Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I agree with much of what has been said. Not only were the interventions comprehensive, they were absolutely sobering in terms of where we are at. Some of might have had a general notion that this will be bad for a considerable period of time but sometimes how bad it is going to be just needs to be laid out. If we are talking about where we are at, and the plans we have had in this State, there was a missed opportunity with Corrib in that we did not have an element of State involvement. The Scandinavian model of taking some money back, which you could plough back in and be a major player in all sorts of renewables is something we really have to go with.

I am always worried about nuclear. I get that nuclear is with us in terms of France and Germany and how much of it is used. I would ask a question about the dangers, and that is accepting we are not necessarily dealing with the Chernobyl-type technology. I would like to think there are more checks and balances. However, we had Fukushima and all that needs to go wrong is for everything to go wrong all at once. We live in a world where that happens more often. We have always had worries and particular difficulties as regards Sellafield. I would throw that question out for an answer.

The witnesses have said wind energy is where it is at and that we need to get our house in order. A significant amount of work has been done lately on that. There is the wider issue of planning. The Attorney General is carrying out a review and there may be legislative changes. There is a need for resourcing. If there are various points in the planning process, there is not much point in having them unless they are resourced, so people are not held up for a considerable amount of time, whether for small or big projects.

I would add my voice to what Deputy Harkin said as regards the Commission for Energy Regulation, CRU, in that we have to change the rules to ensure the State can buy backup generators, which unfortunately we will not have this year. We have a particular issue even if we had an endless supply of fuel at this point in time. The CRU is very good at telling us what it is not responsible for, whether we are talking about communal heating systems, for example, but this may be changing. There is also the issue with standing charges but that is what it is.

The witnesses, especially Mr. O'Donoghue, spoke about the European Union's proposals and proposals which have been implemented around changes in the energy markets and so on. We probably could have done something earlier, particularly if we were talking about capping. It has been said that there has been a lack of imagination in dealing with the reorganisation of the market and how it is orientated, and that is accepting there is a huge number of anomalies. The witnesses spoke about hedging and so on. Sometimes people think this can be a very simple process but we really need to deal with that.

The witnesses dealt with the issue of anaerobic digestion. We need to get our act together on it and on solar. On one level, we have talked to death about what needs to be done as regards wind, but we just need to get it done.

I want to ask specifically about geothermal energy because it is being looked at a possible solution in the context of some of the communal heating systems we have in this State that have ended up being gas-powered and utterly inefficient. People are dealing with huge costs at this point.

I have 14 other pages of notes, but I think we will just go with that.