Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have two sets of questions. I am focusing on some of the narrative in respect of the demand for energy. When I was reading the presentations, I was a little concerned that there is still a lot of reference to reliance on hydrogen. We are looking at a context in which the use of blue hydrogen in particular, may not be an option, because it is ultimately a fossil fuel. In that context, we need to think very carefully. I am concerned about assumptions being built-in. As Mr. Lynott said, the ambition levels are rising all the time. The balance in respect of the cap will also have to change. I am conscious that the rationale behind the plan was related to that fact that energy demands are increasing.

I would like to comment on the increase in demand for energy. That is something that needs to be looked at. I would appreciate a comment on that. We are talking about 30% to 40% increase in demand for energy. We know, from meeting with representatives of EirGrid, that a large amount of that demand is from data centres. We are going to come to a crunch point which is not simply about whether we can produce more renewable energy. Everybody is on board with the idea of producing more renewable energy. However, the question is, what are we going to do with that renewable energy? If we are only increasing our renewable energy by 30%, 40%, 50% or 60%, but 30% of it is immediately going to data centres, we are forcing the State to use other sources of energy for essential services that it may need.

Do the witnesses think that we need to look at the prioritisation of the direction of sustainable energy? I would appreciate comments from the witnesses on the narrative of the balancing of the developer-led and the State-led models. When we talk about balance, there may well be State policies pushing development in certain directions, but there is also a wider State context, which is not something that gets balanced off against developer desires or anything else. It is about the fact that, as is appropriate, the State needs to think about planning properly. In respect of the marine protected areas, for example, the State needs to consider how to ensure that we plan in a way that is thoughtful and is going to dovetail rather than clash with that.

Again, these are all things that can be done. However, I sometimes wonder when we hear this kind of talk about how there will be a little bit of planning and a little bit of State policy and little bit of developer-led but all of this will happen within a State regulatory framework, including a planning framework. Comments on that would be really useful.

I echo much of what Deputy Alan Farrell has been saying about batteries because that seems to be the key area where we need to have research. I would like if the EAI representatives could comment a little bit more about the pumped air and pumped water storage and how we can basically have what looks like best international environmental practice on that. I ask because something we want to do as a committee is ensure our climate actions are done in a environmental best-practice way. On that point, what of public-public partnerships? Which states have been doing good research? The same battles have been had everywhere, the same challenges are faced everywhere and something we cannot afford is that maybe one company gets a great solution but the State as a whole must be really ahead of the curve and looking to what other states are doing with storage infrastructure in order that everybody can make use of the best practice as it emerges. I ask the EAI representatives to comment on public-public investment, public research specifically on that issue and public-public partnership between states around that research.