Mr. Patrick Swords:

On behalf of Mr. Joseph Caulfield, Mr. Ultan Murphy and Ms Agnes Doolan, I thank the joint committee for the invitation to appear before it. My name is Pat Swords and I am a fellow of the Institution of Chemical Engineers and a chartered environmentalist. I have more than 25 years' experience in industrial design over a wide range of industrial projects encompassing food, drink, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and power stations. Moreover, I have spent ten years and more travelling to and from central and eastern Europe while helping to bring in the environmental legislation into the new and emerging member states. I have nothing to sell and do not have a dream. However, we seek one thing, and that is what Turn 180 is, namely, to turn around, go back and re-evaluate the situation, particularly within the legal framework in which we operate.

We have at present a recently appointed expert panel on pylons. Had the evaluation and assessments of that project been done three years ago in the legally required strategic environmental assessment process with the proper stages of public participation, we would not need that expert panel. It would have been done in accordance with the law and the obligation to have public participation and information. A strategic environmental assessment was never completed for the Irish renewable energy programme and no assessment has ever been done for it. It was on this basis, having documented it, that the United Nations Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee in Geneva took the communication in my name against the European Union as a party to the convention. At that stage, Ireland had not ratified the convention and consequently, I was obliged to take the matter against the European Union. The compliance committee ruled that the European Union had broken the terms of the convention with regard to the manner in which it was implementing the national renewable energy action plans. It failed to provide the necessary information to the public, it had failed to ensure the public participation was carried out when all options were open and effective public participation could take place and it had failed to take due account of the public participation in the final decision. Consequently, it has been told to go back and repeat and engage with the public and to do it again. As this is not happening at present, the compliance committee is engaged in compliance proceedings against the European Union at the forthcoming meeting of the parties' treaty convention in June 2014. There also are ongoing proceedings in the High Court in my name against the Irish State with regard to this matter.

The evidence given by the European Union to the compliance committee basically pointed out it is generally recognised that renewable energy - and wind energy in particular - is better from an environmental perspective than non-renewable sources. The point of it being "generally recognised" is what this comes down to, as no assessments have been carried out at European Union or national level to quantify what actually is going on. In fact, in its opening statement to the compliance committee in Geneva in 2011, the European Union made it clear the Irish public was not entitled to information, other than regarding what was a threat to its environment. In particular, the public most certainly was not entitled to information on cost-effectiveness related to renewable energy. Consequently, this matter led to a further communication, on which I assisted, with our near neighbours, the United Kingdom, which also ruled that its national renewable energy action plan had breached the terms of the convention, had not been assessed properly and had not gone through the stages of public participation with the public. Both countries in which this renewable export programme is being furthered have serious legal failings with regard to information and the public participation process.

As an experienced engineer who has worked on power generation projects and who has seen things work or not work, one keeps saying to oneself that when it comes to providing a reliable economic electricity system such as we have had for generations, all this talk about outstanding natural resources of wind energy is, I am afraid, bunk. It will not work. Experienced engineers are making this point all over the world. Even my own mother, who has no education beyond secondary school and is in her 80s, can figure this out. How is one expected to cook a turkey for Christmas when one is waiting around for the wind to blow in order to have electricity in the oven? That is the bottom line. Consequently, I refer to recent statements to the effect that the Irish renewable energy programme is a no-brainer and that Ireland will save huge amounts in respect of fossil fuels.

Let me put it to the committee this way. I do not dispute that €6 billion worth of fossil fuels are imported into this country each year, but less than 20% of that goes on electricity generation. By the time we have invested all that money, which when one clocks it up is rapidly approaching €20 billion, we would be lucky given the massive inefficiencies in our power stations to save €200 million a year. That is a one in 100 year payback. A conventional power station will last 35 years but a wind turbine would be lucky to last half of that.

To return to the unfortunate and recurring theme of lack of accurate information, the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland published a report that said there was €300 million of fossil fuel savings. Again and again in its reports it ignores the massive inefficiencies which are occurring in our power generation plants as they opt, like cars stuck in traffic, to try to compensate for the inefficient generation coming on and off the grid instead of running nice and smoothly on the motorways. We have a serious problem with transparency of information. We have no basis for the information. I do not refer to press releases but there is nothing from the scientists and technical people in terms of what is supporting such claims. That is why we must take a 180° turn and go back, develop the information and get it right. There is no panic or rush.