Quantum Readiness Series: quantum and the energy sector – event round-up

Quantum computing and sensing are edging closer to real-world relevance for energy, but the message is clear: the timeline is shortening, the security threat is not waiting, and getting ready now matters more than getting it perfect.

That was the through-line of techUK's latest Quantum Readiness Series webinar, What Quantum Means for the Energy Sector, which brought together speakers from across industry, innovation and regulation to explore the opportunities and risks quantum technologies pose for energy.

The session opened with three presentations before moving into a wide-ranging panel discussion and audience Q&A. You can watch the recording below.

Setting the scene

Digital Catapult opened by asking whether quantum technologies are ready for practical adoption in energy, or still mostly hype. Drawing on its Quantum Technology Access Programme, which gives business users hands-on experience with quantum computers, the presentation argued that while fault-tolerant quantum computing may still be some years away, timelines keep shortening. Nearer-term promise lies in problems such as unit commitment (deciding which energy producers to switch on and when), wind turbine placement, and time-series prediction. Quantum sensing applications were also flagged, from gravity sensors for infrastructure maintenance to hydrogen leak detection, alongside the flip side of quantum's promise: the eventual ability of quantum computers to break common encryption, meaning energy companies and network operators need to start planning their migration to quantum-safe cryptography now.

NESO and Cambridge Consultants then presented their joint Network Security in a Quantum Future project. They set out the scale of the cryptographic threat facing energy networks: "harvest now, decrypt later" attacks are already happening, and the NCSC has mandated that critical national infrastructure (CNI) projects have migration plans to post-quantum cryptography in place by 2028. Because energy networks rely on long-lived legacy equipment and complex, multi-organisation IT/OT architectures, a simple rip-and-replace approach is not realistic.

The project is building two decision-support tools — the Quantum–Aware Risk Manager (Q–ARM), which models a network's own assets and cryptography, and the Quantum Threat Tracker (QTT), which tracks the latest quantum research to forecast when specific algorithms are likely to be broken. The tools are now moving into a 19-month trial phase with new partners Scottish Power Energy Networks and National Gas Transmission, alongside the University of Edinburgh.

A closing presentation from DESNZ set out the department's interest in where quantum computing could add value across the energy system, from grid optimisation to nuclear modelling and fusion research, while stressing that large-scale quantum computing likely remains 10 – 15 years away. Identifying genuine use cases, skills and evidence needs are the priority for now.

The panel discussion

Following the scene-setting presentations, we had a panel discussion featuring Sophie Critchlow from the Office for Quantum (BIST), Joachim Bjorkmann from ORCA Computing, Stuart Okin from Ofgem, Hiroshi Nakata from Jij, and Dr Chris Bell from DNV.

Policy and Mission 5

The discussion opened on the National Quantum Mission, with Mission 5 (quantum sensing) focused on unlocking new situational awareness across critical infrastructure, including energy, by 2030. For the sector, that means work on infrastructure monitoring, carbon capture site surveying, and greenhouse gas leak detection using quantum light metrology, largely funded through UKRI and aimed at bridging the gap between promising R&D and deployable, commercial solutions.

Progress so far, and how the UK compares

On where quantum companies are today, panellists pointed to live work on the unit commitment problem with BP, and wind farm layout optimisation with Fraser Nash Consultancy, as evidence that quantum computing is already running inside real engineering workflows rather than staying purely theoretical. There was confidence about the UK's position internationally, with the ecosystem (spanning universities, government programmes and industry) described as among the strongest globally, though panellists argued UK private-sector investment still lags behind the US, with its greater appetite for risk.

The security risk

The cryptographic threat was a recurring theme. So-called "Q-Day", when current encryption becomes breakable, is estimated at somewhere between 2036 and 2041, though this could move earlier as error-correction research advances. Beyond the well-known threat of broken encryption, a less-discussed issue was raised: quantum-safe algorithms are far larger than today's, introducing latency and fragmentation risks across networks. A gap in current coverage was also flagged: assurance work has focused on core network security, but a wide range of connected devices, from EV chargers to IoT sensors, may fall outside existing Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) or post-quantum cryptography protections. On sensing, the panel was optimistic about defect detection but noted that proving sensors can perform reliably in noisy, electromagnetically busy energy environments is still a work in progress.

Regulating without stifling innovation

From a regulatory standpoint, it was made clear that Ofgem follows government policy rather than setting it, and that there are currently no quantum-specific regulations; NCSC guidance points to 2035 readiness, later than some international timelines. Investment support currently flows mainly through the Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) rather than price control settlements, with panellists agreeing it is still too early for quantum-specific costs to land on consumer bills.

Quantum, AI and data centres

On the relationship between quantum and AI, the two were seen as complementary rather than interchangeable: AI's probabilistic approach to grid management could be sharpened further by quantum techniques, but the sector's caution around AI adoption, driven by the need for resilience and explainability, will likely shape how carefully quantum is introduced too. The parallels were seen as strong: both technologies raise questions of trust, data quality and integration into real engineering workflows, and both face genuine cost and TRL (technology readiness level) barriers before serious private-sector investment follows. Discussion also turned briefly to data centres, with panellists noting that quantum systems' modest power draw compares favourably to GPU-heavy AI infrastructure, even as quantum hardware increasingly finds its home alongside classical compute in the same facilities.

Closing thoughts

Across all three presentations and the panel, a consistent message emerged: quantum computing is not a silver bullet for every energy challenge, and much of its promise is still 10 – 15 years out. But the security threat it poses to today's cryptography is not waiting for that timeline, and the sector's job now is to identify genuine use cases, build the right skills and evidence base, and start migration planning early rather than leaving it as a problem for the 2030s.

Learn more about what the future of the quantum programme looks like.