ELECTRICITY, RENEWABLE ENERGY & CLIMATE PROTECTION
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Minister Gormley’s Criticism of Oireachtas Committee (24/06/10)
Environmental Protection (23/06/10)
Energy (Corrib Gas) (19/05/10)
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 (23/03/10)
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 (09/03/10)
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 (04/03/10)
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 (09/02/10)
Energy Resources – Mayo (06/05/09)
Economic and Recovery Authority – Energy (01/04/09)
Energy Independence (01/04/09)
Development of Green Technology (05/11/08)
Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (EirGrid) Bill 2008 (24/06/08)
Climate Change and Energy Security – Electricity (31/01/08)
Energy Security and Climate Change (07/11/07)
Energy Developments in the West (17/10/07)
Climate Change and Carbon Emissions (11/10/07)
Climate Protection Bill (03/10/07)
Incandescent Light Bulbs (03/04/07)
Energy Resources (11/10/06)
Wind Farms (11/05/06)
Energy Resources (16/02/06)
Alternative Energy Sources (22/11/05)
Wind Energy (17/11/05)
Environmental Debate Request (12/10/05)
Back to top of the page
Minister Gormley’s Criticism of Oireachtas Committee
24/06/10 - ….. the attack by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. I do not have a problem with the Minister having a go at a committee if he wishes to do so. However, what he said was, in all fairness, completely wrong. The Minister said:
. . . the Oireachtas committee we set up has been used as a talking shop as a means to give adversarial comment and to knock the Government. That is not what it was set up for, which was to get a political consensus. I am very disappointed in this. ………….. Members of the Labour Party and other Opposition parties are using the committee not to achieve consensus but rather in the most adversarial way. Their only goal is to bash the Government . . . I had hoped it would develop a consensus on these major issues.
.. that is a completely unfair and an unjust criticism with no basis in fact. Far from existing to bash the Government, the committee has time and again produced consensus reports on issues such as the foreshore licensing Bill. It is the only joint committee in the history of the Houses to produce and present to Government legislation in support of Government policy.
It produced another …. on electric cars, which supported the Government’s position. A report on climate change, driven by the Labour Party in the main, also supported the Government. The committee has done ground-breaking work on emissions and other things. … If the Minister was wrong, he should be big enough to say so. His remarks were demoralising to a committee which already feels it is being ignored by Government.
Back to top of the page
Environmental Protection
23/06/10 - The smart thing for the Government side to do would be to accept the motion because there is no problem with it. ……. The Minister spoke about a lack of consensus at the committee (Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security) ………. the committee was established because of a demand made by the Green Party.
The committee did something unique. It published a fully agreed Bill, the Foreshore Licensing Bill, which it sent to the Minister, but nothing has happened. It was a classic example of where all parties and none had got behind the Government in support of its policy. There was nothing in the Bill that caused a difficulty for the Government. It dealt with a very important issue that was causing problems all over the place, namely, that space between high tide and low tide in offshore energy projects. I would like to ask the Minister why he did not accept the Bill which has been passed from one Department to another.
…….. Another Department has become involved in the geothermal energy issue, that of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resource, Deputy Ryan. The members of the committee are aware of enormous investments made in geothermal energy projects …. Investors have put together all of the basics for the capturing of heat for district heating systems, but they must be granted authority to capture that heat because it would be delivered via land which may not be owned by the initiators of an project. …. Legislation must be introduced to cover the matter. I have been assured in the House on at least three or four occasions that its publication is only around the corner, but we have not yet seen it.
The position is unfair. The committee Chairman, Deputy Barrett, is scrupulous about ensuring the committee will not be used to undermine the Government and has been entirely fair. However, he shares my frustration and that of … many other members of the committee, including those on the Government side, that we have not made progress on the matter.
The issue of water quality in Galway was mentioned. People with access to swimming pools backwash the filters every couple of weeks or months. They use sand filters such as those used in one of the main water treatment facilities in Galway. I understand there was no such treatment in that place because of a management problem. In other words, the plant was using the same sand filter put in place in 1947 or 1948 which had never been upgraded, serviced or backwashed. Material was passing straight through the filter which might as well not have been in place.
On water charges, I ask Senator Boyle to point out to the relevant Ministers that the charge to be levied will not be for water which is free. ….. The charge will be for the delivery and treatment of water. …. There must be recognition that the treatment and delivery of water are costly. There are fair ways of doing this. One can ensure everybody will receive a certain quantity of water before being charged.
….. The frequently mentioned proposal to get rid of town councils and smaller groups throughout the country would be disastrous. … I understood it had come from the Government side, but perhaps I am wrong. The people who will look after the environment are locals. Only when money raised from water charges and rates is spent by local groups will the matter receive attention. If it is spend on the wrong item, the people down the street will argue about it, whereas they take no notice at present.
….. certain matters need to be faced. We need to move forward. The Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security is frustrated because the Government is not moving on some of the issues I have raised and many more. …. None of it undermines Government policy. ….. We have been critical of delays, but that is as far as the committee has gone. That criticism has been made as much by Government members as by others.
As to how the House should deal with this business, we must look at the issues of water quality and local government which are linked with the environment. ….. The Government should be pushed. As such, I will support the motion which the Labour Party has tabled in very simple terms: “That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to institute sufficient measures to ensure that the Irish environment is adequately protected and enhanced, particularly in relation to ... climate change legislation ...”. I thought the early enactment of climate change legislation was Government policy. Listening to the Minister, I thought “the quality of our rivers and our water supply, the maintenance and improvement of our public beaches and remedial measures to address hazardous waste sites, including at Haulbowline”, were also part of Government policy. Which aspect of the motion causes a problem for the Government?
Back to top of the page
Energy (Corrib Gas)
19/05/10 - Legislation introduced in the other House by Deputy Varadkar states the Government should make an attempt to reduce the cost of energy, communications, travel and so on by 10% where it has such influence. This is a reasonable point …. One of the factors that must be considered is the cost of energy in this country which is greater than the cost of labour or anything else. …. also deal with the Front Line report on the Shell to Sea campaign. …. We must consider why the Government has not moved on the issue. If we are to achieve independence in energy production, gas from the Corrib field must be brought ashore. This should be an issue of urgency, although I agree that Shell must comply with every single law we put in front of it. One of the issues blocking progress is the Government’s refusal to proceed with the offshore renewable energy development Bill which was put together by the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security … with full support from all parties. However, the Department, for its own reasons, is not prepared to go ahead with it. I ask the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, to overrule his departmental advisers and proceed with the Bill which would allow offshore development to be carried out in an efficient and effective manner.
Back to top of the page
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010
23/03/10 - I move amendment No. 1: ………. The purpose of amendment No. 1 was to support, promote and incentivise indigenous bio-fuel production to increase security of supply. I tabled the amendment to have a clear indication of objectives. I am not sure how the Minister stands on the amendment but I recognise it would closely reflect his point of view.
Another issue which was raised by the Minister of State was that, to some extent, what we proposed might create a difficultly for Europe. We have researched the matter in some detail and do not see that would be the case. I note the Minister accepted that point on Committee Stage and did not have a different point of view. … It is in our best interests to adopt our proposals.
I have closely examined amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10 tabled by the Minister in response to the issue. A glass can be half full or half empty. Progress has been made. …. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am right in saying that while his amendments have the net effect of almost meeting what we asked for by putting a provision in primary legislation, they give him the power to do what we asked for through statutory instrument or ministerial order. That is my reading of the amendments. I would prefer to have the provision in primary legislation but I recognise that at least the door is now open to do this.
I am not 100% happy with the amendments tabled by the Minister, but it would be churlish of me not to recognise and acknowledge the significant progress which has been made and the openness of the Minister in listening, responding and putting forward an amended position.
…. The flexibility of secondary legislation is one of the reasons we often try to have matters tied down in primary legislation. …. He made a valid and plausible argument that there is such technological change in this area that our detailed proposals could be overtaken by events at some stage in the future. I also recognise there could be change in international trade obligations and in European regulations. The three areas of technology, Europe and international trade provide a very convincing case for change. I defer to the Minister’s arguments on that point. I am not convinced by the Minister’s throwaway comment about the food-fuel issue. I have looked at it closely and I have gone from one side of the argument to the other and back again three or four times.
One of the great difficulties is dealing with any agricultural product, where farmers tend to follow last year’s highest price and create a resultant flood in the market the following year, causing a fall in the price. There were indications worldwide that the attractiveness of ethanol producing crops was at the expense of food, but it is one of the few things that the market just might sort out as it goes along. It is not a long-term problem. It is one that, with strategic planning, the market and regulation, will find its own level. It is, however, an argument for another day. It does not arise today.
Back to top of the page
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010
09/03/10 - Since the debate last week on Committee Stage, I put some of the points that arose to those working in the industry and others. It is important to put those matters clearly on the record. In his statement, the Minister of State said that we must remain compliant with EU regulations and WTO guidelines on trade, which means that we cannot unfairly restrict imports. It is crucially important to recognise that nothing that we are proposing here in any way goes against either the EU regulations or the WTO guidelines. I think the Minister of State threw in a red herring at that point. As we understand it, the proposed amendments are fully consistent with EU trade guidelines and do not restrict imports unfairly or unduly. In addition, they have been proven to be WTO-compliant, as evidenced by their implementation in other EU member states.
Essentially, the Minister of State was saying that there are two separate tariff codes — one for denatured or industrial, and the other for food grade or agriculture. One is significantly higher than the other. It is important therefore to recognise the impact of what we propose for price increases. The Minister of State was a bit disingenuous, but I will not go any further than that. He said the latter is significantly higher at 19.2 cent per litre versus 10.2 cent per litre. Someone who was not listening closely would come to the conclusion that what we are proposing would increase the price by 10 cent per litre. To put this in context, however, it should be explained that bioethanol will constitute only 5% or 10% of petroleum blend, whether one goes on the E5 or E10 regulation. Putting it all together, with the difference between the existing and proposed tariff, the equivalent price increase to the consumer, if any, would be less than 1 cent per litre either way. That is crucial to our argument.
I do not think the Minister of State was fair in his response to us concerning his points on compliance, guidelines on trade, and the cost per litre. He also said the European Commission would have to be notified under the 1998 directive, as this type of initiative would be deemed a technical regulation. There is no doubt about that. However, notifying the European Commission of the change in a technical regulation is no more than a formality. If it is more, we should know. The European Commission is, and has been for some time, familiar with the German scheme and with similar schemes in many other member states. Therefore, it is a distraction to introduce this argument.
I am disappointed with the response of the Minister to the three points I have made. I know the Minister a long time, but this seems a completely defensive response. We did not put our amendments forward in order to have a go at the Department or the Minister. They were put forward in good faith.
The Minister said that from a national perspective the only substantial problem with the course of action proposed is that the United Kingdom has not adopted such a measure and given that we import 60% of our road transport fuel from the UK, such a measure would have the potential to increase costs to Irish consumers substantially as they would have to be supplied with a different blend of bioethanol. That is probably the most challenging of all the points made. I would like to put on record the industry’s response to us on that. If what I say misleads the Minister or the House, please correct me, because we put forward our amendments in good faith. I recognise that this is a technical issue, but the reference to the UK as not having adopted this measure is misleading and does not pose an issue as inferred. Indeed, it demonstrates a lack of understanding in differentiating between two very different products, sourced from different parts of the world and technically handled in very different ways.
….. what we propose has many attractions, for the Minister and the State. It increases tax revenue to the State, is a boost for the agricultural industry, leads to carbon dioxin capture and therefore reduces our need to offset or invest more money in offsetting. I recall that before the Minister came into office, he took a strong view against the provision in the 2007 budget for the €270 million being put aside for offsetting. I agreed with him at the time and said that here. Another attraction is that the measure creates employment in various parts of the country and provides support for the agricultural industry, rural development and various processing facilities, including the one in Waterford-Kilkenny. The arguments against it do not stand up.
The Minister of State made an unusual statement. He said he would listen to our arguments and try and bring some measures forward to meet our needs. That was a positive response. However, it was not very positive of him — we found this difficult to understand — to say he would not do that until Second Stage in the Dáil. The Seanad is the anvil on which the arguments have been hammered out. Therefore, we should mould, shape and conclude the Bill here. We need to bring the argument to a conclusion now. If the points I have raised are incorrect, we need to argue the case again and come to a conclusion on it here. We can do that on Report Stage…. We should convince each other through argument and through providing plausible and cogent responses to each other’s positions and in that way find a compromise position.
Back to top of the page
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010
04/03/10 - This is a classic example of something that is really central to our debates on job creation, on the economy, on climate change and on energy security. ….. Every agriculture, energy and climate change spokespersons should be in attendance for this debate. …. This is crucial legislation and these proposals have the support of the whole agricultural community, the IFA and local communities everywhere and also the support of Irish industry.
…... We are not talking about incentivisation but rather about a level playing pitch. We want the Irish farmer to have a level playing pitch with the Brazilian producer. It took five years to convince the authorities on the question of beef and meat imports from Brazil and let us not go down the same road again. …We are dealing with very technical issues ….
…. the other argument which needs to be examined includes carbon dioxide capture. Methane is 25 times stronger and more damaging than carbon dioxide. This plant (Belview) can capture the carbon dioxide and it can be reused. We will save ourselves emissions costs and save ourselves paying for some of the carbon emissions trading units which the Government has had to include in the last two budgets. The plant also produces a product for livestock which has a ready market in farms all over Ireland.
The other counter-argument is to do with the price of wheat and this argument does not stand up to serious examination. As it stands, wheat prices would have to become 30%, 40% or 50% more expensive in order to make it unviable for this plant in Belview to deal with Irish-produced wheat.
Ireland grows winter wheat which is not common in most other European countries. It grows longer and has a higher level of yield. These are issues which I ask the Minister of State to consider so he can make our arguments to people who suggest a different argument to him. It is completely in line with Government policy and ticks the box in terms of energy security, job creation and an immediate improvement in the construction sector. Crucially, it will also mean that tax will be paid in Ireland. … It will mean increased tax revenue.
….. This is also a question of sustainable rural development. If there is any downside to our proposal in terms of Government policy, I cannot find it. ….. If aspects of our amendments need to changed, then they can be changed …. I can guarantee that by taking these amendments on board, the legislation will leave this House in a far enhanced, more acceptable and more deliverable condition.
Back to top of the page
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010
09/02/10 - While this is important legislation, as previous speakers said, we must examine the complete picture. In fairness, there is a trilemma involving the tension surrounding food production, energy security and the environment. Getting it right globally will be very difficult. I do not know all the answers.
We are dealing with the replacement of fossil fuel energy with renewable energy, which as a starting position must be welcomed. ….. Such action should also be welcomed with regard to dealing with emissions. The various plants or vegetation used to create bio-fuels are completely carbon neutral. This means the amount of carbon dioxide they release to the air is equal to the amount collected during their period of growth. Therefore, the process does not worsen in any way the balance in the atmosphere.
The Minister mentioned in his speech the mineral oil tax relief schemes and referred to them as interim measures. That is a significant problem. I have spoken to farmers and people in the fuel industry who have been dealing with the issue. They need certainty over a period of time. They must be sure that the tax or excise reliefs will be available for a certain number of years in order that a farmer can plan growth of the vegetation over that time in various parts of his or her farm. That is an important financial matter that must be done right.
…………… The Green Party has a fine agenda which it should stand behind. We will sort out the irrelevant issues like hunting but we must keep with the core issues of the green economy. We must do everything we can to push it forward and have a cleaner environment. We should resolve the trilemma between food, energy and the environment. It can be done and I look forward to supporting the Minister as he does this.
Back to top of the page
Energy Resources – Mayo
06/05/09 - In honour of his (Minister of State, Deputy Dara Calleary) presence in the House I will talk substantially about his county of Mayo. First, I will conclude the debate on nuclear energy. I do not support nuclear energy but the … issue has to be discussed and examined. …. I would like to hear a clear distinction between nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is where the isotopes drive madly into each other and create energy. However, the problem is that it cannot be stopped and this is still happening in Chernobyl, 25 years later and we have no control over it. On the other hand, nuclear fusion is where the isotopes are merged together. It is in a much more controlled environment, although it needs much more heat to do it. The long-term waste is less and the half-life where it is dangerous is much shorter, one tenth that of fission, so it is far less dangerous to future generations.
… we are as rich in energy as almost any place in Europe. The Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, will know this because he and I have examined it very closely. I want to mention the extraordinary, progressive, creative and advanced work being done by Mayo County Council. It was mind-boggling to meet Mr. Des Mahon, the Mayo county manager, ably assisted by people such as Mr. Peter Hynes and others, who have led the way. For people who talk about what county councils do and do not do, and the importance of local authorities, here are rural models for other counties to look at. … The amount of energy that comes through the grid to our houses at peak every day, around 6 p.m. is approximately 5,000 MW in the middle of winter and approximately 3,500 MW in the summer.
Mayo County Council has a proposal to build a wind farm in Bellacorrick in Mayo. …. The county council has all the bits put together and can deal with it at its end but there are national problems. The problem of getting onto the grid has been solved but it must deal with planning and other issues and we must return to that. When in full flow that wind farm will produce 500 MW. That is between one seventh and one tenth of Ireland’s daily requirements produced in one area in County Mayo. That is what can be done and it is completely renewable.
On the map of the world which shows the most energy laden waves, the north Mayo coast is the richest in Europe. The average wave height off Belmullet is approximately 2.5 m to 3 m, about the height of the door jambs in this chamber. A metre of that can produce approximately 450 MW per hour, so at least another tenth of our energy and probably more can be produced from Mayo. We are talking about between one quarter and one fifth of our requirement coming from those two sources alone.
A building on Fitzwilliam Square houses a company called OpenHydro. It is the most advanced tidal energy company in the world. Wave energy is from waves going up and down. Tidal energy is from the tide going in and out. ... The only example of tidal energy in Ireland is in Strangford Lough, outside this jurisdiction. ….. One can get that in Bulls Mouth in Achill, along by Kilcredaun Point lighthouse in the Shannon Estuary and up closer to Limerick, the Blasket Sound, places on the east coast where the tide runs down the Irish Sea near Arklow Bank and such places, off Galway and other places. It is not huge but it exists.
Tidal energy is called open energy. It is silent and invisible. Not even the most difficult An Taisce member can object to this. It is far underwater, unseen, invisible and poses no danger to navigation. The reason it is called open is that it is open in the middle so seals, dolphins and fish can go through without being damaged. All these possibilities for production exist for us and we are not availing of them.
…. the electric car is an extraordinary advance for us because electric cars are recharged at night while the windmills at Bellacorrick will be flying and we will be producing energy that no one will want to buy. In Ireland we have no way to store energy. We will have interconnectors to Europe but one still cannot sell it during off-peak times. The only storage we have in Ireland is Turlough Hill where we pump water up during the off-peak hours and drop it down during the peak hours. We get only 80% efficiency from that and there are many more efficient ways of doing it.
The Minister of State’s county can lead the world on aspects of wave energy, Ireland can lead the world on aspects of tidal energy and we can sell wind power into Europe. I am not making this up.
Back to top of the page
Economic and Recovery Authority – Energy
01/04/09 - I want to focus on one aspect of what is a very progressive document which is more progressive in its proposals than what the Government has proposed in the areas of energy and energy storage, for instance. The Green Party might have a good look at it and just make sure the Government moves along these lines.
….. . I took as an example the case of County Mayo. It is my belief that County Mayo, properly organised and harnessed, could be supplying Ireland with a substantial amount of its energy needs in a very short time indeed. First and foremost we need to get the Corrib gas on shore. This demands and requires political leadership. There has been too much shilly-shallying about this. … we should now decide to get the gas on shore. Anyone looking at Ireland’s energy requirements and considering that Kinsale will be going off-line within 18 months, knows that we have to do this. We should be courageous and tell people that this is the action required and the patriotic action is to bring it ashore.
… off the north-west Mayo coast is the most energy-rich wave source in Europe. The average wave height is an unbelievable 2.5 m for the whole year. There is no place else in Europe with such waves. There are people down there tearing their hair out because they are not getting the kind of support they need. It requires three or four pieces of legislation to be revisited and changed rapidly so that licences can be issued.
The Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security has made proposals which the Government should take and run with. There is not a proper quantum of research and development on this issue happening in our universities. Wave energy is being developed very successfully in University College Cork and to a lesser extent in two other places. I plead with the Government. .. to set up a bursary in a number of universities on this island for doctorate-level research on the development of wave energy. We are close to leading the world on this but Scotland is marginally ahead of us at the moment. We could be a world leader.
The second issue is that of tidal energy. …. Wind off the west coast is an extraordinary resource. There is currently a proposal to establish a wind farm of 5,000 MW in Mayo. These are issues which can be moved forward.
Back to top of the page
Energy Independence
01/04/09 - While there is not an immediate rush on this matter, I would like a discussion in the House on the question of energy independence, to include when the Corrib gas field will come on line, how we can ensure it will come on line and the difficulties of being 95% exposed to foreign sources of energy. There is a lack of doctoral research in our third level institutions on alternative energy. They are now only being carried out in very few of our third level institutions. The Government should intervene to ensure that happens.
Back to top of the page
Development of Green Technology
05/11/08 - I spent eight years arguing about the lack of Government commitment to the building regulations which were anticipated by Brussels in 1997. We continued to build houses that did not meet the regulations, knowing we should not have done so. Some 250,000 houses in the Dublin city area were built using cavity blocks and these will never meet the standard required, which is a disgrace. Of all the things the building industry did over the years, that was the worst. I do not blame those involved in the industry because they built in accordance with the regulations. … It is impossible to retrofit insulation to houses built using cavity blocks. I compliment the Green Party on insisting, when it entered Government, that the building regulations be brought into play almost immediately.
I am of the view that, as happens in certain parts of Spain, it should be a requirement that a method of producing renewable energy be attached to the structure of every house built from this day forward. … The method I would recommend is that which involves photovoltaic solar panels. Such panels are quite sophisticated and are now more efficient than water-heating solar panels. Given that it is hoped to put in place smart meters in people’s houses, putting in place photovoltaic panels would be an easy and attractive option.
We should also engage in a closer examination of incineration. I am not sure where the Green Party stands in respect of incineration but I sense its members hate discussing it. I am not sure, however, that incineration is the answer. I do not believe it is either as bad or as good as certain individuals state. I am certain, however, that it is a great deal better than landfill, particularly in the context of the difficulties that can arise as a result of leakage into the soil, atmospheric emissions, etc. Consideration certainly should be given to the introduction of incineration.
We can develop technology only by literally doing so. There is some involvement from the South in what is being attempted in County Down at present. Those working on the project to harness tidal energy near Carlingford are working in the dark to some extent. It is significant and impressive that they are not sure of all the answers. I am extremely excited by the fact that they have achieved so much, that they will monitor what happens from now on and that they will learn as they go. Why are we not doing something similar at Achill Sound? Who in the Government is responsible for examining proposals of this nature? If I spent a month in one of the relevant Departments, the staff there would be working non-stop for six years afterwards and I could go on holiday. There are so many simple steps which could be taken but which we are failing to take.
There are two major issues relating to energy in respect of which final development is required. The first involves nuclear fusion as opposed to nuclear fission. I am not in favour of nuclear power but I would like to examine the arguments in favour and against it. I can see how much safer fusion reactors would be when compared to those at Chernobyl and other locations. Nuclear fusion is certainly attractive. A nuclear fusion reactor is being developed in France — at a location adjacent to its nuclear fission reactors — because that country was successful in its bid to host the project. Nuclear fusion will be extremely important for the future.
The second and more important issue — in respect of which, perhaps, greater scientific and intellectual input is required — involves the use of hydrogen. The latter is one of the most useful and easy to use fuels. Hydrogen fuel cells can be transported anywhere and BMW and many of the main car manufacturers have produced prototype hydrogen cars. Hydrogen is one of the most common elements in the world. One need only remove it from water — H2O — in order to obtain access to a great source of energy. Can it be removed from water? The answer is yes. This is being done by means of a process which means that one can almost get as much out of it as one puts in. The cost and energy required to remove the hydrogen from water almost equates to the amount of hydrogen produced by the process. …. If the process relating to its production can be further developed, hydrogen will become a source of energy for the future. In addition, when one burns hydrogen, the only waste product is pure distilled water. There is no dirt.
Back to top of the page
Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (EirGrid) Bill 2008
24/06/08 - I am probably the only Member of either House who has a problem with it. Having said that, nothing I have to say reflects in any way on the excellent people who operate EirGrid, whom I have met. They are diligent, decent people who are good at their work.
I am looking down the line at what will happen afterwards, as I am required to do as a legislator. I do not trust the unknown people who in 20 years’ time will be in charge of what the Minister is now in charge of. My problem with this Bill is that we are bundling up and neatly packaging something which can be sold off the next time a Government has a problem. That will happen and people will regret it.
I have no problem with the concept of a grid or the authority we are giving to EirGrid. However, I would like to see EirGrid as part of an integrated system within the ESB. The problem with discussing this is that the debate has not moved on. What we are doing today is as important as the construction of the Ardnacrusha power station in the 1920s. However, one would have great difficulty convincing the people of that.
The Minister and I know that generation is no longer the name of the game. We could stop generating as soon as we have this set up. The real issue is that EirGrid will buy and sell. Of course, it is open to the private sector, and so it should be. If the private sector can produce as cheaply as the ESB, then it will be in the marketplace but so far, it has failed to do that and that is why it has not exactly been rushing into it. It is quite extraordinary in that sense why people are missing that point.
There are three aspects to this, namely, generation, the national grid and the network. The network is what I call the bit that brings the power from the grid to houses. In any other country where this has been done, it has created a problem. I said to the Minister last year before he was appointed that in New Zealand, where they did exactly this, the grid company refused to pay the costs of connection to the network in the capital city of Wellington which was left without power, on and off, for approximately six weeks. That happened in the past ten years as a direct result of the privatisation of the grid. I know the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is not privatising the national grid, but his actions would allow it to be privatised very easily in future and there is no strategic reason for this. There can be no strategic reason for letting go the reins on EirGrid.
This is a significant problem. Throughout Europe, …. The big player, effectively, is Electricité de France, EDF. It is buying companies throughout England and the UK and is looking at options here. The company …. is examining developments in north County Louth and so on. There is nobody scrutinising this.
….. I saw people on the 9 o’clock news holding up fluorescent tubes which began lighting up underneath the high tension cable. Any normal person would think it is significant that the tubes are being lit in these circumstances and that there must be implications for him or her. Such a reaction is normal and this issue does not affect me directly. This matter is worth examining. We should put underground any such cables within an agreed distance from private dwellings or from any conurbations or villages and so on. This guarantee should be given and factored into the costing.
……… The roll-out of smart metering and the support for micro-generation is not happening quickly enough. I do not understand the reason it is possible to get a grant for installing solar panels but not for a micro-generator or a wind generator. We should examine these options and they should be connected to the national grid. Those generating power should be able to supply the grid whether it comes from solar panels, wind generation or other sources. There is much to be done.
Back to top of the page
Climate Change and Energy Security – Electricity
31/01/08 - I believe there is an agenda running on the EirGrid issue. .. I believe we are walking head first into major difficulties with electricity and electricity security. … There are three aspects to electricity in the country. The national grid brings electricity from there to local transformers around the country. The electricity network brings it from the transformers into houses. According to the programme for Government, we are now about to package up the national grid into one neat company and run it separately to the rest. That is the biggest mistake. Of all the people who could come in here, nobody knows more about packaging parts of a public utility than the Minister. He even had to walk away from his party Whip on a similar issue on one occasion.
The only parts of the whole system that we need to examine is the grid and the network. It does not matter where the generation comes from. Once we put down international interconnectors, we can buy and sell the stuff from Europe.
A grid is being set up which is now being packaged. I want to put on the record that I believe the national grid will be privatised in five years’ time. Therefore, we might own the generation capacity and the network which brings it to Mrs Murphy’s door, but we will not own the national grid which brings it as far as the local network. This happened before in New Zealand. As soon as the grid was sold off in New Zealand, there were immediate problems. Who was going to pay to connect the grid to the network? The first place in which they encountered difficulty was in Wellington, the capital city, which was left without power for three full weeks while the company which owned the grid held the Government to ransom to pay for the connection from the grid to the local network. That is already happening in this country. Private providers charge exorbitant rates at peak usage times to the Government in order to provide the surplus we need. A few years ago we had to buy in portable generators and that is what happened.
The national grid needs about €2 billion in investment. Either the Government pays the money and it will be a prosperous company later sold off to the greedy private sector, or the Government could do what it did with Aer Lingus. It could state that it has not got the €2 billion to invest in the company, will blame Europe for not being able to invest in it and state that it must get the private sector in to do it. I believe that will happen.
To have energy security we need to have storage capacity. How do we store electricity? If we create 100% electricity at six o’clock in the morning when people are getting up and it is needed at six in the evening when people are cooking, how do we get the balance right, and where do we hold the electricity? … I have put this question previously to the Department and was told the interconnector would do it. In other words, it is sold into the grid. The grid we are selling it back to is in the UK, which has precisely the same type of peaks and troughs as Ireland. That is not the answer, but there are ways for storing electricity, although I am not an expert in this area. If we take hydrogen based electricity, the substance in most supply on this earth is water, H2O, hydrogen and oxygen. One of the difficulties is that it is not effective and efficient to remove hydrogen from water and then use it for power. It takes almost as much energy to subtract the hydrogen as one will get from burning it. That is precisely why it appears an extraordinary good way to have storage. If we use our spare capacity to extract hydrogen from water and then use this for power when it is needed, it is the cleanest energy on earth. The waste produced by the burning or usage of hydrogen is clean drinkable potable water. There is no better way of approaching it and we should do it.
In simple terms, however, what Ireland is doing with waste is in breach of European regulations. Waste is supposed to be disposed of as closely as possible to the point at which it has been created. We are disposing of enormous amounts of waste in China. That cannot be right. It is not right. I do not know whether any colleague here has ever tried to track a piece of waste. I tried to do it two years ago, and again last year, to see where it gets to from the doorstep, into various distribution channels, and how it is checked as regards where it ends up. The figures are all over the place. If they were to be audited, half the people involved would be sacked because it is not possible to track them. Nobody knows what percentage finishes up in China.
…. The way we are moving at the moment, in creating a separate company, EirGrid, in the midst of an electricity utility is inexplicable. I do not know why we are doing this. …. I see nothing wrong with the ESB continuing to own the grid system and running it properly in its own interest. Neither will I condone Europe taking the blame for this, by the way. All I suggest may be done well within the parameters laid down by Europe.
Back to top of the page
Energy Security and Climate Change
07/11/07 - The decision by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the building regulations on insulation, is the most progressive made in this area since I entered the Seanad. Senators are well aware that I and former Senator, Deputy Brian Hayes, have pushed this issue for years. I contend that since 1998 we have built over 250,000 sub-standard insulated houses despite being well aware they did not meet the regulations. The Government invented a new form of measuring heat loss through the roof when the rest of the world measured it on the basis of the amount of energy required to heat a cubic metre of house space annually. I welcome the fact that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, has now introduced that system.
I have also been seeking the introduction of smart meters. I was pleased to hear the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources say during the week that if people have wind generators or micro-generators at home they can feed surplus energy back into the grid and be paid for it, however small the amount.
On a number of occasions recently, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has raised the question of waste-derived fuel and variations of it. Effectively, this is a basic scientific idea but it is not rocket science. It captures methane from landfill waste. There is a more progressive method of creating waste-derived fuel, which is being developed at the University of Limerick. It could replace incineration here were we to opt for it.
A year ago, I proposed … that… every new house should be required to have a wind generator or solar panels. There are many other things that could be done but that would be a simple measure. It has been done in other parts of the world.
We also need to discuss the issue of nuclear energy, although I am completely opposed to it. …. Something has changed, however, and it is rocket science. It is the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Fission involves a nuclear isotope running wildly in an enclosed space and is uncontrollable, as we saw in Chernobyl, which will still be causing trouble in 1,000 years’ time. Nuclear fusion is different because it is when both are put together. It is much more controlled, less difficult and poses fewer dangers once used. I am not suggesting that we should go into that but we need a discussion on it, if only to rule it out.
In the last month, BMW has put 200 hydrogen-powered cars on the market. This is basic science as opposed to nuclear science. Water, designated as H2O, comprises two molecules of hydrogen to one of oxygen. The separation of hydrogen from water produces the cleanest source of energy on the planet, and when used the waste is clean water. It represents the future and while it is possible to do it now it cannot yet be done efficiently. In other words, it takes almost as much energy to extract hydrogen from H2O as the energy the hydrogen would produce afterwards. In real terms, therefore, the game is not yet worth the candle but it will develop as a future energy source. We should be examining that possibility now.
Back to top of the page
Energy Developments in the West
17/10/07 - In recent days we read in the newspapers of the development through NUI, Galway of a company which produces sustainable and practical wave energy which produces 1 kilowatt output. This is an extraordinary development which we should discuss.
In the University of Limerick waste derived fuel has been developed. In the context of incineration this is the way forward. It is a completely enclosed system of dealing with waste with no smells, heat, incineration or methane. The methane is captured and used as an alternative fuel. It deals powerfully and economically with waste. This is not green wellies and tweeds. It is real industry developed in the west of Ireland.We should recognise it and know more about it.
Back to top of the page
Climate Change and Carbon Emissions
11/10/07 - I ask the Deputy Leader to examine the issue of climate change and carbon emissions because it is appropriate to his party. Most uninterested people say Ireland is only a small country that can achieve little in this regard. The matter should be localised. I would like the Minister to consider having a carbon audit per county with each county producing an annual report on carbon emissions and how they have changed from year to year. This would localise the matter and make it something people feel they would be better equipped to tackle.
Back to top of the page
Climate Protection Bill
03/10/07 - Six months ago in this House I made three requests. I asked that every house built in this country would be required to have a solar panel or another renewable energy source. I asked that we get rid of the daft system invented by the Department for measuring insulation and heat loss and come to the international and only worthwhile standard of measuring the kilowatt hours of energy required to heat a cubic metre of a house for one year. If I do nothing else in politics, I feel this is important.
The third request I made ties in with the issue. Senator Bacik’s Bill goes through various types of emissions of which the first listed is carbon and the second is methane. It is important to recognise that methane is 20 times as virulent, dangerous and damaging as carbon. Nonetheless, every landfill in the country shoves methane into the atmosphere at an extraordinary pace. We must do something about this.
The Minister and I never agreed on the matter of chemically dealing with waste. I do not know the answer to what is the best way to deal with it. Recently, I met a group which established a research centre at the University of Limerick. It has a completely closed way of dealing with waste with no emissions, olfactory or otherwise. It also captures methane. They told me they could build a plant for €30 million which would deal with 300 million tonnes per year.
Given technological advances, it is now easy to create microenergy such as microhydro-electric energy. If a wind generator is established in Newry or if one creates slightly more energy than one requires in one’s house and it goes back into the grid, the utility pays one for it. This does not happen in the South. This could be done in the morning. It is a matter of one regulation.
I am slightly concerned about biomass. I am concerned that we have not made enough progress on ethanol and the various bio-fuels. It is interesting to note that this year, Irish farmers gained substantially because of the move towards alternative energy. This is a new industry and there is money in it for everybody.
My colleague raised the issue of carbon emissions trading. While we will never have a negative carbon footprint, we need to have regulated carbon trading, but only as part of and at the end of a process. This industry is full of cowboys. Carbon emissions trading can only be done if certified and verified by the UN and if the audit on what is being done, whether dealing with a sink in India or something in Ireland, is carried out by auditors who are approved and recognised. What is happening at present is that people buy carbon credits on the Internet — what are called verified carbon credits. We need the same standards of auditing as for company auditing.
Back to top of the page
Incandescent Light Bulbs
03/04/07 - Last week, while debating the Carbon Fund Bill 2006 with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, I pointed to the incandescent light bulbs in the Chamber and asked whether they could be replaced with environmentally friendly bulbs that do less damage in terms of carbon emissions. I note that the Government issued a statement yesterday to announce its intention to increase the price of incandescent bulbs. That is a regressive and regrettable measure. What does the Government expect people to do? Will they sit and curse the darkness or buy another light bulb? It is simply another stealth tax on bulbs. The proper solution is a ban on incandescent bulbs and an immediate change to modern bulbs. One country, Australia, has already announced that it will ban all incandescent bulbs from 2009. There is no reason Ireland should not show leadership to the rest of the world by beginning to phase out old fashioned carbon emitting bulbs from 2008. Rather than curse the darkness, let us do something positive for the environment by taking that approach. I ask the Leader to bring my suggestion to the attention of the Minister.
Back to top of the page
Energy Resources
11/10/06 - I wish to make some straightforward points. I agree that wind farms might despoil the landscape but we might have to make a choice some time between that and the possibility of sea water encroaching on some of the beautiful parts of the Minister of State’s county, among other areas.
I want to deal firmly with Senator Mansergh’s point about the instability of wind energy. …wind energy blows hot and cold, weak and strong. The reality is that wind energy throughout the country needs to be connected to the one grid because for 90% of the time, wind is blowing somewhere on the island. That is the correct figure. Airtricity put forward a proposal to the European Union to have a bank of wind farms interlinked from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean. There would always be wind blowing, as we can see from normal weather movements. That is the way forward.
I strongly agree with the point made by Senator Finucane on microgeneration. Connecting to the grid is a crucially important part of that, but we heard over a year ago that the connections to the grid are to be suspended. I do not know the reason for that. We did not get an explanation despite.
More importantly, and this is where this country always goes wrong, I am aware that one can get a grant for installing a wood pellet burning stove but one cannot get a grant for installing solar panels or a geothermal heating system. Where is the balance in that policy? What are we doing in that regard? Why can we not adopt the same approach to both options of the availability of a grant?
In terms of bio-fuel,we cannot create an industry for the agricultural community, many of whom the Minister of State represents, while there is a cap on the amount that can be produced under the excise limit. We cannot ask farmers to consider growing a new crop if there is not continuity and certainty of a market and we cannot ask industrialists or other people to develop that industry if they cannot be sure of it either. Currently, the cost of a barrel of crude oil or diesel is approximately $60, although the price fluctuates and was $70 a barrel at one stage. The cost of producing bio-fuel is almost double that at more than $100 a barrel.
I would like to there to be a move forward on the following issues. We should remove the cap on production and consider other ways of making the product more efficient. The Minister of State should also explain the reason renewable energy generation projects are not grant aided in the same way as are wood pellet burning installations. Solar energy appears to be going a-begging. It is almost winter and harnessing the solar energy that is currently outside would heat water to almost 20 degrees, which is enough to knock the sting out of cold water and to reduce many of our energy costs. Will the Minister of State consider those issues? I look forward to hearing his response to them.
Back to top of the page
Wind Farms
11/05/06 - I raised a related matter in the House on a number of occasions, namely, the question of where we stand on renewable energy. A man who was far too bright to be retained in the public service, Eddie O’Connor, has put forward a clear proposal for a linked series of windfarms from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. It is the most creative and progressive proposal to deal with wind energy I have seen. Using more than the regular 150 km or 200 km length of typical weatherfront would provide us with a constant stream of energy, as there would be wind on one end if there was none on the other. Storms in the Baltic might be creating energy while there was no wind in the Mediterranean. Linking them and Ireland would deal with the issue of the non-uniformity of wind energy.
Will the Government explain where it stands on the EU’s consideration of Airtricity’s proposal? It is far too progressive, creative and imaginative for Europe to jump on, but I hope the Government will recognise that the man who could have turned Bord na Móna around but was sacked by the State more than ten years ago for invalid reasons, has a significant contribution to make.
Back to top of the page
Energy Resources
16/02/06 - Good ideas have emerged in this debate but progress will not be made on them without the necessary political push. I remember a time when grants were awarded for work carried out to houses that the State wanted done. Would it not be a good idea if certain initiatives were tied to planning granted for single unit housing, given that many people object to the building of such units? What would be wrong with a decision at national level that every single unit house development — any person building a house on his or her own site — would be required to provide a solar panel for water heating? That would not be an expensive inclusion in the cost of building a house. While it is expensive to fit retrospectively, it would be a reasonable provision when building a house. Every new house should have a 1 KW wind energy generator on the roof.
The Minister of State correctly said that it is difficult to gauge the use of wind energy. The reason one cannot depend on wind energy, according to the ESB, is that for every watt that is potentially produced from wind energy, one must have an equal amount waiting in storage for the day the wind is not blowing. The way one deals with this is to have wind farms all over the country. Some 90% of the time there is wind blowing some place in Ireland and if the wind turbines are interconnected and we look at the 90% of the potential which will always be available, this could be tied into the grid.
People will say that the other big problem with wind farms is the cost of connecting up to the grid and the establishment of a substation. If farmers were encouraged to install single, old-fashioned 500 wind generators, those generators, as far as I know, can connect straight into the grid without a substation. That is something that farmers, in particular, could do. Approximately six months ago a decision was taken whereby the regulator would not accept any proposals for connection to the national grid for the next two years. Unless there is a good reason for it, that is regressive. It should not be happening.
A grant should be available for people who put up a wind generator and a solar panel in their homes, as long as they are properly fitted and will save us all money in the long term. We should have a strategic policy to be energy independent within a certain number of years. There is the Government’s commitment to increase green electricity to 13% of total consumption by 2010. That is a worthwhile goal.
The development of energy from biomass and wood pellets has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past couple of years. Many farmers who are experiencing difficulty in growing crops and getting adequate prices should be encouraged to diversify into biomass, in the form of growing trees that will be cut down and used for wood pellets, in those counties where that can be done efficiently and where a market can be created for them.
I have spoken to farmers in the south-east, who are involved in the creation of biodiesel. Their problem is they cannot get farmers to commit, particularly after the beet debacle, to change their entire operation to get into the development of this area in the fear that the civil servants over in Merrion Street will reapply the excise duty in a couple of years time. The Government should at least state it will not be touched for another ten years so that people can plan and get into it. These are reasonable and sensible suggestions.
We can justify many of the single house developments if we tie in certain measures like wind energy, solar panels and the other system which has not been developed in this country in recent times, micro-hydroelectricity. We all learned 20 or 30 years ago that we have harnessed the vast preponderance of what is available in hydroelectric energy. While that was the truth of it, new efficiencies have been created in this area with new micro-hydroelectric generators; even quite small streams and rivers can feed energy into the national grid. I saw what was available on Google and they exist in all shapes and sizes.
Back to top of the page
Alternative Energy Sources
22/11/05 - A month ago, I raised the need for a debate in this House on supports for alternative energy. I also pointed to the significant number of newspaper articles on the necessity of looking to nuclear energy as a means of dealing with our energy requirements. The British Prime Minister put forward the same proposal yesterday.
There is no doubt that there is major interest in this area. The debate I have called for should encompass an examination of wind energy for domestic uses, solar energy for heating and domestic uses, and proper incentives and supports for biofuels and alternative energy sources, be they wood pellets or whatever. The time for this debate is before the budget. There are actions we can take to deal with the problems relating to the Kyoto Protocol. Nuclear energy is not necessary at this time. I welcome a debate to focus people’s mind on this issue.
Back to top of the page
Wind Energy
17/11/05 - The Government and the ESB have taken the retrograde step of informing the wind farmers’ association that its members cannot apply for connection to the national grid for the next two years. Wind farms are being built around the country, the Government is attempting to persuade people to save energy and we are not harnessing natural energy. Why did the Government and the ESB decide to take this step? Vested interests in the concrete industry and the energy sector are at work here. How can we address this issue? The single housing issue could be resolved. If every new house was required to have a 1 kw wind energy generator and solar panels for water heating, in addition to proper insulation, we would save approximately 30% of our requirements under the Kyoto Protocol. I would welcome a debate on this issue.
Back to top of the page
Environmental Debate Request
12/10/05 - I asked whether we could debate another matter, namely, where Ireland stands on environmental issues, the Kyoto Agreement, etc. Much of the discussion focuses on the area of oil, the costs to our economy and what we are doing wrong. We must take a positive view in respect of this matter. I would welcome a debate with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on his views concerning wind energy, solar energy, wave energy and geothermal heating. I particularly wish to know how these can be made attractive to ordinary householders. Grants were available to householders not too long ago, perhaps sometime during the past 25 years, for making certain improvements to their houses. We could meet many of our Kyoto targets were every house in Ireland to have a 1 kilowatt wind generator, be properly insulated and have some element of solar power. How can we make this attractive and give support? Taking a proactive approach to this issue rather than keeping the debate centred on the cost of oil would save us money in the long term.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas website
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Minister Gormley’s Criticism of Oireachtas Committee (24/06/10)
Environmental Protection (23/06/10)
Energy (Corrib Gas) (19/05/10)
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 (23/03/10)
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 (09/03/10)
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 (04/03/10)
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 (09/02/10)
Energy Resources – Mayo (06/05/09)
Economic and Recovery Authority – Energy (01/04/09)
Energy Independence (01/04/09)
Development of Green Technology (05/11/08)
Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (EirGrid) Bill 2008 (24/06/08)
Climate Change and Energy Security – Electricity (31/01/08)
Energy Security and Climate Change (07/11/07)
Energy Developments in the West (17/10/07)
Climate Change and Carbon Emissions (11/10/07)
Climate Protection Bill (03/10/07)
Incandescent Light Bulbs (03/04/07)
Energy Resources (11/10/06)
Wind Farms (11/05/06)
Energy Resources (16/02/06)
Alternative Energy Sources (22/11/05)
Wind Energy (17/11/05)
Environmental Debate Request (12/10/05)
Back to top of the page
Minister Gormley’s Criticism of Oireachtas Committee
24/06/10 - ….. the attack by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. I do not have a problem with the Minister having a go at a committee if he wishes to do so. However, what he said was, in all fairness, completely wrong. The Minister said:
. . . the Oireachtas committee we set up has been used as a talking shop as a means to give adversarial comment and to knock the Government. That is not what it was set up for, which was to get a political consensus. I am very disappointed in this. ………….. Members of the Labour Party and other Opposition parties are using the committee not to achieve consensus but rather in the most adversarial way. Their only goal is to bash the Government . . . I had hoped it would develop a consensus on these major issues.
.. that is a completely unfair and an unjust criticism with no basis in fact. Far from existing to bash the Government, the committee has time and again produced consensus reports on issues such as the foreshore licensing Bill. It is the only joint committee in the history of the Houses to produce and present to Government legislation in support of Government policy.
It produced another …. on electric cars, which supported the Government’s position. A report on climate change, driven by the Labour Party in the main, also supported the Government. The committee has done ground-breaking work on emissions and other things. … If the Minister was wrong, he should be big enough to say so. His remarks were demoralising to a committee which already feels it is being ignored by Government.
Back to top of the page
Environmental Protection
23/06/10 - The smart thing for the Government side to do would be to accept the motion because there is no problem with it. ……. The Minister spoke about a lack of consensus at the committee (Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security) ………. the committee was established because of a demand made by the Green Party.
The committee did something unique. It published a fully agreed Bill, the Foreshore Licensing Bill, which it sent to the Minister, but nothing has happened. It was a classic example of where all parties and none had got behind the Government in support of its policy. There was nothing in the Bill that caused a difficulty for the Government. It dealt with a very important issue that was causing problems all over the place, namely, that space between high tide and low tide in offshore energy projects. I would like to ask the Minister why he did not accept the Bill which has been passed from one Department to another.
…….. Another Department has become involved in the geothermal energy issue, that of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resource, Deputy Ryan. The members of the committee are aware of enormous investments made in geothermal energy projects …. Investors have put together all of the basics for the capturing of heat for district heating systems, but they must be granted authority to capture that heat because it would be delivered via land which may not be owned by the initiators of an project. …. Legislation must be introduced to cover the matter. I have been assured in the House on at least three or four occasions that its publication is only around the corner, but we have not yet seen it.
The position is unfair. The committee Chairman, Deputy Barrett, is scrupulous about ensuring the committee will not be used to undermine the Government and has been entirely fair. However, he shares my frustration and that of … many other members of the committee, including those on the Government side, that we have not made progress on the matter.
The issue of water quality in Galway was mentioned. People with access to swimming pools backwash the filters every couple of weeks or months. They use sand filters such as those used in one of the main water treatment facilities in Galway. I understand there was no such treatment in that place because of a management problem. In other words, the plant was using the same sand filter put in place in 1947 or 1948 which had never been upgraded, serviced or backwashed. Material was passing straight through the filter which might as well not have been in place.
On water charges, I ask Senator Boyle to point out to the relevant Ministers that the charge to be levied will not be for water which is free. ….. The charge will be for the delivery and treatment of water. …. There must be recognition that the treatment and delivery of water are costly. There are fair ways of doing this. One can ensure everybody will receive a certain quantity of water before being charged.
….. The frequently mentioned proposal to get rid of town councils and smaller groups throughout the country would be disastrous. … I understood it had come from the Government side, but perhaps I am wrong. The people who will look after the environment are locals. Only when money raised from water charges and rates is spent by local groups will the matter receive attention. If it is spend on the wrong item, the people down the street will argue about it, whereas they take no notice at present.
….. certain matters need to be faced. We need to move forward. The Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security is frustrated because the Government is not moving on some of the issues I have raised and many more. …. None of it undermines Government policy. ….. We have been critical of delays, but that is as far as the committee has gone. That criticism has been made as much by Government members as by others.
As to how the House should deal with this business, we must look at the issues of water quality and local government which are linked with the environment. ….. The Government should be pushed. As such, I will support the motion which the Labour Party has tabled in very simple terms: “That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to institute sufficient measures to ensure that the Irish environment is adequately protected and enhanced, particularly in relation to ... climate change legislation ...”. I thought the early enactment of climate change legislation was Government policy. Listening to the Minister, I thought “the quality of our rivers and our water supply, the maintenance and improvement of our public beaches and remedial measures to address hazardous waste sites, including at Haulbowline”, were also part of Government policy. Which aspect of the motion causes a problem for the Government?
Back to top of the page
Energy (Corrib Gas)
19/05/10 - Legislation introduced in the other House by Deputy Varadkar states the Government should make an attempt to reduce the cost of energy, communications, travel and so on by 10% where it has such influence. This is a reasonable point …. One of the factors that must be considered is the cost of energy in this country which is greater than the cost of labour or anything else. …. also deal with the Front Line report on the Shell to Sea campaign. …. We must consider why the Government has not moved on the issue. If we are to achieve independence in energy production, gas from the Corrib field must be brought ashore. This should be an issue of urgency, although I agree that Shell must comply with every single law we put in front of it. One of the issues blocking progress is the Government’s refusal to proceed with the offshore renewable energy development Bill which was put together by the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security … with full support from all parties. However, the Department, for its own reasons, is not prepared to go ahead with it. I ask the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, to overrule his departmental advisers and proceed with the Bill which would allow offshore development to be carried out in an efficient and effective manner.
Back to top of the page
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010
23/03/10 - I move amendment No. 1: ………. The purpose of amendment No. 1 was to support, promote and incentivise indigenous bio-fuel production to increase security of supply. I tabled the amendment to have a clear indication of objectives. I am not sure how the Minister stands on the amendment but I recognise it would closely reflect his point of view.
Another issue which was raised by the Minister of State was that, to some extent, what we proposed might create a difficultly for Europe. We have researched the matter in some detail and do not see that would be the case. I note the Minister accepted that point on Committee Stage and did not have a different point of view. … It is in our best interests to adopt our proposals.
I have closely examined amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10 tabled by the Minister in response to the issue. A glass can be half full or half empty. Progress has been made. …. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am right in saying that while his amendments have the net effect of almost meeting what we asked for by putting a provision in primary legislation, they give him the power to do what we asked for through statutory instrument or ministerial order. That is my reading of the amendments. I would prefer to have the provision in primary legislation but I recognise that at least the door is now open to do this.
I am not 100% happy with the amendments tabled by the Minister, but it would be churlish of me not to recognise and acknowledge the significant progress which has been made and the openness of the Minister in listening, responding and putting forward an amended position.
…. The flexibility of secondary legislation is one of the reasons we often try to have matters tied down in primary legislation. …. He made a valid and plausible argument that there is such technological change in this area that our detailed proposals could be overtaken by events at some stage in the future. I also recognise there could be change in international trade obligations and in European regulations. The three areas of technology, Europe and international trade provide a very convincing case for change. I defer to the Minister’s arguments on that point. I am not convinced by the Minister’s throwaway comment about the food-fuel issue. I have looked at it closely and I have gone from one side of the argument to the other and back again three or four times.
One of the great difficulties is dealing with any agricultural product, where farmers tend to follow last year’s highest price and create a resultant flood in the market the following year, causing a fall in the price. There were indications worldwide that the attractiveness of ethanol producing crops was at the expense of food, but it is one of the few things that the market just might sort out as it goes along. It is not a long-term problem. It is one that, with strategic planning, the market and regulation, will find its own level. It is, however, an argument for another day. It does not arise today.
Back to top of the page
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010
09/03/10 - Since the debate last week on Committee Stage, I put some of the points that arose to those working in the industry and others. It is important to put those matters clearly on the record. In his statement, the Minister of State said that we must remain compliant with EU regulations and WTO guidelines on trade, which means that we cannot unfairly restrict imports. It is crucially important to recognise that nothing that we are proposing here in any way goes against either the EU regulations or the WTO guidelines. I think the Minister of State threw in a red herring at that point. As we understand it, the proposed amendments are fully consistent with EU trade guidelines and do not restrict imports unfairly or unduly. In addition, they have been proven to be WTO-compliant, as evidenced by their implementation in other EU member states.
Essentially, the Minister of State was saying that there are two separate tariff codes — one for denatured or industrial, and the other for food grade or agriculture. One is significantly higher than the other. It is important therefore to recognise the impact of what we propose for price increases. The Minister of State was a bit disingenuous, but I will not go any further than that. He said the latter is significantly higher at 19.2 cent per litre versus 10.2 cent per litre. Someone who was not listening closely would come to the conclusion that what we are proposing would increase the price by 10 cent per litre. To put this in context, however, it should be explained that bioethanol will constitute only 5% or 10% of petroleum blend, whether one goes on the E5 or E10 regulation. Putting it all together, with the difference between the existing and proposed tariff, the equivalent price increase to the consumer, if any, would be less than 1 cent per litre either way. That is crucial to our argument.
I do not think the Minister of State was fair in his response to us concerning his points on compliance, guidelines on trade, and the cost per litre. He also said the European Commission would have to be notified under the 1998 directive, as this type of initiative would be deemed a technical regulation. There is no doubt about that. However, notifying the European Commission of the change in a technical regulation is no more than a formality. If it is more, we should know. The European Commission is, and has been for some time, familiar with the German scheme and with similar schemes in many other member states. Therefore, it is a distraction to introduce this argument.
I am disappointed with the response of the Minister to the three points I have made. I know the Minister a long time, but this seems a completely defensive response. We did not put our amendments forward in order to have a go at the Department or the Minister. They were put forward in good faith.
The Minister said that from a national perspective the only substantial problem with the course of action proposed is that the United Kingdom has not adopted such a measure and given that we import 60% of our road transport fuel from the UK, such a measure would have the potential to increase costs to Irish consumers substantially as they would have to be supplied with a different blend of bioethanol. That is probably the most challenging of all the points made. I would like to put on record the industry’s response to us on that. If what I say misleads the Minister or the House, please correct me, because we put forward our amendments in good faith. I recognise that this is a technical issue, but the reference to the UK as not having adopted this measure is misleading and does not pose an issue as inferred. Indeed, it demonstrates a lack of understanding in differentiating between two very different products, sourced from different parts of the world and technically handled in very different ways.
….. what we propose has many attractions, for the Minister and the State. It increases tax revenue to the State, is a boost for the agricultural industry, leads to carbon dioxin capture and therefore reduces our need to offset or invest more money in offsetting. I recall that before the Minister came into office, he took a strong view against the provision in the 2007 budget for the €270 million being put aside for offsetting. I agreed with him at the time and said that here. Another attraction is that the measure creates employment in various parts of the country and provides support for the agricultural industry, rural development and various processing facilities, including the one in Waterford-Kilkenny. The arguments against it do not stand up.
The Minister of State made an unusual statement. He said he would listen to our arguments and try and bring some measures forward to meet our needs. That was a positive response. However, it was not very positive of him — we found this difficult to understand — to say he would not do that until Second Stage in the Dáil. The Seanad is the anvil on which the arguments have been hammered out. Therefore, we should mould, shape and conclude the Bill here. We need to bring the argument to a conclusion now. If the points I have raised are incorrect, we need to argue the case again and come to a conclusion on it here. We can do that on Report Stage…. We should convince each other through argument and through providing plausible and cogent responses to each other’s positions and in that way find a compromise position.
Back to top of the page
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010
04/03/10 - This is a classic example of something that is really central to our debates on job creation, on the economy, on climate change and on energy security. ….. Every agriculture, energy and climate change spokespersons should be in attendance for this debate. …. This is crucial legislation and these proposals have the support of the whole agricultural community, the IFA and local communities everywhere and also the support of Irish industry.
…... We are not talking about incentivisation but rather about a level playing pitch. We want the Irish farmer to have a level playing pitch with the Brazilian producer. It took five years to convince the authorities on the question of beef and meat imports from Brazil and let us not go down the same road again. …We are dealing with very technical issues ….
…. the other argument which needs to be examined includes carbon dioxide capture. Methane is 25 times stronger and more damaging than carbon dioxide. This plant (Belview) can capture the carbon dioxide and it can be reused. We will save ourselves emissions costs and save ourselves paying for some of the carbon emissions trading units which the Government has had to include in the last two budgets. The plant also produces a product for livestock which has a ready market in farms all over Ireland.
The other counter-argument is to do with the price of wheat and this argument does not stand up to serious examination. As it stands, wheat prices would have to become 30%, 40% or 50% more expensive in order to make it unviable for this plant in Belview to deal with Irish-produced wheat.
Ireland grows winter wheat which is not common in most other European countries. It grows longer and has a higher level of yield. These are issues which I ask the Minister of State to consider so he can make our arguments to people who suggest a different argument to him. It is completely in line with Government policy and ticks the box in terms of energy security, job creation and an immediate improvement in the construction sector. Crucially, it will also mean that tax will be paid in Ireland. … It will mean increased tax revenue.
….. This is also a question of sustainable rural development. If there is any downside to our proposal in terms of Government policy, I cannot find it. ….. If aspects of our amendments need to changed, then they can be changed …. I can guarantee that by taking these amendments on board, the legislation will leave this House in a far enhanced, more acceptable and more deliverable condition.
Back to top of the page
Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010
09/02/10 - While this is important legislation, as previous speakers said, we must examine the complete picture. In fairness, there is a trilemma involving the tension surrounding food production, energy security and the environment. Getting it right globally will be very difficult. I do not know all the answers.
We are dealing with the replacement of fossil fuel energy with renewable energy, which as a starting position must be welcomed. ….. Such action should also be welcomed with regard to dealing with emissions. The various plants or vegetation used to create bio-fuels are completely carbon neutral. This means the amount of carbon dioxide they release to the air is equal to the amount collected during their period of growth. Therefore, the process does not worsen in any way the balance in the atmosphere.
The Minister mentioned in his speech the mineral oil tax relief schemes and referred to them as interim measures. That is a significant problem. I have spoken to farmers and people in the fuel industry who have been dealing with the issue. They need certainty over a period of time. They must be sure that the tax or excise reliefs will be available for a certain number of years in order that a farmer can plan growth of the vegetation over that time in various parts of his or her farm. That is an important financial matter that must be done right.
…………… The Green Party has a fine agenda which it should stand behind. We will sort out the irrelevant issues like hunting but we must keep with the core issues of the green economy. We must do everything we can to push it forward and have a cleaner environment. We should resolve the trilemma between food, energy and the environment. It can be done and I look forward to supporting the Minister as he does this.
Back to top of the page
Energy Resources – Mayo
06/05/09 - In honour of his (Minister of State, Deputy Dara Calleary) presence in the House I will talk substantially about his county of Mayo. First, I will conclude the debate on nuclear energy. I do not support nuclear energy but the … issue has to be discussed and examined. …. I would like to hear a clear distinction between nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is where the isotopes drive madly into each other and create energy. However, the problem is that it cannot be stopped and this is still happening in Chernobyl, 25 years later and we have no control over it. On the other hand, nuclear fusion is where the isotopes are merged together. It is in a much more controlled environment, although it needs much more heat to do it. The long-term waste is less and the half-life where it is dangerous is much shorter, one tenth that of fission, so it is far less dangerous to future generations.
… we are as rich in energy as almost any place in Europe. The Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, will know this because he and I have examined it very closely. I want to mention the extraordinary, progressive, creative and advanced work being done by Mayo County Council. It was mind-boggling to meet Mr. Des Mahon, the Mayo county manager, ably assisted by people such as Mr. Peter Hynes and others, who have led the way. For people who talk about what county councils do and do not do, and the importance of local authorities, here are rural models for other counties to look at. … The amount of energy that comes through the grid to our houses at peak every day, around 6 p.m. is approximately 5,000 MW in the middle of winter and approximately 3,500 MW in the summer.
Mayo County Council has a proposal to build a wind farm in Bellacorrick in Mayo. …. The county council has all the bits put together and can deal with it at its end but there are national problems. The problem of getting onto the grid has been solved but it must deal with planning and other issues and we must return to that. When in full flow that wind farm will produce 500 MW. That is between one seventh and one tenth of Ireland’s daily requirements produced in one area in County Mayo. That is what can be done and it is completely renewable.
On the map of the world which shows the most energy laden waves, the north Mayo coast is the richest in Europe. The average wave height off Belmullet is approximately 2.5 m to 3 m, about the height of the door jambs in this chamber. A metre of that can produce approximately 450 MW per hour, so at least another tenth of our energy and probably more can be produced from Mayo. We are talking about between one quarter and one fifth of our requirement coming from those two sources alone.
A building on Fitzwilliam Square houses a company called OpenHydro. It is the most advanced tidal energy company in the world. Wave energy is from waves going up and down. Tidal energy is from the tide going in and out. ... The only example of tidal energy in Ireland is in Strangford Lough, outside this jurisdiction. ….. One can get that in Bulls Mouth in Achill, along by Kilcredaun Point lighthouse in the Shannon Estuary and up closer to Limerick, the Blasket Sound, places on the east coast where the tide runs down the Irish Sea near Arklow Bank and such places, off Galway and other places. It is not huge but it exists.
Tidal energy is called open energy. It is silent and invisible. Not even the most difficult An Taisce member can object to this. It is far underwater, unseen, invisible and poses no danger to navigation. The reason it is called open is that it is open in the middle so seals, dolphins and fish can go through without being damaged. All these possibilities for production exist for us and we are not availing of them.
…. the electric car is an extraordinary advance for us because electric cars are recharged at night while the windmills at Bellacorrick will be flying and we will be producing energy that no one will want to buy. In Ireland we have no way to store energy. We will have interconnectors to Europe but one still cannot sell it during off-peak times. The only storage we have in Ireland is Turlough Hill where we pump water up during the off-peak hours and drop it down during the peak hours. We get only 80% efficiency from that and there are many more efficient ways of doing it.
The Minister of State’s county can lead the world on aspects of wave energy, Ireland can lead the world on aspects of tidal energy and we can sell wind power into Europe. I am not making this up.
Back to top of the page
Economic and Recovery Authority – Energy
01/04/09 - I want to focus on one aspect of what is a very progressive document which is more progressive in its proposals than what the Government has proposed in the areas of energy and energy storage, for instance. The Green Party might have a good look at it and just make sure the Government moves along these lines.
….. . I took as an example the case of County Mayo. It is my belief that County Mayo, properly organised and harnessed, could be supplying Ireland with a substantial amount of its energy needs in a very short time indeed. First and foremost we need to get the Corrib gas on shore. This demands and requires political leadership. There has been too much shilly-shallying about this. … we should now decide to get the gas on shore. Anyone looking at Ireland’s energy requirements and considering that Kinsale will be going off-line within 18 months, knows that we have to do this. We should be courageous and tell people that this is the action required and the patriotic action is to bring it ashore.
… off the north-west Mayo coast is the most energy-rich wave source in Europe. The average wave height is an unbelievable 2.5 m for the whole year. There is no place else in Europe with such waves. There are people down there tearing their hair out because they are not getting the kind of support they need. It requires three or four pieces of legislation to be revisited and changed rapidly so that licences can be issued.
The Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security has made proposals which the Government should take and run with. There is not a proper quantum of research and development on this issue happening in our universities. Wave energy is being developed very successfully in University College Cork and to a lesser extent in two other places. I plead with the Government. .. to set up a bursary in a number of universities on this island for doctorate-level research on the development of wave energy. We are close to leading the world on this but Scotland is marginally ahead of us at the moment. We could be a world leader.
The second issue is that of tidal energy. …. Wind off the west coast is an extraordinary resource. There is currently a proposal to establish a wind farm of 5,000 MW in Mayo. These are issues which can be moved forward.
Back to top of the page
Energy Independence
01/04/09 - While there is not an immediate rush on this matter, I would like a discussion in the House on the question of energy independence, to include when the Corrib gas field will come on line, how we can ensure it will come on line and the difficulties of being 95% exposed to foreign sources of energy. There is a lack of doctoral research in our third level institutions on alternative energy. They are now only being carried out in very few of our third level institutions. The Government should intervene to ensure that happens.
Back to top of the page
Development of Green Technology
05/11/08 - I spent eight years arguing about the lack of Government commitment to the building regulations which were anticipated by Brussels in 1997. We continued to build houses that did not meet the regulations, knowing we should not have done so. Some 250,000 houses in the Dublin city area were built using cavity blocks and these will never meet the standard required, which is a disgrace. Of all the things the building industry did over the years, that was the worst. I do not blame those involved in the industry because they built in accordance with the regulations. … It is impossible to retrofit insulation to houses built using cavity blocks. I compliment the Green Party on insisting, when it entered Government, that the building regulations be brought into play almost immediately.
I am of the view that, as happens in certain parts of Spain, it should be a requirement that a method of producing renewable energy be attached to the structure of every house built from this day forward. … The method I would recommend is that which involves photovoltaic solar panels. Such panels are quite sophisticated and are now more efficient than water-heating solar panels. Given that it is hoped to put in place smart meters in people’s houses, putting in place photovoltaic panels would be an easy and attractive option.
We should also engage in a closer examination of incineration. I am not sure where the Green Party stands in respect of incineration but I sense its members hate discussing it. I am not sure, however, that incineration is the answer. I do not believe it is either as bad or as good as certain individuals state. I am certain, however, that it is a great deal better than landfill, particularly in the context of the difficulties that can arise as a result of leakage into the soil, atmospheric emissions, etc. Consideration certainly should be given to the introduction of incineration.
We can develop technology only by literally doing so. There is some involvement from the South in what is being attempted in County Down at present. Those working on the project to harness tidal energy near Carlingford are working in the dark to some extent. It is significant and impressive that they are not sure of all the answers. I am extremely excited by the fact that they have achieved so much, that they will monitor what happens from now on and that they will learn as they go. Why are we not doing something similar at Achill Sound? Who in the Government is responsible for examining proposals of this nature? If I spent a month in one of the relevant Departments, the staff there would be working non-stop for six years afterwards and I could go on holiday. There are so many simple steps which could be taken but which we are failing to take.
There are two major issues relating to energy in respect of which final development is required. The first involves nuclear fusion as opposed to nuclear fission. I am not in favour of nuclear power but I would like to examine the arguments in favour and against it. I can see how much safer fusion reactors would be when compared to those at Chernobyl and other locations. Nuclear fusion is certainly attractive. A nuclear fusion reactor is being developed in France — at a location adjacent to its nuclear fission reactors — because that country was successful in its bid to host the project. Nuclear fusion will be extremely important for the future.
The second and more important issue — in respect of which, perhaps, greater scientific and intellectual input is required — involves the use of hydrogen. The latter is one of the most useful and easy to use fuels. Hydrogen fuel cells can be transported anywhere and BMW and many of the main car manufacturers have produced prototype hydrogen cars. Hydrogen is one of the most common elements in the world. One need only remove it from water — H2O — in order to obtain access to a great source of energy. Can it be removed from water? The answer is yes. This is being done by means of a process which means that one can almost get as much out of it as one puts in. The cost and energy required to remove the hydrogen from water almost equates to the amount of hydrogen produced by the process. …. If the process relating to its production can be further developed, hydrogen will become a source of energy for the future. In addition, when one burns hydrogen, the only waste product is pure distilled water. There is no dirt.
Back to top of the page
Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (EirGrid) Bill 2008
24/06/08 - I am probably the only Member of either House who has a problem with it. Having said that, nothing I have to say reflects in any way on the excellent people who operate EirGrid, whom I have met. They are diligent, decent people who are good at their work.
I am looking down the line at what will happen afterwards, as I am required to do as a legislator. I do not trust the unknown people who in 20 years’ time will be in charge of what the Minister is now in charge of. My problem with this Bill is that we are bundling up and neatly packaging something which can be sold off the next time a Government has a problem. That will happen and people will regret it.
I have no problem with the concept of a grid or the authority we are giving to EirGrid. However, I would like to see EirGrid as part of an integrated system within the ESB. The problem with discussing this is that the debate has not moved on. What we are doing today is as important as the construction of the Ardnacrusha power station in the 1920s. However, one would have great difficulty convincing the people of that.
The Minister and I know that generation is no longer the name of the game. We could stop generating as soon as we have this set up. The real issue is that EirGrid will buy and sell. Of course, it is open to the private sector, and so it should be. If the private sector can produce as cheaply as the ESB, then it will be in the marketplace but so far, it has failed to do that and that is why it has not exactly been rushing into it. It is quite extraordinary in that sense why people are missing that point.
There are three aspects to this, namely, generation, the national grid and the network. The network is what I call the bit that brings the power from the grid to houses. In any other country where this has been done, it has created a problem. I said to the Minister last year before he was appointed that in New Zealand, where they did exactly this, the grid company refused to pay the costs of connection to the network in the capital city of Wellington which was left without power, on and off, for approximately six weeks. That happened in the past ten years as a direct result of the privatisation of the grid. I know the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is not privatising the national grid, but his actions would allow it to be privatised very easily in future and there is no strategic reason for this. There can be no strategic reason for letting go the reins on EirGrid.
This is a significant problem. Throughout Europe, …. The big player, effectively, is Electricité de France, EDF. It is buying companies throughout England and the UK and is looking at options here. The company …. is examining developments in north County Louth and so on. There is nobody scrutinising this.
….. I saw people on the 9 o’clock news holding up fluorescent tubes which began lighting up underneath the high tension cable. Any normal person would think it is significant that the tubes are being lit in these circumstances and that there must be implications for him or her. Such a reaction is normal and this issue does not affect me directly. This matter is worth examining. We should put underground any such cables within an agreed distance from private dwellings or from any conurbations or villages and so on. This guarantee should be given and factored into the costing.
……… The roll-out of smart metering and the support for micro-generation is not happening quickly enough. I do not understand the reason it is possible to get a grant for installing solar panels but not for a micro-generator or a wind generator. We should examine these options and they should be connected to the national grid. Those generating power should be able to supply the grid whether it comes from solar panels, wind generation or other sources. There is much to be done.
Back to top of the page
Climate Change and Energy Security – Electricity
31/01/08 - I believe there is an agenda running on the EirGrid issue. .. I believe we are walking head first into major difficulties with electricity and electricity security. … There are three aspects to electricity in the country. The national grid brings electricity from there to local transformers around the country. The electricity network brings it from the transformers into houses. According to the programme for Government, we are now about to package up the national grid into one neat company and run it separately to the rest. That is the biggest mistake. Of all the people who could come in here, nobody knows more about packaging parts of a public utility than the Minister. He even had to walk away from his party Whip on a similar issue on one occasion.
The only parts of the whole system that we need to examine is the grid and the network. It does not matter where the generation comes from. Once we put down international interconnectors, we can buy and sell the stuff from Europe.
A grid is being set up which is now being packaged. I want to put on the record that I believe the national grid will be privatised in five years’ time. Therefore, we might own the generation capacity and the network which brings it to Mrs Murphy’s door, but we will not own the national grid which brings it as far as the local network. This happened before in New Zealand. As soon as the grid was sold off in New Zealand, there were immediate problems. Who was going to pay to connect the grid to the network? The first place in which they encountered difficulty was in Wellington, the capital city, which was left without power for three full weeks while the company which owned the grid held the Government to ransom to pay for the connection from the grid to the local network. That is already happening in this country. Private providers charge exorbitant rates at peak usage times to the Government in order to provide the surplus we need. A few years ago we had to buy in portable generators and that is what happened.
The national grid needs about €2 billion in investment. Either the Government pays the money and it will be a prosperous company later sold off to the greedy private sector, or the Government could do what it did with Aer Lingus. It could state that it has not got the €2 billion to invest in the company, will blame Europe for not being able to invest in it and state that it must get the private sector in to do it. I believe that will happen.
To have energy security we need to have storage capacity. How do we store electricity? If we create 100% electricity at six o’clock in the morning when people are getting up and it is needed at six in the evening when people are cooking, how do we get the balance right, and where do we hold the electricity? … I have put this question previously to the Department and was told the interconnector would do it. In other words, it is sold into the grid. The grid we are selling it back to is in the UK, which has precisely the same type of peaks and troughs as Ireland. That is not the answer, but there are ways for storing electricity, although I am not an expert in this area. If we take hydrogen based electricity, the substance in most supply on this earth is water, H2O, hydrogen and oxygen. One of the difficulties is that it is not effective and efficient to remove hydrogen from water and then use it for power. It takes almost as much energy to subtract the hydrogen as one will get from burning it. That is precisely why it appears an extraordinary good way to have storage. If we use our spare capacity to extract hydrogen from water and then use this for power when it is needed, it is the cleanest energy on earth. The waste produced by the burning or usage of hydrogen is clean drinkable potable water. There is no better way of approaching it and we should do it.
In simple terms, however, what Ireland is doing with waste is in breach of European regulations. Waste is supposed to be disposed of as closely as possible to the point at which it has been created. We are disposing of enormous amounts of waste in China. That cannot be right. It is not right. I do not know whether any colleague here has ever tried to track a piece of waste. I tried to do it two years ago, and again last year, to see where it gets to from the doorstep, into various distribution channels, and how it is checked as regards where it ends up. The figures are all over the place. If they were to be audited, half the people involved would be sacked because it is not possible to track them. Nobody knows what percentage finishes up in China.
…. The way we are moving at the moment, in creating a separate company, EirGrid, in the midst of an electricity utility is inexplicable. I do not know why we are doing this. …. I see nothing wrong with the ESB continuing to own the grid system and running it properly in its own interest. Neither will I condone Europe taking the blame for this, by the way. All I suggest may be done well within the parameters laid down by Europe.
Back to top of the page
Energy Security and Climate Change
07/11/07 - The decision by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the building regulations on insulation, is the most progressive made in this area since I entered the Seanad. Senators are well aware that I and former Senator, Deputy Brian Hayes, have pushed this issue for years. I contend that since 1998 we have built over 250,000 sub-standard insulated houses despite being well aware they did not meet the regulations. The Government invented a new form of measuring heat loss through the roof when the rest of the world measured it on the basis of the amount of energy required to heat a cubic metre of house space annually. I welcome the fact that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, has now introduced that system.
I have also been seeking the introduction of smart meters. I was pleased to hear the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources say during the week that if people have wind generators or micro-generators at home they can feed surplus energy back into the grid and be paid for it, however small the amount.
On a number of occasions recently, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has raised the question of waste-derived fuel and variations of it. Effectively, this is a basic scientific idea but it is not rocket science. It captures methane from landfill waste. There is a more progressive method of creating waste-derived fuel, which is being developed at the University of Limerick. It could replace incineration here were we to opt for it.
A year ago, I proposed … that… every new house should be required to have a wind generator or solar panels. There are many other things that could be done but that would be a simple measure. It has been done in other parts of the world.
We also need to discuss the issue of nuclear energy, although I am completely opposed to it. …. Something has changed, however, and it is rocket science. It is the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Fission involves a nuclear isotope running wildly in an enclosed space and is uncontrollable, as we saw in Chernobyl, which will still be causing trouble in 1,000 years’ time. Nuclear fusion is different because it is when both are put together. It is much more controlled, less difficult and poses fewer dangers once used. I am not suggesting that we should go into that but we need a discussion on it, if only to rule it out.
In the last month, BMW has put 200 hydrogen-powered cars on the market. This is basic science as opposed to nuclear science. Water, designated as H2O, comprises two molecules of hydrogen to one of oxygen. The separation of hydrogen from water produces the cleanest source of energy on the planet, and when used the waste is clean water. It represents the future and while it is possible to do it now it cannot yet be done efficiently. In other words, it takes almost as much energy to extract hydrogen from H2O as the energy the hydrogen would produce afterwards. In real terms, therefore, the game is not yet worth the candle but it will develop as a future energy source. We should be examining that possibility now.
Back to top of the page
Energy Developments in the West
17/10/07 - In recent days we read in the newspapers of the development through NUI, Galway of a company which produces sustainable and practical wave energy which produces 1 kilowatt output. This is an extraordinary development which we should discuss.
In the University of Limerick waste derived fuel has been developed. In the context of incineration this is the way forward. It is a completely enclosed system of dealing with waste with no smells, heat, incineration or methane. The methane is captured and used as an alternative fuel. It deals powerfully and economically with waste. This is not green wellies and tweeds. It is real industry developed in the west of Ireland.We should recognise it and know more about it.
Back to top of the page
Climate Change and Carbon Emissions
11/10/07 - I ask the Deputy Leader to examine the issue of climate change and carbon emissions because it is appropriate to his party. Most uninterested people say Ireland is only a small country that can achieve little in this regard. The matter should be localised. I would like the Minister to consider having a carbon audit per county with each county producing an annual report on carbon emissions and how they have changed from year to year. This would localise the matter and make it something people feel they would be better equipped to tackle.
Back to top of the page
Climate Protection Bill
03/10/07 - Six months ago in this House I made three requests. I asked that every house built in this country would be required to have a solar panel or another renewable energy source. I asked that we get rid of the daft system invented by the Department for measuring insulation and heat loss and come to the international and only worthwhile standard of measuring the kilowatt hours of energy required to heat a cubic metre of a house for one year. If I do nothing else in politics, I feel this is important.
The third request I made ties in with the issue. Senator Bacik’s Bill goes through various types of emissions of which the first listed is carbon and the second is methane. It is important to recognise that methane is 20 times as virulent, dangerous and damaging as carbon. Nonetheless, every landfill in the country shoves methane into the atmosphere at an extraordinary pace. We must do something about this.
The Minister and I never agreed on the matter of chemically dealing with waste. I do not know the answer to what is the best way to deal with it. Recently, I met a group which established a research centre at the University of Limerick. It has a completely closed way of dealing with waste with no emissions, olfactory or otherwise. It also captures methane. They told me they could build a plant for €30 million which would deal with 300 million tonnes per year.
Given technological advances, it is now easy to create microenergy such as microhydro-electric energy. If a wind generator is established in Newry or if one creates slightly more energy than one requires in one’s house and it goes back into the grid, the utility pays one for it. This does not happen in the South. This could be done in the morning. It is a matter of one regulation.
I am slightly concerned about biomass. I am concerned that we have not made enough progress on ethanol and the various bio-fuels. It is interesting to note that this year, Irish farmers gained substantially because of the move towards alternative energy. This is a new industry and there is money in it for everybody.
My colleague raised the issue of carbon emissions trading. While we will never have a negative carbon footprint, we need to have regulated carbon trading, but only as part of and at the end of a process. This industry is full of cowboys. Carbon emissions trading can only be done if certified and verified by the UN and if the audit on what is being done, whether dealing with a sink in India or something in Ireland, is carried out by auditors who are approved and recognised. What is happening at present is that people buy carbon credits on the Internet — what are called verified carbon credits. We need the same standards of auditing as for company auditing.
Back to top of the page
Incandescent Light Bulbs
03/04/07 - Last week, while debating the Carbon Fund Bill 2006 with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, I pointed to the incandescent light bulbs in the Chamber and asked whether they could be replaced with environmentally friendly bulbs that do less damage in terms of carbon emissions. I note that the Government issued a statement yesterday to announce its intention to increase the price of incandescent bulbs. That is a regressive and regrettable measure. What does the Government expect people to do? Will they sit and curse the darkness or buy another light bulb? It is simply another stealth tax on bulbs. The proper solution is a ban on incandescent bulbs and an immediate change to modern bulbs. One country, Australia, has already announced that it will ban all incandescent bulbs from 2009. There is no reason Ireland should not show leadership to the rest of the world by beginning to phase out old fashioned carbon emitting bulbs from 2008. Rather than curse the darkness, let us do something positive for the environment by taking that approach. I ask the Leader to bring my suggestion to the attention of the Minister.
Back to top of the page
Energy Resources
11/10/06 - I wish to make some straightforward points. I agree that wind farms might despoil the landscape but we might have to make a choice some time between that and the possibility of sea water encroaching on some of the beautiful parts of the Minister of State’s county, among other areas.
I want to deal firmly with Senator Mansergh’s point about the instability of wind energy. …wind energy blows hot and cold, weak and strong. The reality is that wind energy throughout the country needs to be connected to the one grid because for 90% of the time, wind is blowing somewhere on the island. That is the correct figure. Airtricity put forward a proposal to the European Union to have a bank of wind farms interlinked from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean. There would always be wind blowing, as we can see from normal weather movements. That is the way forward.
I strongly agree with the point made by Senator Finucane on microgeneration. Connecting to the grid is a crucially important part of that, but we heard over a year ago that the connections to the grid are to be suspended. I do not know the reason for that. We did not get an explanation despite.
More importantly, and this is where this country always goes wrong, I am aware that one can get a grant for installing a wood pellet burning stove but one cannot get a grant for installing solar panels or a geothermal heating system. Where is the balance in that policy? What are we doing in that regard? Why can we not adopt the same approach to both options of the availability of a grant?
In terms of bio-fuel,we cannot create an industry for the agricultural community, many of whom the Minister of State represents, while there is a cap on the amount that can be produced under the excise limit. We cannot ask farmers to consider growing a new crop if there is not continuity and certainty of a market and we cannot ask industrialists or other people to develop that industry if they cannot be sure of it either. Currently, the cost of a barrel of crude oil or diesel is approximately $60, although the price fluctuates and was $70 a barrel at one stage. The cost of producing bio-fuel is almost double that at more than $100 a barrel.
I would like to there to be a move forward on the following issues. We should remove the cap on production and consider other ways of making the product more efficient. The Minister of State should also explain the reason renewable energy generation projects are not grant aided in the same way as are wood pellet burning installations. Solar energy appears to be going a-begging. It is almost winter and harnessing the solar energy that is currently outside would heat water to almost 20 degrees, which is enough to knock the sting out of cold water and to reduce many of our energy costs. Will the Minister of State consider those issues? I look forward to hearing his response to them.
Back to top of the page
Wind Farms
11/05/06 - I raised a related matter in the House on a number of occasions, namely, the question of where we stand on renewable energy. A man who was far too bright to be retained in the public service, Eddie O’Connor, has put forward a clear proposal for a linked series of windfarms from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. It is the most creative and progressive proposal to deal with wind energy I have seen. Using more than the regular 150 km or 200 km length of typical weatherfront would provide us with a constant stream of energy, as there would be wind on one end if there was none on the other. Storms in the Baltic might be creating energy while there was no wind in the Mediterranean. Linking them and Ireland would deal with the issue of the non-uniformity of wind energy.
Will the Government explain where it stands on the EU’s consideration of Airtricity’s proposal? It is far too progressive, creative and imaginative for Europe to jump on, but I hope the Government will recognise that the man who could have turned Bord na Móna around but was sacked by the State more than ten years ago for invalid reasons, has a significant contribution to make.
Back to top of the page
Energy Resources
16/02/06 - Good ideas have emerged in this debate but progress will not be made on them without the necessary political push. I remember a time when grants were awarded for work carried out to houses that the State wanted done. Would it not be a good idea if certain initiatives were tied to planning granted for single unit housing, given that many people object to the building of such units? What would be wrong with a decision at national level that every single unit house development — any person building a house on his or her own site — would be required to provide a solar panel for water heating? That would not be an expensive inclusion in the cost of building a house. While it is expensive to fit retrospectively, it would be a reasonable provision when building a house. Every new house should have a 1 KW wind energy generator on the roof.
The Minister of State correctly said that it is difficult to gauge the use of wind energy. The reason one cannot depend on wind energy, according to the ESB, is that for every watt that is potentially produced from wind energy, one must have an equal amount waiting in storage for the day the wind is not blowing. The way one deals with this is to have wind farms all over the country. Some 90% of the time there is wind blowing some place in Ireland and if the wind turbines are interconnected and we look at the 90% of the potential which will always be available, this could be tied into the grid.
People will say that the other big problem with wind farms is the cost of connecting up to the grid and the establishment of a substation. If farmers were encouraged to install single, old-fashioned 500 wind generators, those generators, as far as I know, can connect straight into the grid without a substation. That is something that farmers, in particular, could do. Approximately six months ago a decision was taken whereby the regulator would not accept any proposals for connection to the national grid for the next two years. Unless there is a good reason for it, that is regressive. It should not be happening.
A grant should be available for people who put up a wind generator and a solar panel in their homes, as long as they are properly fitted and will save us all money in the long term. We should have a strategic policy to be energy independent within a certain number of years. There is the Government’s commitment to increase green electricity to 13% of total consumption by 2010. That is a worthwhile goal.
The development of energy from biomass and wood pellets has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past couple of years. Many farmers who are experiencing difficulty in growing crops and getting adequate prices should be encouraged to diversify into biomass, in the form of growing trees that will be cut down and used for wood pellets, in those counties where that can be done efficiently and where a market can be created for them.
I have spoken to farmers in the south-east, who are involved in the creation of biodiesel. Their problem is they cannot get farmers to commit, particularly after the beet debacle, to change their entire operation to get into the development of this area in the fear that the civil servants over in Merrion Street will reapply the excise duty in a couple of years time. The Government should at least state it will not be touched for another ten years so that people can plan and get into it. These are reasonable and sensible suggestions.
We can justify many of the single house developments if we tie in certain measures like wind energy, solar panels and the other system which has not been developed in this country in recent times, micro-hydroelectricity. We all learned 20 or 30 years ago that we have harnessed the vast preponderance of what is available in hydroelectric energy. While that was the truth of it, new efficiencies have been created in this area with new micro-hydroelectric generators; even quite small streams and rivers can feed energy into the national grid. I saw what was available on Google and they exist in all shapes and sizes.
Back to top of the page
Alternative Energy Sources
22/11/05 - A month ago, I raised the need for a debate in this House on supports for alternative energy. I also pointed to the significant number of newspaper articles on the necessity of looking to nuclear energy as a means of dealing with our energy requirements. The British Prime Minister put forward the same proposal yesterday.
There is no doubt that there is major interest in this area. The debate I have called for should encompass an examination of wind energy for domestic uses, solar energy for heating and domestic uses, and proper incentives and supports for biofuels and alternative energy sources, be they wood pellets or whatever. The time for this debate is before the budget. There are actions we can take to deal with the problems relating to the Kyoto Protocol. Nuclear energy is not necessary at this time. I welcome a debate to focus people’s mind on this issue.
Back to top of the page
Wind Energy
17/11/05 - The Government and the ESB have taken the retrograde step of informing the wind farmers’ association that its members cannot apply for connection to the national grid for the next two years. Wind farms are being built around the country, the Government is attempting to persuade people to save energy and we are not harnessing natural energy. Why did the Government and the ESB decide to take this step? Vested interests in the concrete industry and the energy sector are at work here. How can we address this issue? The single housing issue could be resolved. If every new house was required to have a 1 kw wind energy generator and solar panels for water heating, in addition to proper insulation, we would save approximately 30% of our requirements under the Kyoto Protocol. I would welcome a debate on this issue.
Back to top of the page
Environmental Debate Request
12/10/05 - I asked whether we could debate another matter, namely, where Ireland stands on environmental issues, the Kyoto Agreement, etc. Much of the discussion focuses on the area of oil, the costs to our economy and what we are doing wrong. We must take a positive view in respect of this matter. I would welcome a debate with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on his views concerning wind energy, solar energy, wave energy and geothermal heating. I particularly wish to know how these can be made attractive to ordinary householders. Grants were available to householders not too long ago, perhaps sometime during the past 25 years, for making certain improvements to their houses. We could meet many of our Kyoto targets were every house in Ireland to have a 1 kilowatt wind generator, be properly insulated and have some element of solar power. How can we make this attractive and give support? Taking a proactive approach to this issue rather than keeping the debate centred on the cost of oil would save us money in the long term.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas website