I think we’ve all learned some valuable and costly lessons over recent weeks about just how dependent we are on cheap and reliable sources of energy.

One look at my projected gas and electricity bills for the next year is enough to send a shiver down my spine (probably because I’ve had to turn off the central heating).

Sadly, the government’s half-hearted attempt to take the sting out of soaring energy costs will do little to ease the burden, especially with the £200 rebate that’s really a loan whether or not you want it.

But it does seem reasonable under the circumstances for the government to come up with a strategy that secures our energy supply for the future and in the process reduce our dependence on other countries. It seems that just less than five per cent of our gas is supplied by Russia but I suspect that today, most people think that is five per cent too much.

So if we can become self-sufficient in energy, and in the process reduce our carbon footprint, that’s a good thing.

So what is the government’s grand plan?

It aims to reduce reliance on oil and gas by building as many as eight new nuclear reactors, including two at Sizewell in Suffolk. It also aims to reform planning laws to speed up approvals for new offshore wind farms.

For onshore wind farms it wants to develop partnerships with "supportive communities" who want to host turbines in exchange for guaranteed cheaper energy bills.

Targets for hydrogen production are being doubled to help provide cleaner energy for industry as well as for power, transport and potentially heating while the government will consider reforming rules for installing solar panels on homes and commercial buildings to help increase the current solar capacity by up to five times by 2035.

There will also be a £30m ‘heat pump investment accelerator competition’ to make British heat pumps which reduce demand for gas.

But here’s the controversial one. A new licensing round for North Sea oil and gas projects is being launched in the summer on the basis that producing gas in the UK has a lower carbon footprint than doing so abroad.

Well, I say it’s the controversial one but maybe it’s not quite as controversial as what may be coming in the near future.

I refer, of course, to fracking which has found its way back onto the agenda. You will recall that Cheshire was one of the areas that looked likely to be the site of fracking wells but all that disappeared when the sites in Lancashire were blamed for causing earthquakes and the wells were shut down.

According to The Guardian, ministers have paved the way for a reconsideration of the moratorium on fracking in England by commissioning a new study to examine safety concerns about the practice with business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, saying it was “absolutely right that we explore all possible domestic energy sources”.

The Conservatives promised in their 2019 manifesto they would not support shale gas extraction “unless the science shows categorically that it can be done safely”.

A moratorium in England was placed on the process in November 2019 after protests, legal challenges and planning rejections.

But now, the British Geological Survey has been asked to investigate if there are any new fracking techniques that could be suitable for use in the UK and how the size of tremors caused by extracting shale gas compares with other forms of underground energy production.

The study will also look at whether there are other sites outside those identified in Lancashire that could be at a lower risk of tremors.

And that could well be Cheshire after a number of sites in the county were identified as potential fracking candidates.

Island Gas Ltd (IGas) appealed after Cheshire West and Chester Council's planning committee overwhelmingly rejected a plan for a test shale gas well at Portside North on the outskirts of Ellesmere Port back in 2018. We still haven’t had the outcome of the appeal.

But now the government appears to be back-tracking on the fracking moratorium, I think things could be about to change.