Professor Brian Ó Gallachóir:

There is a good point in that the technology costs are coming down. If we come in later, we will avail of technologies others have paid for. While there is a logic to the argument, that ship has sailed now, in particular if we are talking about leadership. We must be careful, of course, about what we invest in, which is another point the Senator made regarding tax versus incentives. If there is one measures I suggest considering - and it is only because it has not been on the radar - it is an obligation or incentivisation scheme to introduce biogas into our gas system. If we do not decarbonise our gas pipeline and if it does not become renewable, it will be come obsolete. The opportunity exists to make it renewable. There are six gas utilities around Europe which have committed to decarbonising gas by 2050. I refer to our 2030 targets. Gas Networks Ireland has a target of 20% of the gas in the pipeline being renewable by 2030. If we started at 2% in 2021 and ratcheted up to 20%, it would save us 16 million tonnes on a crude, back of the envelope calculation. It would knock 16 million tonnes off our 100 million tonnes gap to target. It would be the one thing I suggest looking at because it is not in any of the documents anywhere but is nevertheless a significant proposition. The key advantage of it is that people are using gas in their homes already. If one changes that gas to renewable gas, the customer does not have to make a decision around anything. It happens on the supply side and is therefore something that can be implemented quickly. It would not require end-user choices to inject biogas into the gas grid.

Reference was made to a ban on oil and gas exploration. I watched with interest the discussions at the other committee in that regard. I again found that our analysis was used by different parties on both sides of the argument. Some argued with each other using different parts of our analysis. It is a very complex question. The reality is that whatever our trajectory is, 75% of our energy currently comes from oil and gas. Apart from Corrib, it is all imported. We are relying currently on imports of oil and gas. Oil should certainly disappear from our system whereas gas can be converted over to biogas. On the timing of a ban, it would send a symbolic message. It would not deliver any specific emissions reductions but would be symbolic. There is a choice which needs to be made as to whether the message outweighs the fact that we could use the product of a find rather than to continue to import fuels in the timeframe during which we are still using oil and gas. That is a short answer to a complex issue.

Senator Paul Daly mentioned heavy oil use in aviation and he is right that those are areas in which there are blind spots. We see biogas as having potential in that regard. We see hydrogen as having a role also albeit more in freight than aviation. Aviation is likely to require a liquid fuel. This is where it gets tricky and it touches on the discussion of electricity versus bioenergy. We see half of the energy system requiring something like a solid or liquid form of energy. That can be renewable but there are challenges associated with it. Dr. Rogan wants to come in on the question of advances in technology. I think I got the others.