundance – a radical rethink

The most significant and interesting contribution to discussion of net zero, industry and energy during the conference season definitely came from the Social Democratic Party (SDP).

The SDP green paper Energy Abundance tackles net zero ideology head on and proposes a radical re-think of energy policy and national renewal. It calls for a break from polices that have led to high energy prices and deindustrialisation.

The paper is more than just a dry policy document – it’s a complete break with the other parties’ energy consensus. It reads like a manifesto for material realism in an age of abstraction. Where the consensus parties emphasise net zero, decarbonisation and “just transitions” – the SDP uses the language of “sovereignty” and “productivity” and is critical of the costs to Britain of energy policy driven by ideology.

Reality

The paper is firmly based in material reality. It is essential reading for those who have had enough of high energy prices, intermittent sources soaking up money in subsidies, windmill generation dressed up as progress and the idea that Britain can remain a serious country while importing half its energy and pricing its industry out of existence.

The paper’s authors – Matthew Kirtley and Alastair Mellon – don’t hedge. They argue that Britain’s energy crisis is self-inflicted, born of “indifference, profiteering and lunacy”. That’s not just rhetorical heat. It’s backed by data: a 262.8 per cent real-terms rise in industrial electricity prices since 2004, and an estimated £3 trillion in lost output over two decades. What makes this paper compelling, though, isn’t just that it is a critique. It is that the SDP outlines clear alternatives.

It proposes a ten-year emergency plan to rebuild Britain’s energy system from the ground up. At its heart is a new state-owned monopoly – Central Energy – tasked with building 100 GW of new generation capacity: 40 GW gas, 20 GW coal, and 40 GW nuclear.

This is a full-scale reversal of the net zero project.

The paper drives a horse and cart through the risible assumptions of the green ideology: that, for example, wind and solar are environmentally friendly and an almost free energy source just waiting to be exploited.

So, the paper explains clearly energy density in terms of land use. Compared to natural gas, solar requires 40 times more land for the same nominal installed capacity, offshore wind 90 times more and onshore wind 230 times more. The capital cost for each unit of installed capacity is greater too. Land must be acquired and prepared; generation equipment, such as turbines and solar panels, and its infrastructure – cabling, collection stations, networking systems – must be installed. Also wind and solar have a significantly lower capacity factor (availability) compared to other generation sources.

The Energy Abundance green paper outlines three positive shifts away from net zero orthodoxy.

1. Energy as a public good, not a market commodity

The SDP calls time on the privatised energy market. They propose nationalising the entire system – from generation to retail – and fixing prices at 10p/kWh, roughly 60 per cent below current levels. This isn’t nostalgia for the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB), it’s a recognition that energy is foundational. You can’t run a country totally at the mercy of the market, especially an international market.

By treating energy as infrastructure rather than a tradable asset, the SDP reasserts the role of the state in securing prosperity. It’s a shift from market logic to civic logic.

2. Planning over intermittency

The paper is scathing about the rise of renewables (although it does not challenge the orthodoxy of climate change), because it rejects the idea that intermittency can be the backbone of a modern grid. The authors argue that the push for wind and solar has led to suppressed demand, price volatility, and a grid that’s dangerously fragile.

Their alternative is unapologetically firm although it may ruffle many feathers: gas, coal, and nuclear. These are technologies that can be planned, dispatched, and scaled. It’s a return to engineering logic, and a rejection of the idea that virtue can substitute for voltage.

3. Linking currency to energy: the energy credit

Perhaps the boldest proposal is the introduction of an “energy credit” – a new unit of account that pegs the pound to kilowatt-hours. This would anchor monetary value in physical production, reversing decades of financial abstraction.

It’s an idea that borders on revolutionary. By linking currency to energy, the SDP aims to restore the connection between value and work, between money and matter. It’s a philosophical shift as much as a policy one.

What about existing net zero infrastructure? The paper is blunt. The SDP proposes repealing the 2008 Climate Change Act and redirecting its earmarked spending to fund new coal and gas stations. That’s not just a change of direction – it’s a repudiation of the thinking behind net zero.

Its authors argue that much of the existing net zero infrastructure – offshore wind, interconnectors, battery subsidies – was built on flawed assumptions about demand suppression, about the scalability of intermittency, and about the ability of markets to deliver resilience.

But they don’t propose tearing it all down. Instead, they suggest rationalising it. That means re-evaluating projects based on their contribution to grid stability and economic productivity – not their compliance with emissions targets.

In practice, this would mean:

• Retaining renewables where they’re cost-effective and dispatchable, such as hydro or biomass.

• Deprioritising offshore wind farms that require vast subsidies and grid balancing costs.

• Halting further investment in interconnectors that deepen import dependence.

It’s not a scorched-earth policy but it is a complete reorientation – from climate compliance to national capability.

‘What makes this paper compelling, though, isn’t just that it is a critique. It is that the SDP outlines clear alternatives…’

The Energy Abundance green paper is a well argued, technical document which clearly explains the problem and sets out the solution. But in doing so it becomes deeply political. It calls out the flawed ideology and the “pretence” of elites who “traded our prosperity for their own self-righteousness”.

The document uses past history. The authors recall the CEGB, the dash for gas, and the coal closures – but refreshingly not as nostalgia, but as lessons. They understand that energy isn’t just a commodity – it’s the driving force of a nation, and the systems to provide it need planning.

This is a paper that won’t please everyone. It’s not trying to. It’s trying to start a fight – with the consensus, with orthodoxy, groupthink and ideology, and with the idea that Britain can just muddle through.

The SDP’s Energy Abundance is a rare thing in British politics: a document that combines economic realism with political courage. It doesn’t just diagnose the problem – it proposes a cure. And while that cure may be controversial, it’s coherent.

In an age of abstract ideals this is a paper rooted in the material world, and it refuses to pretend that prosperity can be conjured from spreadsheets and slogans. It is willing to do the heavy lifting of tackling a serious source of national decline.    

Our reader aims to contribute to the debate on net zero and influence it in a positive direction, as does Workers. This article is a shorter version of his blog piece – see https://shorturl.at/XFCxj