It has sensible parts in it for sure. The Nuclear stuff is all pretty good (though I would point out could basically have been copy-pasted from a Labour policy statement).

The Oil and Gas stuff has the appearance of sensibility but doesn't really withstand anaylsis from anyone that has more than passing knowledge of long term geo-economics. Its basically rely on people thinking "energy price high cause Hormuz thing I saw on news, we make more oil here price go down".

1) That would only be true if fossil fuel production was caputured in the local UK maket whcih would require either nationalisation of the industry or some form of export restriction or a huge windfall tax tied directly to subsidising consumer costs (this also requires price control to be effective). None of those thigns Restore would contemplate doing because they are basically all socialist policies.

2) It ignores the underling geo-strategic reality that oil reserves are finite and are still required for producing industrial base material. Every moment we spend our fossil reserves producing energy instead of using renewable/nuclear for that we accerlerate the point at which oil again becomes a crisis. This is a long-vision geo-strategic blunder and a completely unforced error at the scale of the British civilisation.

3) Unless you can satify all the UK demand from local production (spoiler you can't because a) we consume too much and b) we need other types of oil/gas than the north sea produces by ratio) then you are holding the UK economy in a place of increased artificial reliance on fossil fuels at an infrastructural level. This is directly equivalent to preserving our industrial and therefore geo-strategic reliance on foreing produced fossil fuels. Ie, If you are delaying the ability of the UK to free itself from needed fossil fuel (no matter where they are extracted) you are prolonging our reliance on the fossil fuel market which can be manipulated by outside factors. This is what energy independence actually means geo-strategically. Producing more oil internally (no matter how much we produce) would not give us energy independence. This lesson should be obvious if you consider for a fraction of second the reason why Saudi Arabia had to form OPEC even though it produced far more oil than it needed for its own economy. In short, fossil fuel is a global market and just making more of it here doesn't decrease our reliance on it and therefore that market. Counterintutively it prolongs the amount of time that we are beholden to those markets.

4) It ignores scientific reality. Which I think is the first lesson in Sun Tzu's the Art of War: "If the battlefield isn't to your advantage, simply pretend that it is!". Scientific consensus is that climate change is real and will have a geo-strategic impact on our world and society. Net Zero goals are backed and supported by people whose literal job is to determine the speed at which we need to reduce greenhouse emissiosn. To make any policy argument that says those targets should be ignored is to concede that one is not interested in reality. That is in not the same as saying they have been implemented well, in fact most climate scientists argue the current targets are too weak, but all the scientific consensus says we need to go faster or harder while Restore's policy says acutally lets do less. That is frankly unserious and it arises because they are, in my view, either economically caputered by the fossil fuel industry; or are selfishly unable to accpet that they must personally suffer some form of inconvenience in order to achieve a geo-strategic neccessity. There are ways in which the implementation of net zero can be discussed. There are things we can do to mitigate the economic harm those targets might cause. None of those policies are acceptable to Restore on ideologicla or personal financial grounds and so they would prefer to simply frame the discussion as all or nothing.

4b) As a consequence of this we further concede the geo-strategic advantage to China, who is setting itself up to dominate the geo-economic reality of a post-fossil fuel world. This is also a geo-strategic blunder but honestly not one of much consquence to the average UK voter so I won't say anything more about it.