Dr. Neil Walker:

My doctorate is in climate policy. I want to come back on Deputy Eamon Ryan's question about why we would view one set of forecasts as more accurate than another. All forecasts are wrong, almost by definition. We tend to use the word "projections". We project under business as usual and then constrain it. Depending on the assumptions we make, the model will throw up different least-cost solutions. We can tell it we want a reduction of 8% or 95%. We can make assumptions on the roll-out of electrification of heat, deep retrofit, transport decarbonisation through electrification or gas fuel prices and the model will come up with different answers. Generally, they run the model numerous times and identify the no-regrets measures. Gas-fired generation is a no-regrets measure.

There is no obvious alternative. It is worth pointing out, though, that even if we were somehow able to achieve 100% wind power generation on the system, which would fall over on day one when the winds start blowing, it would be very difficult to get beyond 50%. We are leading the world in going up to 70% for short periods, but to get 50% on average through the year is an extraordinary technical achievement. Denmark is hugely interconnected to Germany so it can produce a lot more because it is relying on fossil generation, indeed, coal-fired generation, from Germany to keep the lights on when the wind stops blowing.

One of the points about renewable heat is that it is grossly underfunded.

In recent years, we have spent €300 million to €350 per annum on renewable energy sources for electricity, RES-E, but almost nothing on renewable heat or transport. That reflects policy measures that have been in place since Deputy Eamon Ryan was Minister. The emphasis has been on renewable electricity which, unfortunately, makes no contribution to our national target. Our 20% target excludes the power sector and was not intended to be met through domestic effort. The European Commission ran a model which determined the most cost-effective approach. It then weighted that because Ireland was regarded as a rich country - it was before the collapse of the economy. Three years later, in 2012, the Commission realised the sums were incorrect and re-ran the model to determine what each country's cost-efficient effort would be if there were no boundaries in Europe and everything was done cost-effectively in the effort-sharing sector. For Ireland, that would imply no reduction but we had a 20% target, with the implication that we would do whatever possible in terms of cost efficiency but would then have a significant shortfall and need to buy international credits.

Four or five years ago, it seemed likely that we would get at least halfway to the 20% target. However, the economy has since boomed, more cars are being driven, more houses are being built and we are consuming more energy but do not have the renewable heat and transport incentives which should have been in place ten years ago. We have strongly advocated for a significant increase in that expenditure. There was a very cordial exchange at the national economic dialogue in the past week or so and there is a general understanding among many NGOs, the business community and even the farming community about what needs to be done to reduce emissions.

On the issue raised by Deputy Bríd Smith, I cannot comment on the figure of 30% less emissions for European and indigenous oil and gas but, because I used to advise the Commission for Energy Regulation on natural gas, I am aware of the very big compressors in Moffat which pump gas from Scotland to Ireland. For every 100 therms that are shipped, approximately one to 1.5 therms must be burned. That is a small amount but the gas only needs to travel 200 miles. Proportionately more would have to be burned if the gas was travelling a far longer distance and far more so in the case of liquified natural gas, LNG.

Several years ago, the Economic and Social Research Institute pointed out the catastrophic consequences of a loss in gas, as might be caused by an issue at the connection point in Moffat, and welcomed the possibility of a backup source. In the absence of piped gas from an indigenous field as a backup, it was determined that an LNG terminal would probably be needed. LNG has a far bigger carbon footprint because the gas which comes out of the ground must be compressed in order to liquify it, which is very energy intensive. It must then be transported, stored and evaporated, all of which uses energy. The laws of physics mean that the production and delivery of LNG will always be more energy intensive than that of gas delivered through a long-distance pipeline. That is why LNG is more expensive and the reason a terminal has not been built in Ireland. Such a terminal would probably require a subsidy but the Department or regulator may decide that is what we need. There is a premium on having diversity or security of supply.

In terms of whether we are importing Russian, Norwegian or British gas, one must identify which would be the marginal producer if we were consuming one more therm of gas. Would Norway produce the extra therm or be producing flat out or constrained by the pipe? Britain may have untapped supplies or the gas may come from the Continent. If the additional therm of gas came from the Continent, one must seek its origin. In the case of a country at the end of the pipe which is consuming more because less is being produced domestically, one must ask which marginal producer will cover the shortfall. Russia may be that producer. I have never investigated that issue but I suspect the gas probably originates in eastern Europe or beyond.