Dr. John Curtis:

There were many questions in the Senator's contribution.

I will pass on the costs of the different electricity-generating technologies because the ESRI does not carry out research on the costs of different technologies. One way of looking at the matter is that if one goes onto the single electricity market, SEM, the cheapest technologies or plants are dispatched first. However, even with the same fuels one can have very different costs, depending on the infrastructure and the equipment - for instance, different types of gas plants.

The Senator mentioned offshore wind energy generation. It may be developmental here but it is a matter of its cost. It is a lot more expensive than onshore wind energy generation. It is up to EirGrid, which will give the committee more detail. My understanding is that the opportunities for onshore wind are basically being used up in that there are not very many suitable sites left. There will be some need for offshore. Onshore can be placed in remote locations where the electricity demand is not there, so the electricity is generated away from where there is a need for the power. The grid therefore needs to be strengthened, and much of EirGrid's DS3 programme has sought to achieve this strengthening of the grid.

The Senator mentioned undergrounding and overgrounding. We look at the economic side of things; we do not look at such technical issues. However, one thing I was involved in a number of years ago was analysis we did modelling the electricity market. We looked at the economic difference between having a new North-South interconnector in place and not having it in place. I do not remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but that interconnector will reduce electricity prices for customers. At present, the network there is not able to generate electricity where it is needed at the cheapest cost. The interconnector will allow the electrons to move where they need to go.

The Senator talked about grants for oil-fired boilers. She has hit the nail on the head in that anyone who is retrofitting his or her house or doing anything else with it now is locked in for the next 15 or 20 years, so it is a missed opportunity. When someone's boiler claps out, his or her first source of contact is probably the local plumber or whoever else, who will put in place what he or she sells or knows best, which may not be the best for the customer in the long term. It is not that plumber or whoever else is selling the customer down the road; it is what the plumber knows. Putting in such old-world technology is therefore in a sense a lost opportunity.

As for the cost of new heating systems and the squeezed middle, the Senator has a point. I cannot think of the SEAI scheme, but the better energy home grant covers roughly 35% of the cost, so one must have the disposable income to be able to pay the remaining 65%. That is a gap in the market. In the opening statement we made reference to different structures for different stages in people's lives, which I think is what the Deputy was referring to. As to whether it is the heating system one should put in first, I would say "No"; one should first of all insulate one's house. Most people think about the windows. The walls and ceiling should be insulated first; windows can come later. Otherwise, if one puts in the best heating system and the home is not insulated, one is just heating the sky at some remove.

How was I for time?