Energy Independence or Independence from Energy

Energy has become the subject of geopolitics. That’s why I say that for an issue to be considered a geopolitical risk, it must arise around Türkiye—because energy is here.

Last week, I wrote that it’s not Iran that’s cornered in Basra, but China. China didn’t react strongly to the pressure in the Red Sea because it had taken precautions with its corridor projects. But when it comes to Basra, it’s not as indifferent.

Even its extensive preparations are not enough. China’s policy focus has shifted from trade to energy.

China, which wants to avoid geopolitical risks—or rather, doesn’t want to run out of energy—is now increasing its preparations. Right after my article, reports surfaced that China had allocated around $30 billion to build 11 nuclear power plants.

China is the world’s third-largest nuclear energy producer. Back in 2020, it was revealed that China planned to build 150 new plants by 2035, as part of its strategy to reduce energy dependency. Meanwhile, Germany has been dismantling cooling towers of a nuclear plant that hadn’t even reached the end of its lifespan. Italy has turned to alternative energy technologies with China. In Europe, there’s even debate about companies making their own nuclear investments.

On the other hand, China alone produces half as much energy from renewable sources as Europe does in total. Imagine if this amount of energy had to be met by importing oil or natural gas. Energy prices would be even higher than they are today. But even this level of production is small in scale.

Over 50% of China’s energy still comes from coal, largely from its own resources. As renewable energy production increases, coal imports are decreasing, which might indicate that China views renewable energy as an alternative to coal. Perhaps it sees nuclear energy investments as an alternative to oil. Is it that systematic? I’m not sure.

Another surprising development in the energy world is Saudi Arabia’s plan to increase its investments in renewable energy. Although, it should be less surprising than Europe demolishing its nuclear plants despite being energy-poor. Maybe there’s a lack of understanding about how energy is being used.

Saudi Arabia plans to meet half of its energy needs from renewable sources by 2030.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are the biggest consumers of the energy they produce. This might seem normal, but it’s not. These countries, with small populations and few energy-intensive industries, have a high demand for energy due to their significant needs for water and cooling.

Saudi Arabia uses one-third of the oil it produces to desalinate seawater. In other words, water is very costly in Saudi Arabia. Unless there are advancements in desalination technology, renewable energy is currently the only way to reduce these costs. But the issue isn’t limited to that. The country wants to reinvent itself, and renewable energy is a key part of this transformation.

Saudi Arabia is positioning itself to be a global role model for how cities will change in the future. The automotive industry has already made its turn.

Soon, all cities and societies will change—if the world moves forward and not backward.

However, progressive change doesn’t seem likely in democracies without strong leadership. Regressing could lead to chaos in such systems.

In my recent writings, I keep returning to the topic of democracies. It seems that democracies are struggling to drive change, possibly due to their entanglement with globalization. It’s as if the dynamics of the nation-state and consolidated politics have become essential for survival again. Whenever this need arises, the Turks feel strained. But understanding these needs is only possible by staying connected with the people.

In European elections, the leading parties can barely exceed 20% of the vote—maybe this is why it feels this way.

They’re experiencing the growing pains that Türkiye went through in the '90s.

Or perhaps they’re in this situation because they’ve surrendered to the U.S. and globalization. Maybe it’s because they can’t pursue independent politics, just like Türkiye in the '90s.

In a presidential system, we need to discuss the public’s insistence and the electorate’s ability to analyze the needs of the moment. After all, the parliamentary system only produced a decent performance after 2002. Its performance over the previous 100 years wasn’t exactly satisfactory. The “Table of Six” was almost a '90s classic.

Anyway, these are long discussions. They need to be explored in more depth. But this rising '90s nostalgia is really pitiful. There’s only one visionary left from the '90s in this country. It’s time to look forward, not backward.

Isn’t it obvious that the economists from the '90s have nothing to offer except leading Türkiye from one crisis to another?

Türkiye was one of the first countries to focus on energy as a matter of independence and progress. If Türkiye’s economy has reached a performance of $1.1 trillion today, it’s thanks to replacing natural gas electricity generation with renewable sources. Otherwise, energy wouldn’t be this affordable, and the economy wouldn’t have reached its current capacity.

Take note: if the share of renewable energy in the energy mix hadn’t increased, Türkiye’s economy would be much smaller today, especially as the need for cooling increases and water’s role in production processes and daily life becomes critical.

Now, Türkiye is preparing to commission its first nuclear power plant, which will be able to meet 8% of its energy needs under current conditions. This is as crucial for the economy as exploring its own fossil fuel resources, as it will require both optimism and confidence in the coming period. But it’s being framed as a confrontation with the West.

The day may come when the issue isn’t the cost of energy but its availability. Without energy independence, you’ll be left without energy.