Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I agree with Mr. Sharkey. I am full of hope that we, as a country, will be brilliant at this. According to the EirGrid calculator, wind generates 2,951 MW, which is amazing, although it is a windy day. I think of the former head of EirGrid who swore to me only ten years ago that the maximum wind generation would be only 800 MW in the Irish system and that it was physically impossible and dangerous to go beyond that. Now it is running at 3 GW. EirGrid has demonstrated expertise since it gave up that old-fashioned view of the world and it has become a world leader in integration renewables.

I read with interest the scenarios and alternatives, which were referred to earlier. I would go with a combination of the low carbon living and consumer action scenarios. If I have read this correctly, EirGrid is saying that by 2030, we could have 75% renewables in our system. This is according to the experts. I scratch my head and I wonder. I have the height of time for Mr. Manley but why did the Department come out in the renewables support consultation before Christmas and say that as part of the mainstream scenario, the State will maintain the current level of renewables, with a target of 40% by 2030 being the height of its ambitions? That beggars belief in a world where China, California and Germany are pursuing an industrial revolution. I follow closely what the Department is doing in Brussels. I attended the climate summit in Bonn and met the head of the Climate Action Network who said it was terribly sad that in every file, Ireland was taking a negative stance when it came to emissions. That is why we are No. 49 in its world league table.

I refer to the Department's submission on 17 November to the European Commission on the renewable energy directive and its submission to the Commission on 5 December on the electricity market design and, in every single section, Ireland has taken a negative position regarding this revolution that is inevitable and under way. Why does the Department not set a 75% renewables target by 2030 and why does it not back that up in Europe by supporting interconnection, community ownership and sectoral targets rather than opposing every one of those initiatives in those public documents?

Similarly, I have the highest regard for the ESB. It is the finest example of a semi-State enterprise with a proud tradition and brilliant people, management and engineers. I despair when I hear the ESB representatives saying the issue of the ETS has nothing to do with us as policymakers, and they are in with Poland and we have to let them be because it is not their issue. If the ESB were a private company, I would agree with Mr. O'Shea, but in this case the public are the shareholders and, as Oireachtas Members representing the public, we have the right to say that the approach where the company keeps on burning coal in Moneypoint and other companies continue to burn peat in peat-fired power stations is simply not acceptable.

It may be legally correct but politically it is just plain wrong. From my calculations based on the SEAI figures for 2016, there are 7 million tonnes of carbon per annum from those four power stations. I agree about electricity, which is represented here, being 60% of the solution but it cannot be 10% or more of the problem. If we switched them off tomorrow, it would not have a single effect on the security of electricity supply. It would improve our competitive position because the peat is so expensive. It is doable and it helps us in a whole range of other energy sectors or industry sectors where the likes of Apple and others are saying they want 100% renewable power supply. We can do that but not if we keep burning coal and peat. It has to stop now. From the public policy side, as the ESB is representing its shareholders, who are the Irish people, it should stop and stop telling us it is an ETS market, it is complex and if we give up, Poland will keep going. We will deal with Poland separately in foreign affairs but in terms of Irish domestic policy, the ESB has to stop now.

I will make two other points. Mr. Gannon said microgeneration is complex. It is complex because of net metering and how prices are decided. We have to look at the demand side and management, so it is very complicated. I agree 100% with Mr. Sharkey that we should be aiming for 2.5 GW of rooftop solar energy in 2030. Mr. Sharkey has said two years, which would be a miracle, but even if it takes ten years to achieve 2.5 GW, we should aim for it. My understanding of the EirGrid scenarios is that if we added 3 GW of offshore wind and 1 GW of onshore wind, we would be at 75%. That is all doable technologically. When I hear Mr. Gannon saying it is complicated and cannot be done in a short period of time, my response is we have been thinking about this for ten years. Which of those mechanisms would Mr. Gannon support if he was asked tomorrow by a Minister who wanted to announce rooftop solar energy next Friday? This is a revolution.

We have a difficulty here. It is very good to have all the people we have here but they are all representatives from the generation side and they do not even represent all the generation side. We do not have offshore wind, which is a huge opportunity for us. I agree with Deputy Dooley that we should not just be thinking 3 GW. When that offshore floating technology comes, there is nothing to stop us from putting 10 GW off the west coast and, with interconnection, shipping it into the rest of Europe. We could put 5 GW in the Irish Sea and another 5 GW down off Cork. That is what we should be thinking about. That is what the Chinese are thinking. That is where the real world is at. I was at a conference in Brussels a few months ago with big developers. People told me they are thinking in 5 GW chunks. How come we are not thinking at that scale of ambition as a country? That is what the ESB should be thinking of in line with its proud tradition of thinking big and long term. When we have to do our work, it is difficult because we have not even looked at transport, heat or the demand side, which is efficiency and heat retrofitting of domestic buildings. It is really good we are hearing from representatives from the generation side today. The question I would ask the Department is why not aim for 75% by 2030. EirGrid is a world expert in how to integrate renewables. Why not go for that? Why not do a solar support scheme straight away for rooftops because that is part of the revolution we need? The industrial revolution is in the balancing of all this power supply. It is huge for the ESB because it will not be the death of the grid. If there are heat pumps and EVs, all the demand will be on that domestic grid. The amount of work to be done in getting that right is massive and that is what we should be doing.