The actual energy analysis is that bad. But the surrounding argument is nonsensical.
The energy “war” is going to lead to global conflict like the Thirty Years’ War that devasted Germany.
Never heard of trade then?
Sigh. The Thirty Years’ War was, at heart (and whole libraries have been written about the causes so allow me to simplify) about “who rules”? This is a binary decision: if you do I don’t, if I do you don’t.
You can indeed think of energy as being such a binary decision: I get it, you don’t and vice versa, so let’s fight over it. But to think that way is to be an idiot. For if we have a method of producing energy (say, solar PV, tidal, whatever) then we’ve a system by which all can have it. “Trade” we call this system. It can be trade in the actual product, energy (the UK gets some 2% of its electricity from France today) or it can be trade in the materials used to produce energy (I think I’m right in saying that the UK gets all of its solar cells from abroad) and it can be trade in the manufacturing of such materials (First Solar is a US company with large factories manufacturing solar PV systems in Germany), it can be trade in the machinery to make such materials (Can’t remember the name but a US company sells the silicon slicing machines to China which are used to them make China’s solar cells) and it can even be trade in the ideas about how you build the machines that build the systems which produce the energy (licences on patents too numerous to mention).
Trade means that human innovation is not a zero sum game, is not a binary decision. Therefore we don’t need to go to war over it. Thus using the analogy of war to describe the future path of such innovation is nonsensical.