I disagree with your tone.

Fossil fuel generation is collapsing. The early 2000s were when carbon credit trading started to become a thing and emissions taxes were more significant. By 2004 it was cheaper to import (eg) French Nuclear energy than have to offset the emissions of coal and gas. And in that respect, the scheme did exactly what it was designed to do. Renewable generation is climbing rapidly (and diversifying) even without the old solar FIT subsidies.

We still need more supply, and storage, to tank the unit price (so we can dump gas!) but I don't think gross energy generation or export is a fair metric. Especially if you're weighing my comfort solely on the price-per-unit, and not (eg) my grandchildren having air to breathe.

The U.K. is primarily a services based economy, I think it is conceivable that the economy can grow whilst energy consumption decreases if you’re seeing a transition from manufacturing and heavy industry to commercial and services.

Service economies tend to grow out of and get strength from related industrial activities. They can go on for quite a while once those industrial activities are gone from a certain era, but after a while the countries and regions that took over those industrial activities grow to want in on a piece of the services action too.

I think one of the biggest mistakes the West made in thinking about globalization are the beliefs that: 1. You could completely decouple the service and industrial economies and it would gone on working forever. 2. In doing so, the developing countries that took over those industries would be happing eating the scrapes of Western nations and never have an ambition to enter into related service activities.

It's no coincidence that the country with the largest economy in Europe happens to have a vibrant manufacturing base. And in the U.S., while it plays a much smaller role and employs significantly fewer people than in the past, the manufacturing base is still quite large.

Did anyone in the west actually think that? I thought it was just I'll/we'll get rich outsourcing this to the east, and who cares about the impact long term or to others.

In the 1990's this was an extremely common view, at least in the U.S. Teachers, parents, politicians, and practically anyone else in a position of authority all routinely told us that sending all the manufacturing to the east was going to enable us all to become designers, lawyers, writers, etc. This was "The Future", and everyone in America was going to go to college and become a knowledge worker.

Any time someone would raise concerns about potential negative impacts, they would either be told that they were living in the past, or that the answer was education. This was a staple of the economic and domestic policy of both the Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations.

It seems laughable now, but man, at the time, most of us bought that crap hook, line and sinker.

And in a wartime era in a world that is de-globalizing, how does that strategy play out for a country?

How would going nuclear help compete against renewable-powered industry in much sunnier places than the UK?

Europe's industrial growth was based on fossil fuels. In a post fossil age, it's not a great place for industry.

Rolling blackouts.

Which is a big mistake. There is a reason why Germany is the export powerhouse it is.

Household energy usage has decreased a lot, especially with the push for more efficient household appliances, lighting and better insulation.

During this time some power-hungry industry has closed, and we shuttered basically all of our coal power plants.

It's worth noting that the UK has now started developing very large scale off shore wind systems. You are right though - there has been massive deindustrialization and especially a shift from processing of raw material into intermediate forms. For example steel manufacturing in the UK is only for specialist products.

Offshore wind has been growing quickly for 20 years. Deindustrialisation started in the 80s. None of this is new, really.

Well, nothing is new under the sun!

There has been an inflection on off shore wind since 2018; approximately double the amount came on stream then vs any previous year and this has been sustained.

You could swap UK with Sweden and your comment would be just as relevant. Ok, it's a bit of harsh when applied to us, I'm not sure if we are choked out, but the energy crisis is real and high-energy industries are halting and forced to stop their expansion or even shrink their operations.

Another aspect is that energy and gas went from being affordable to a luxury, that's right, a growing chunk of swedes will have to cut back on their use of electricity (how would that even work). The prices on electricity have gone up 400% in ONE year, gas prices have gone up about 200%. Wages have halted since forever if you account for inflation.

I'm realizing the terrifying pace of this just now when writing it out, it's just unfolding in front of our eyes, we are in for one hell of a ride..

"that's right, a growing chunk of swedes will have to cut back on their use of electricity"

This is really something that would have been unthinkable a mere 5 years ago. Sweden, one of the richest nations of Earth, having to be careful about electricity prices.

The UK is definitely deindustrialising, it has been doing so for 40 years, and it ha indeed led to large declines in living standards, mostly to do with the concomittant neoliberal economic policy including it's current incarnation, "austerity", as well as brexit, large-scale corruption, attacks on the welfare system, and the like.