Professor Brian Ó Gallachóir:

They are great questions and I hope I can do them justice in responding to them.

I was asked for examples of places where the use of wind and wave energy was successful. Ireland is very successful in the use of wind energy. We are a world leader in the amount of wind energy the power system can take. Denmark is one of the few countries that obtains a higher share of its electricity supply from wind energy, but it is heavily interconnected to two large power systems which act as a cushion. The work we have done in Ireland is world-leading. Some 30% of our electricity supply now comes from wind energy. In any instant wind energy can account for a figure of 65% in our power system, which is higher than in any other power system in the world, of which I am aware.

As for examples of good practice in the use of wave energy, there is still that opportunity and no one has taken the lead over anyone else. At different times different countries have moved forward and then pulled back. They include some of the same countries mentioned, including Denmark, Portugal and Scotland. There is significant potential here, notwithstanding the challenges faced in bringing down the cost and the ocean environment, but it is an opportunity.

The future of the plant at Moneypoint is a very interesting question because it is presented as a topic in itself. If we were to close the plant at Moneypoint, what would we do? Our work looks at the whole system and it is a much bigger challenge than the one associated with the plant at Moneypoint. The fact that there is great infrastructure at Moneypoint suggests one could consider having a large power plant in the vicinity. One of my colleagues has presented the idea of having wave energy feed into that grid connection point. I saw some analysis, although it was from a couple of years ago, that in knocking the plant at Moneypoint out of the picture the overall cost of electricity would increase by €200 million a year. The reason it is being used is that coal is cheap, but, obviously, does have climate change implications. It does not help us in meeting our targets because it is in the ETS, not the non-ETS, sector.

We probably have five options to have a central station. They are natural gas, natural gas with carbon capture and storage, biomass, biomass with carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy . There will not be a fan club for any one of them, but they would all result in reduced emissions compared with the plant at Moneypoint.

Deputy Stanley asked about gas versus coal. Gas has lower emissions intensity than coal, but producing electricity from gas in the plants typically used throughout the country would be 55% efficient. The plant at Moneypoint is 38% efficient. It is a question of reduced emissions content and also efficiency. Therefore, we are talking about approximately half of the emissions. That is a crude estimate and I could come back with a more accurate one. If one was to switch to biomass, there would be zero emissions. If one was to switch to biomass with carbon capture and storage, one would have negative emissions. If one was to switch to gas with carbon capture and storage, one would be close to negative emissions. I made a presentation to the Department on this question and it did not like my answer. I said it was almost the wrong question because the challenge was what we were doing across the entire system and all elements. The discussions tend to focus on narrow silo topics that move us away from the bigger picture. Of course, it is a significant emitter, accounting for approximately 3.5 million tonnes of CO2 a year, but they are the options.

Regarding HGVs and on what we see as the role for biogas, gas feeds homes in many of the cities. Therefore, if one had biogas entering into the gas network, one would have a seamless way of decarbonising heat because biogas would deliver home heating and homeowners would not have to make a decision if they were already connected to the gas network. In the short term that would be an option while the infrastructure was being developed. It is already happening in respect of refuelling, with the focus on freight; therefore, one could then transition from home heating to freight transport because that is where biogas would be most valuably used in the future. The options in the case of freight transport are more limited. I can come back to Deputy Stanley with a number. He asked about the percentage reduction. The target of Gas Networks Ireland for the use of biogas on the gas grid is 20% by 2030. I suspect that that would meet all of our needs in the area of freight transport, but I can come back to the Deputy with a firmer answer.

I have addressed the question of a carbon tax. There are a number of ways by which the money could be given back, used to reduce labour costs or for climate action measures. It is important that the issue be discussed but, generally, the issue that is discussed less and receives less airtime is ensuring it does not impact negatively on the level of energy poverty. Increasing the fuel allowance by €4 a week during the heating season would be offset by a carbon tax of €20 per tonne; therefore, there would be a doubling of the carbon tax. I think that also addresses the question of the use of biomass in the plant at Moneypoint.