Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies have been received from Senator Alice Mary Higgins. The purpose of meeting today is to discuss liquefied natural gas, LNG, as an issue and also fossil fuel exploration and related areas. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the following witnesses: Professor Barry McMullin of Dublin City University; and Mr. Gergely Molnár, gas analyst at the International Energy Agency. Mr. Molnár is joining us remotely.

Before we begin, as usual, I will read out the note on privilege. I remind our guests of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks, and it is imperative they comply with any such direction. For our witness who is attending remotely from outside the Leinster House campus, Mr. Molnár, there are limitations to parliamentary privilege. As such, he may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness who is physically present does.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members that they are allowed to participate in the meeting only if they are physically located in the Leinster House complex. I ask those members who are joining the meeting online that, prior to making their contributions, they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Mr. Molnár can only stay with us on the call for 20 minutes so I propose that we hear his opening statement and then invite members to ask questions, and I propose two minutes per member. We will then revert to Mr. Molnár to respond. After that, we will engage with Professor McMullin. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I invite Mr. Molnár to deliver his opening statement.

Mr. Gergely Moln?r:

Good morning. It is a great honour to share with the committee the opening remarks of today's session on behalf of the International Energy Agency. I intend to focus primarily on issues related to gas and energy supply security.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February last year triggered the world's first truly global energy crisis and the International Energy Agency reacted swiftly. We co-ordinated two agreements on oil stock releases, leading to 180 million barrels of oil committed to the market, which is by far the largest oil stock release in our history. The agency has also acted rapidly to provide advice to policymakers with actionable short-term measures identified in a ten-point plan on reducing the European Union's reliance on Russian gas and a ten-point plan to cut oil use. At the end of 2022, we released two reports focusing on the 2023 gas balance and how the EU can avoid gas shortages in the new year.

Global gas markets have moved towards a gradual rebalancing since the beginning of 2023 due to timely policy action, effectively working market forces and favourable weather conditions. Nevertheless, the short-term gas supply outlook remains tight and the global gas balance is subject to an unusually wide range of uncertainties. Acknowledging this, the agency hosted a special ministerial meeting on natural gas markets and supply security in mid-February. The meeting was co-chaired by the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the agency is grateful for the support provided by Ireland, which was essential to the success of the event. Forty governments took part in the meeting to discuss how to foster gas supply security and highlight the need for structural gas demand reduction and enhanced dialogue between consumers and responsible gas producers.

The current energy crisis has further strengthened the drive behind clean energy policies and weighs on the prospects of fossil fuels, including natural gas. Energy projects which reached final investment decision, FID, and-or are under construction would add over 200 billion cubic metres, BCM, per year of liquefaction capacity through the 2024-28 period. This strong increase in LNG production capacity would loosen market fundamentals and ease gas supply security concerns through the second half of the decade. The need for additional investments remains uncertain beyond that horizon. In the stated policy scenarios which show us the trajectory implied by today's policy settings, and in which the net-zero aspirations are not reached, global natural gas demand expands by around 9% from today's levels by 2030 and then stays broadly flat. In this scenario, an additional 240 BCM per year of LNG export capacity is needed by 2015 above what currently exists or is under construction.

In the net zero emissions by 2050 scenario, in which global gas demand declines by 70% by 2050, there is no need for any additional investment in new energy liquefaction capacity and in some cases even products already under construction will not be needed anymore. In these times of unprecedented uncertainties, consumers and responsible producers should work closely together to reinforce the fundamentals of gas supply security. They should reduce the emission intensity of gas and energy supply, and facilitate the deployment of technologies, including carbon capture, utilisation and storage, CCUS, which could mitigate the investment risks associated with natural gas and LNG. In parallel, gas demand should be reduced in a structured manner, both through measures enhancing energy efficiency standards and by accelerating the deployment of low emission energy sources. I thank the committee for its attention and remain at its disposal for any comments and questions, both now and later.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr, Molnár for his opening statement. As agreed I will go to members to ask questions. I will take all of the members together because of the limited time we have with Mr. Molnár. We will begin with Deputy O'Sullivan, to be followed by Deputy Smith.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Molnár for his opening statement. I will move as quickly as possible as I only have two minutes. In his expert opinion, does Mr. Molnár believe LNG could mitigate Ireland's security of gas supply? I would appreciate if he could answer that in about 40 seconds, as I have a follow-up question.

Mr. Gergely Moln?r:

It is an option. A number of options can be considered. Different options have different timelines. When we speak about sourcing LNG and bringing it to the Irish market, there are also a number of different options on the table. In that respect, if there is a decision to look at the LNG option it should be very carefully considered. It should not create any lock-in effects and should not contribute to a trajectory that would be a distraction from Ireland's goal to reach its net zero targets.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In his opening statement, Mr. Molnár mentioned that in the stated policy scenario, gas demand should increase by 9% by 2030 and then broadly flatten out. In the other scenario, the ideal scenario where we reach net zero by 2050, we should reduce gas demand by 70% globally. In his expert opinion, which of those does he think is more likely?

Mr. Gergely Moln?r:

A lot will depend on the demand trajectories we are undertaking in terms of overall energy demand, and also on the speed at which we scale up renewable energy sources. This depends on a number of factors, but it is important to highlight that policy makers have an important role to play in that respect. Where capital and investment flows are moving we see some optimistic signs, but it is also clear for us that more effort is needed to put the world on track for net zero by 2050. This is the welcome scenario from the perspective of mitigating the impacts of global warming.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If Members wish to use their two minutes for a back and forth interaction with Mr. Molnár that is okay. Alternatively, they can use their two minutes to ask a series of questions. Then I will go the next member and so on.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Molnár. My question follows on from the last question. How important is the emphasis the International Energy Agency puts on the need to reduce fossil fuel use as against the energy security that was referred to? In its report, World Energy Outook 2022, the IEA stated that the rapid fall in LNG after 2030 in the net zero emissions scenario implies there will be "no further need for additional capacity beyond what exists or is under construction". We will hear about this issue from the next witness. Since we are ultimately relying on a certain amount of supplies from Europe and the capacity of LNG infrastructure in Europe has boomed, does that not already put us in a secure position? We should not build new LNG infrastructure in this country. Never mind our targets, we must also contribute to the overall global target of stopping the temperature rising beyond 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Unless we say that categorically, we are just tinkering around the edges of this important issue.

Mr. Gergely Moln?r:

I thank the Deputy for the question. It is important to look at the options which do not create lock-in impacts. It is important to maintain a certain level of supply diversity. From a supply security point of view, that is a welcome step. However if it creates lock-in impacts, that is also a distraction from the trajectory we would like to reach by 2050. When we speak about LNG import infrastructure, there are mainly two options on the table. One is an onshore terminal, which in a way creates some lock-in impacts. There are also floating storage and regasification units, SFRUs, which give flexibility in the long run. Once they are not needed in a certain market, those vessels can be directed towards markets where there is still gas demand growth. We need to differentiate certain options when we speak about energy import infrastructure in general.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Molnár for his contribution. He mentioned that timely policy measures led to the global gas markets balancing out. Are we not really looking at the policy measures we now take? LNG is unnecessary if there are sufficient energy efficiency standards and if we continue to invest in renewables but if we do not take those policy measures we may be looking at a different kind of future. Is Mr. Molnár saying there are two possible futures and the policy measures we take now will determine which is more likely to yield benefits for us?

Mr. Gergely Moln?r:

It is certainly the case that policy measures are extremely important for setting up the framework of how the gas energy markets evolve. We should differentiate between two aims. We want to speed up the deployment of renewables and the improvement of energy efficiency standards in order to put us on a trajectory towards net zero emissions. This will also make quite an important contribution to supply security because it will reduce reliance on fossil imports, including fossil gas imports.

At the same time, in the immediate short term, there is also a need for greater diversity of supply in terms of gas deliveries into the European market. The demand for this greater diversity of supply varies substantially from one market to another because some markets have been over-reliant on Russia in the past. Those markets are now looking to diversify their sources. That is particularly true of the markets in central and eastern Europe. This is very strong, one market to the other.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator and Mr. Molnár.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are my two minutes up?

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are. I am conscious of Mr. Molnár's time so I will go to other members.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Molnár for his time. Does he have a perspective on Ireland's security of gas supply? Is it a situation that is deteriorating or that is of particular concern relative to other member states? Will he outline the differences between the stated policies scenario, STEPS, and the net zero emissions by 2050 scenario, NZE? Is STEPS the existing member state policy? Has he any advice for member states as to their consideration of new energy infrastructure and the weighting involved when considerations are made around security of supply, lock-in, the environmental impact and the cost of energy?

How will the agency assess efforts to reduce demand in the time ahead and the need for a reduction in demand? Is the policy environment in place to realise the scaling of renewables at pace? Is there a risk of an opportunity cost with investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, such as gas infrastructure and other things?

Mr. Gergely Moln?r:

I thank the Deputy for his questions. Let me start with the difference between STEPS and NZE. STEPS is a scenario that relies on the policies that have been stated and are being implemented. We anticipate they are going to determine the broader policy context in the years ahead and, as such, will have a strong influence on the evolution of energy defence. NZE is more of an aspirational scenario in which the world reaches net zero emissions by 2050 and, in a way, the target determines the evolution of energy market defence.

The Deputy asked about energy infrastructure. The most important guiding line should be that any investment in energy infrastructure should be future-proofed. In the case of gas infrastructure, it should be able to integrate low-emission gases, biomethane and e-methane, and should also be capable of being repurposed to service low-emission hydrogen.

The second value principle should be that any infrastructure investment should not create lock-in acts for emissions, and as such it needs to be in a way flexible.

On the demand reductions that we have seen in 2022, it is important to know that some of that demand reduction has not necessarily been driven by policies, rather it has been driven by the very high prices leading to demand distribution in industry, for instance. There are a number of factors: policy actions; gas demand and saving measures; demand disruption due to high levels of prices rising; and affordability issues among the most vulnerable households. It is quite a mixed bag. Looking ahead, we see there is an urgent need to double down on efforts related to what we call structural, demand-led action measures, which includes the more rapid deployment of renewables. Here we believe that some administrative processes could probably be eased in order to reduce timelines of projects. There is also a greater need to focus on grids that can facilitate the integration and better utilisation of renewable energy sources. There is also a clear need for a stronger push in energy efficiency and the electrification of heat. All of those measures are needed and need to be accelerated over the medium term.

I might have missed some of the questions. Please feel free to reiterate them if I have not addressed any.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first question I asked was in relation to the agency's perspective on Ireland's security of supply and whether we are particularly exposed relative to other countries, and whether it was a deteriorating, stagnant, or an improving situation?

Mr. Gergely Moln?r:

I thank the Deputy for the gentle reminder of that question. When we are looking at Ireland, one important factor to note is that domestic production had been declining because of the Corrib field, but we also see that electricity consumption is increasing, which might put natural gas in the situation where it really needs to be the backup fuel to complement the variability of renewable energy sources. Ireland does not have natural gas storage sites that could facilitate this backup role of gas. In that regard, there is the option of diversifying gas supply sources into Ireland. This is something to be considered. Diversification of gas supply sources does not necessarily mean fossil gas sources, it can also mean low emission hydrogen and biomethane, which can be domestically sourced and as such would also strengthen further the supply security of the country.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Molnár for the very interesting presentation. The reality is that no member state wants to see its lights switched off or its industry closed down on the path to net zero.

This year we have had to invest in diesel generators to avoid security risks in Ireland. What choices would enhance our security of supply, other than considering some gas storage?

How do we minimise the risk that measures we take now to enhance security will embed bad trends for the longer term? For example, have other countries that have created LNG storage capacity made those facilities storage-only, are they run by the state and preserved in aspic, so to speak, until they are needed or are they commercially operating LNG terminals that regularly supply LNG? What range of security options should Ireland consider to avoid embedding bad practices, while at the same time protecting our consumers on this challenging path with so many uncertainties?

Mr. Gergely Moln?r:

It is important to note how gas infrastructure is typically developed. That is ultimately a decision taken by market players, taking into consideration a number of factors, including the broader policy context. There is typically an open season in which market parties can express their interest in the capacity of the given gas infrastructure and then this is followed by a bidding phase of the open season where market players sign up for typically long-term capacity contracts. This gives the security to the product developers to go ahead and take a final investment decision on the product.

In 2022, we saw that because of the gas prices which have been triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the policy context also changed significantly and there has been important support provided in a number of countries by policymakers to facilitate the deployment and installation of gas infrastructure which can diversify inputs. However, we are still seeing that this is driven and facilitated by market players. The market players are the ones that have capacity commitments related to these facilities and they are the ones that are operating them. It is also the market players that are arranging the shipments to these facilities and operating the storage facilities that are embedded into the broader energy input infrastructures. It is important to keep the market players at the forefront whenever we are going into that process. The question for policymakers is how they want to shift the broader policy context into one thing or another.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a framework we could look at from other countries for how they balance those risks of embedding and getting committed in the long term to fossil fuel infrastructure versus the short-term security it gives?

Mr. Gergely Moln?r:

There is a question of how to de-risk the investment. For instance, in the Netherlands, for the Eemshaven terminal, which started operating last year, there had been contracts for difference facilitating this with the project developer. In other countries loans have been provided to the product developers.

What is common in both cases, both in Germany and the Netherlands, is that they opted for floating storage and regasification units, which again are flexible infrastructures. One can charter them for a period, which can vary between just a few years up to a long-term charter rate which can go beyond ten years. Then, once the charter agreement is finished, they can be diverted to other markets. They have this value of flexibility. One can also look at options for an onshore energy terminal but then one does not have this flexibility, and there are also very serious question marks about whether onshore energy terminals can be repurposed for hydrogen service. Most of the analysis shows that the options are quite limited in that respect.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very conscious of Mr. Molnár's time. Three other members wish to ask questions. Is that okay with Mr. Molnár?

Mr. Gergely Moln?r:

Yes. I need to leave at 12.40 p.m., unfortunately.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is 11.40 a.m. in Ireland and 12.40 p.m. in France, so that will mean in the next few minutes.

Mr. Gergely Moln?r:

Yes, in the next five minutes.

Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be very brief. I want to understand what the marketplace might be for floating storage. We all have a concern about getting locked into an investment in embedded infrastructure and it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy from a commercial perspective. I ask Mr. Molnár to talk a little about what the opportunities might be for the disposal of a floating storage asset when we have reached the necessary capacity from renewables here.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question has been asked in a few different ways, so given the constraints on Mr. Molnár's time, I will forgo questions at this point.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies if I ask a question that has already been asked. I would like a "Yes" or "No" response, if Mr. Molnár thinks that is sufficient. Could Ireland rely on imports from Europe and the UK when it comes to LNG for our energy security?

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one question of my own on the characteristic of LNG. As I understand it, LNG cannot be stored for any great length of my time. Is it true that countries which are building LNG facilities are not really building it for storage? It is certainly not for medium- or long-term storage; it is for very short-term storage. The only way LNG can really work is if it operates in the commercial market and not as strategic storage. Mr. Molnár might address that.

Mr. Gergely Moln?r:

I thank members for the questions. With regard to the "Yes" or "No" question, it is a much more complex issue than could be responded to with one word. I will be happy to follow up on that with Deputy Whitmore if there is an interest in the matter.

With regard to energy storage, there are issues regarding the maturation of LNG. The operating expenses regarding to LNG storage are also substantially higher than storing natural gas underground in gaseous form. This being said, in some markets, for instance, in north-east Asia, there are limited options for underground gas storage. Energy storage is playing quite an important role in seasonal balancing and meeting the short-term variability of the power system.

LNG storage is playing an important role. Calling this strategic and historic might be a bit of a far stretch, but it is worth highlighting that it can play quite an important role from a supply separation perspective.

Regarding floating storage and disposal, it is really a question in commercial terms of being able to negotiate. We have seen charter agreements ranging from just a couple of years to periods of more than a decade. It really depends on the demand outlook and the commercial terms that can be negotiated. FSRUs have the benefit of being flexible. They do not necessarily create lock-in effects. However, they typically have higher operating expenses than do onshore LNG terminals.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Molnár for his response. We have no further questions for him. I thank him for his time this morning, or this afternoon as it is at his location. We really appreciate it. If he wishes to elaborate on some of the points raised for the benefit of the members of the committee, we would appreciate it. He can send any written responses to the secretariat.

Mr. Gergely Moln?r:

I thank the committee members and wish them a nice day.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I now invite Professor McMullin, who is in the committee room with us, to make his opening statement.

Professor Barry McMullin:

I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to provide evidence on these important topics. I am a full professor in the faculty of engineering and computing at DCU, with a research focus on national energy system decarbonisation in the context of the Paris Agreement. Having heard the evidence from Mr. Molnár, I apologise that there will be some repetition in my statement.

I shall comment first on oil and gas prospecting. In effect, the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement commits to a corresponding finite global limit on further emissions of carbon dioxide from all human activities, including fossil fuel combustion. Global energy systems now have to be fully and rapidly decarbonised within that constraint. However, already identified and characterised fossil fuel reserves would, if fully used, significantly exceed this limit. This was a key finding of the International Energy Agency in its report, Net Zero by 2050, in May 2021. As Deputy Smith has already noted, the report states bluntly: "Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our [Paris Agreement-aligned] pathway and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required." Reflecting this global situation, under the terms of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021, no new licences may be issued for oil or gas exploration in the Irish territory. There remains a legal possibility that legacy licences issued before the Act came into force might still lead to development of additional fossil fuel resources, but it must be emphasised that any such development would now clearly conflict with effective global climate action.

The only currently active oil or gas extraction in Ireland is from the Corrib natural gas field. Extraction from the field peaked in 2018, when it accounted for more than 60% of domestic consumption. Supply is already declining quite rapidly, accounting for only 26% of consumption in 2022. The field will likely be largely exhausted by 2030. However, it is important to emphasise that this does not, in itself, provide any argument for promoting development of additional fossil fuel resources. On the contrary, it reinforces the imperative to decarbonise our energy system fully as rapidly as possible and, specifically, to maximise the use of secure, indigenous, renewable energy. It raises separate questions about the specific technologies required to deliver on-demand energy from variable renewable sources such as wind and solar. I am happy to address that further in discussion, if committee members so wish.

I now turn to discussion of LNG, which is quite separate from questions of fossil fuel prospecting or extraction. LNG is not a distinct type of fossil fuel and does not occur in nature. Rather, it is an engineered state of natural gas, whereby it is cooled to a very low temperature of approximately minus 162°C, such that it condenses into liquid form. This can facilitate long-distance transport, particularly by sea.

However, liquefaction is an energy intensive process so there are significant energy losses associated with it. LNG can also function to some extent for temporary storage of natural gas but this requires continuing energy input to maintain the refrigerated liquid state, that is to say, progressively larger losses as the storage time is extended. All these losses lead to greater carbon dioxide emissions intensity per unit of energy actually used for LNG compared to direct transport and use of natural gas in the gaseous state.

Currently in Ireland, there is some small scale use of LNG, imported in containerised tanks and transported by truck, for specific industrial use in locations where there is no connection available to the national gas network. However, there is no facility for large scale LNG importation and regasification to feed into the gas network itself. Accordingly, current supply of networked natural gas is from a combination of the Corrib extraction and two gas pipeline interconnectors to the UK grid, the latter also supplying Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. As Corrib depletes further, the balance will shift progressively more toward the UK interconnectors. However, it should be noted that this is in a period where total natural gas consumption should decline significantly, consistent with our climate objectives and specifically our statutory domestic carbon budget and sectoral ceiling constraints.

That said, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and consequent major disruption of natural gas supplies in mainland Europe, raised new concerns for security of natural gas supply generally across the Continent. While there already existed significant LNG import capacity in both mainland Europe and the UK, the war has led a number of countries to move rapidly to further diversify supplies by deployment of additional LNG facilities including both fixed onshore import terminals and floating storage and regasification units, FSRU. At face value that raises a reasonable question as to whether Ireland should also deploy some form of LNG infrastructure. This issue was identified as central to the recent national review and consultation on the general security of supply of gas and electricity in Ireland. I understand that arising from this, a new Government position on security of supply will be published imminently. I do not want to pre-empt those conclusions here, but there are a few points that bear emphasising.

Natural gas imported to Ireland from the UK is primarily extracted in the UK and Norway. Ireland is thus not directly exposed to disruption of natural gas supplies from Russia to mainland Europe. Nonetheless, the UK natural gas grid is strongly interconnected to the European grid. Accordingly, Ireland’s security of supply is indirectly exposed to disruptions in mainland Europe. However, by the same token, that also means that Ireland already benefits from existing and planned LNG supply infrastructure in the UK and mainland Europe that secures and diversifies supplies. Against the background that effective climate action requires rapid reductions in all fossil fuel use, including natural gas, there are now significant concerns of emerging over-capacity in European LNG import infrastructure. A recent report states that “according to a new analysis by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis ... European countries may have hugely overshot the mark, with current planned import capacity far exceeding likely LNG demand by 2030.”

While, following Brexit, there is a formal issue for Ireland in meeting the so-called EU N-1 infrastructure standard this does not reflect any material change to the underlying plant or technical risk. The most cost effective way of addressing this particular issue is therefore likely to be through appropriate political rather than technical measures. Deployment of LNG infrastructure in Ireland on any commercial basis would necessarily create perverse incentives to increase rather than reduce overall natural gas consumption and, further, would risk exposing Ireland to direct importation of fracked natural gas, particularly but not exclusively from the US. As previously discussed in this committee, the upstream emissions profile and wider environmental impacts of fracked natural gas are substantially higher than for conventional natural gas. Therefore, introducing it into the Irish system would be a highly retrograde step.

In conclusion, I do not want to down play in any way the ongoing genuine and serious risks to Irish energy supply. However, these risks arise directly from having developed an energy system that is chronically reliant on imported fossil fuels. The solution to that cannot plausibly be by way of doubling down on such a failed strategy. Further, while the short term risks of disruption to energy supplies are real and significant, on any medium or long term basis they are entirely dwarfed by the risks of catastrophic climate disruption. The recent assessment that global average surface temperature increase will likely already breach 1.5°C above pre-industrial, on a full year basis, within the next five years reflects the near-term severity of our predicament. Whether we wish it or not, the fossil fuel era is already ending and we are entering into an age of consequences.

The question for Ireland is whether to exit fossil fuel dependency now, in a rapid, proactive and managed way, or to dither and risk being forced into much more difficult, chaotic and painful responses in the near future.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Professor McMullin.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Professor McMullin for his presentation. Unfortunately, I was not here for most of the earlier presentation, but my sense is that Mr. Molnár was saying enough infrastructure has been built in Europe to allow us to meet our needs and demands over the next 20 or 30 years, assuming we move towards decarbonisation. The question seems to be whether we can rely on that. If we rely on Europe or the UK, will inherent security risks be associated with that? What are Professor McMullin's thoughts on that? He differentiated between State-led and commercial LNG. The Government has previously discussed having a State-owned LNG storage facility. Would Professor McMullin see that as a necessary compromise to ensure we will have that security of supply without locking ourselves into a more commercial, profit-orientated model of LNG supply?

Professor Barry McMullin:

This is a risk management challenge, and there are various risks. It requires some detailed assessment of the different kinds of risks, and different measures mitigate different risks. As for the overall European supply and our reliance on that via the interconnectors to the UK, which will become progressively more important as the Corrib gas field is depleted, that is a very reasonable question and the answer to it depends critically, as was indicated in the earlier evidence to the committee, on how effective the European-wide measures are at decarbonisation. The more successful we are in reducing our consumption of natural gas in a managed way over the next 15 or 20 years, the more capacity we will have on both the existing and planned infrastructure.

The real risk is from a failure in climate action. If the climate action falls substantially short, our insecurity of supply of natural gas will be much more severe, but that is a scenario in which I would argue that the other risks, that is, the risks of climate impact, are progressively worsening, potentially to an irreversible point. In fact, they dwarf the other risks. It would be terrible if we had a insecurity of supply event in the middle of winter. That would have serious local consequences for us over a period of, potentially, several weeks, which would be terrible. In the bigger picture context, however, the potential consequences of inadequate or slow climate action are much worse.

My personal view is that in balancing those risks, there are actions within our power both in Ireland and collectively in Europe. Obviously, Ireland is a full member state of the EU, so we have a role to play in facilitating and encouraging greater action. The biggest part we can play in driving that forward is by the deployment, as rapidly as possible, of our own renewable energy infrastructure, and by additional interconnection to Europe, particularly in respect of electricity at the current time. In that way, we can demonstrate our commitment and support the wider European project.

That way, we demonstrate our commitment and support the wider European project. All the parties in Ireland have made that commitment at European level and there is very strong commitment in the Commission and the European Parliament. If we take those commitments on board, further investment in LNG anywhere in Europe beyond what is already in train would be a distraction and could potentially impair that.

The market question is a different one from the wider European question. That is a legitimate concern. If you have infrastructure that is commercially operated for profits and the profit is dependent on how much gas passes through it, you have then introduced into the Irish system an actor whose interests and the interests of the people they employ, as well as the interests of the State based on the taxes it derives from that entity, are all aligned with increasing gas consumption or, at least, maintaining it rather than reducing it. This plays out in a complicated, coupled system. This deep into our climate emergency, knowing already how difficult our climate action goals are, to introduce factors and actors into the system that would actually operate in the opposite direction would be very difficult.

The other category of risk that we have to talk about is disruption to the interconnections to the UK. This is coming into sharper focus, particularly with the depletion of the Corrib field. We then have to ask what the risks are. Are we talking about technical risks and failure of the infrastructure or geopolitical risk and attacks on the infrastructure? If I mention the second risk first, that risk is low. It is tiny. However, given the consequences, we still have to consider it. In terms of geopolitical risk, any geopolitical actor that has both the means and interest in attacking the gas connection infrastructure between Ireland and the UK, by definition, has the means and interest to attack LNG import infrastructure. Therefore, LNG import infrastructure does not actually mitigate that geopolitical risk.

Now we are back to the technical risk, which has not changed. The Ukraine war has not changed that technical risk; it is what it was. The approach to it at European level has changed because of Brexit. In a formal sense, we do not meet the EU infrastructure standard, but previously it was met on a regional basis with Great Britain. The objective assessment of that technical risk has not changed. The pipelines are dualled. A single one failing would be problematic and we would have to activate our mitigation measures. We have a plan for that, unless there is some factor that says that technical assessment has changed. However, the Corrib depletion has changed it somewhat. In a sense, even before Corrib came on stream, we were already in that situation.

If the judgment were that the risk needs to be mitigated for, say, a period of ten years, the LNG facility would have to be State-owned and operated. As Deputy Leddin stated, it is energetically expensive to maintain LNG in the liquified state. There basically needs to be a certain level of flow through the infrastructure as it liquifies. If that was, for example, a floating storage unit that was State-owned and operated and chartered for a fixed period of time and we had an exit strategy for it, that is certainly an arguable position. I am here representing myself and not any other organisation but I was party to the submission to the consultation on behalf of Engineers Ireland. It stated explicitly that there is an arguable case for that sort of LNG facility on a fixed-term basis but strong measures to guard against it leading to an expansion in gas demand need to be taken.

The other potential way of mitigating it is through the development of gas storage in the gaseous form in Ireland. We had a gas storage facility in the depleted Kinsale Head gasfield which operated for an extended number of years but was decommissioned. It operated on a commercial basis and the commercial operation was no longer providing returns to the operator, so it was decommissioned. With the benefit of hindsight, maybe there should have been an intervention to preserve that.

The ESB has engaged in very significant preliminary investigation into the possibility of re-establishing that storage facility. We had a presentation at Engineers Ireland in recent months on that exact topic. While further work is necessary, there is the technical possibility that could be done. The great thing about that is that technical possibility does migrate to the potential for future storage of hydrogen, whereas, as we heard from an earlier witness, LNG technology does not transfer to handle hydrogen. The characteristics of hydrogen and liquefied natural gas are fundamentally different. The characteristics of gaseous hydrogen and gaseous natural gas are significantly different, but not so different that a gas storage facility cannot be repurposed.

If the judgement is made that it is necessary and appropriate in terms of risk mitigation of the pipeline interconnections to look at some additional mitigation for that, while there is an arguable case for LNG, the strategic case is much stronger to look at a gaseous storage facility, whether that be in the Kinsale Head field or some other geological place that has the possibility of repurposing for hydrogen. It makes much more sense strategically, and that should be prioritised, if at all possible.

That answer was probably longer than Deputy Whitmore had bargained for.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I thank Professor McMullin for the detailed answer.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was more than five minutes, but I think Professor McMullin probably answered everybody's questions there.

Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Towards the end of his presentation, Professor McMullin spoke about risk. He indicated that there was the risk of potential - I do not think he used the term "blackouts" - but the risk associated with the potential of having a scarcity versus the obvious risk to the climate if we embed this kind of infrastructure into our mix. Has Professor McMullin done any analysis on the potential impact on our employment prospects and our capacity to attract investment to the State for the continued growth in our economic activity to meet the demands of our growing population if we were to have a series of blackouts? It is not an absolute position, but the Government is charged on the one hand with ensuring we do not have a blackout but also, on the other, with ensuring we do not continue to emit CO2. You take one risk versus the other. Has Professor McMullin done any risk profiling on the difficulty we will have if we end up having blackouts, and the catastrophic impact that will have on our capacity to attract foreign investment, versus the risk on the other side?

Professor Barry McMullin:

First, because I am an engineer, I will have to make an engineering point. There is a significant distinction between the risk factors regarding the supply of natural gas and the risk factors regarding being able to maintain our electricity supply. What has caused very significant concern of the risk of blackouts in recent years, and this will probably continue for at least the next two or three years, is not actually threats to the supply of natural gas but the available generation capacity for converting, among other things, natural gas to electricity. We simply have not had enough generating capacity for a situation where low availability of renewables, which of course happens from time to time, coincides with high demand.

It is not that there is not enough gas available but that there is not enough plant available to turn that gas into electricity on demand. That is a genuine concern. Measures are being taken. There are many complicated reasons the shortfall in generating capacity arose. It should not have arisen but it is being actively mitigated. That involves building or deploying new gas-fired generation plant, which sounds counterintuitive given our climate objectives. The way of potentially squaring that circle is that, though we build new generation plant, the intention is it will run less of the time and burn less fuel. There are engineering technicalities to that. We are shifting to a different style of plant that is not as efficient as a conventional generating plant. That is working in the opposite direction and that is a problem. The strategic trajectory has to be to develop other ways of meeting our firm electricity demands other than from natural gas when there is no wind blowing or whatever. That is a bigger discussion. I will be happy to comment on that in more detail.

Risk analysis is a hugely subjective field so I will not pretend I can present a scientific balance of risks, but the threat of blackouts is not currently arising from a shortage of natural gas. I would argue that, strategically, the biggest risk to foreign direct investment and domestic investment is availability of adequate decarbonised energy. All of these economic activities are more or less intensive and, where feasible, we should target foreign direct investment that is less energy intensive. However, all economic activity involves energy, so the future of maintaining, never mind growing, economic activity relies on decarbonising our energy. The biggest risk factor in maintaining that activity is not decarbonising fast enough.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the presentation. At the heart of this are the risks Professor McMullin points out we are facing. It is true, as he says, that globally we do not need more fossil fuel infrastructure or storage, but the lesson of Russia and Ukraine is that the existing availability of such infrastructure can be massively disrupted. On a path to net zero, what are the best options open to us? Professor McMullin says further investment in LNG will be a distraction for Europe but there has been a lot of it in recent months and it seems to have stabilised a difficult supply situation. I wonder if that is a fair assessment. Europe has to be conscious of access to storage and LNG seems to me to have provided a buffer allowing this crisis to be managed. It should not distract us, as the Professor says, from the wider challenge. Is he saying we should not worry about storage at all, or that we should look at Kinsale? Is that a viable option for security of supply? Where should we look to shore up our lack of access? We only have two access points to the UK, but Corrib will fade out. In a security of supply context, what are our best options?

Professor McMullin seems to say there are other things we should be doing. I do not think anyone disagrees with doing all of those other things. What are our best options just from the scenario of security of supply issue, not seeing the lights go off?

Professor Barry McMullin:

There are two questions there. To be clear, I agree that the European response in the light of the Ukraine invasion to significantly expand the liquefied natural gas, LNG, infrastructure was necessary and correct and has significantly assisted in buffering energy supplies. We have also been fortunate to have had a relatively mild winter this year. The build-up in European-based storage over last summer was critical. The combination of those strategic interventions, not just in LNG, were very important and will need to be maintained. However, what I am saying is that the analysis I have seen is that we have now reached the point where that build-out that has already been done and committed to, and if we reduce natural gas consumption Europe-wide on the trajectory we say it needs to reduce at, within five years we will have a substantial excess in that capacity and we will be looking at retiring capacity, and stranded assets and so forth. In that context, that already committed infrastructure build-out is already on a trajectory to significantly exceed-----

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that a consensus? Is everyone saying that or are some people saying that and others disputing it?

Professor Barry McMullin:

I do not see anybody dispute it but it obviously depends on the assumption one makes about the decline in gas consumption. If that does not materialise then yes, we are in a different world in many ways. Insofar as there is debate about it, that is where the debate hinges. I do not think there is any debate that in the event we collectively deliver at European level, and Ukraine has certainly concentrated minds much more on that, on reducing our overall consumption of natural gas for security and climate reasons, we will see an emerging excess of LNG capacity Europe-wide in a relatively short number of years. It will probably already be the case in five years. That is the backdrop.

On the Deputy's second question on whether it is the view, particularly in the context of the Corrib depletion, that reliance on just the two pipelines to Great Britain and that the risk profile of that is too great, what further local domestic mitigation should we engage in? My view is that the more strategic thing is a gaseous storage facility. One of the two most promising prospects for that are reopening the Kinsale Head field. That is not a trivial engineering matter but the committee might consider inviting representatives from the ESB Group who are in the process of studying this to brief them on that. That certainly is one possibility and because it previously operated successfully we can have reasonable confidence in the technical possibility for that. It is strategic because of the potential for repurposing. It will not be next year. It will be on a five-year timeline but the committee would need to get the experts in to hear about that.

The other project is not in the jurisdiction but on the island. As the committee will know well, energy systems are strongly integrated across the island of Ireland in both jurisdictions. There is a commercial project proposal for the development of a gas storage facility in Northern Ireland in Islandmagee. There is some local controversy around that but technically there are salt geology deposits in that area and salt cavern storage is one of the most common storage technologies used for natural gas storage across Europe where that particular geology is available. There is a commercial developer who is interested in developing gas storage on that site. It is outside this jurisdiction but if it were developed, obviously it has the potential to mitigate security of supply risks in this jurisdiction also.

There is a strategic interest in respect of that and in respect of potential collaboration with the United Kingdom and with the devolved Government, if it can be reinstated, in Northern Ireland. The committee may wish to seek witnesses who could speak to it That kind of facility, if it can be developed successfully, is actually even better than the depleted gas field type storage because it can be developed incrementally. We can develop it in separate caverns of fixed sizes so it is much easier to manage and the investment is over a more extended period. There is an existing pipeline connecting Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland that is very little used. It is currently operating only in the northward direction. It could be repurposed for that. Most important, that form of salt cavern storage is eminently suitable for hydrogen storage also and there are demonstrations in other locations in the world. It would be strategic in the sense of having the possibility of repurposing for hydrogen.

This is not the sort of thing where we can do a scientific analysis or even a close economic analysis. Until we invest a certain amount of money to characterise things we do not really know how much more it is going to cost. That is exactly the situation in which a state entity in balancing state-level risks has to make a decision to make investments, not because we have a balance sheet that shows it is the optimal thing to do but because we are mitigating against very high-impact events. If the committee is asking me where I come down, with that portfolio I come down on the side of promoting storage. If we determine that increased mitigation of risk is merited, storage in gaseous form should be of higher priority for us than going down the LNG route. The LNG route sounds simpler and more tractable and in some technical ways it is simpler and more tractable. However, it is not strategic for us and it is vulnerable to other risks. They are very small risks but if there is geopolitical risk of an attack on our interconnector infrastructure or on LNG import infrastructure, then domestic gaseous storage would be able to mitigate that risk as well. We are weighing up all these things in a very complicated and somewhat subjective way. I hope that helps.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Professor McMullin has answered a lot of our questions. I am particularly glad that he engaged on that point around the generation capacity problem that we have. There has been a lot of muddying of the waters in the media and so on about the need for LNG to prevent blackouts. Professor McMullin has made it very clear today that it is about the generation of electricity that leads to those short-term blackouts.

To pick up on the point on the N-1 infrastructure standard, we had got the regulator here and they kept flagging that it was going to be a big concern. At the time I made the point that nothing has physically changed other than Brexit; the infrastructure and risk have not changed. Putting aside the risk to the interconnectors from a geopolitical point of view, of bad faith actors damaging that infrastructure, does Professor McMullin think there is any risk diplomatically between the two? When we have met with officials from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and with Gas Networks Ireland, they have said their counterparts meet on a daily basis, civil servants meet very regularly and there is a long-standing political agreement. If Britain was to turn off that pipe, it would turning it off to the North of Ireland and the Isle of Man as well. Professor McMullin says this could be addressed politically. Does he think that is a big challenge or something that might just need to be reaffirmed to give people assurances?

Professor Barry McMullin:

As the Senator said, the technical risk profile has not changed. The political arrangements have changed because of Brexit, so from the point of view of complying with the EU regulation, something further is necessary. There are other people more informed on this than me, but I understand the Commission would not oppose if there could be a sufficient political agreement at that level between the UK and the EU and Ireland. The Commission would be prepared to allow a waiver on the N-1 or a continuation of the regional assessment. The CRU rightly says that whether or not that can be done politically there is still a technical risk and maybe we should never have accepted that regional risk assessment. On the one hand, political action could reinstate that. With respect to political risk or bad faith in that relationship, that risk is really low.

The Senator mentioned the fact the pipelines service Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man as well as the Republic of Ireland, so that is a political factor. The UK is a net natural gas importer from interconnections to mainland Europe as well as direct LNG imports from outside the EU. I am not suggesting it would, but hypothetically speaking, the diplomatic risk for the UK in engaging in some bad faith disruption makes it hard to see where that could be in its strategic interest, given its dependence on gas pipeline interconnection to mainland Europe. As a final point, the infrastructure we are talking about is owned by Gas Networks Ireland UK limited and is operated by that company from a control centre in Cork. If we put all those things together that risk is relatively well managed, shall we say, in the spectrum of risks we are dealing with.

I do not dismiss the CRU concerns that the technical risk and regional assessments probably always were a little higher than we should be comfortable with. The complete paralleling of that pipeline, meaning we now have two independent pipelines, significantly mitigated that. However, if we lose one of those pipelines, that already causes a significant gas emergency and if it is a prolonged loss then that is problematic. I therefore respect the CRU's position on that. If there were an overall judgment that requires further mitigation then, as I said, we are into gas storage facilities, preferably. That is where I would look.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Professor McMullin for his responses so far. This is certainly a debate worth having. It is fair to say it is a tricky one. I am certain I am not speaking on behalf of all committee members but this committee has had the general approach and ethos that fossil fuels should be left in the ground. It has been an overarching theme within the committee membership. As a committee we have done more than others to promote clean, renewable generation of electricity. We have come at it from that approach. To that end, I would have thought at the outset of this debate the issue would have been pretty black and white that we leave fossil fuels in the ground and completely move away from a reliance on gas, etc. However, there was the emergence of potential blackouts, which we did not see this winter but certainly saw the previous winter. The reliance on UK gas, the two interconnectors and how reliant we are on that single source has also been highlighted. These factors mean it is not so black and white and perhaps a debate should be had on this. In that context, I have two questions.

Incidentally, I very much like the idea of opening up storage at the Old Head of Kinsale field.

In respect of what we are already getting through the UK, 35% of total gas demand in the UK comes from liquefied natural gas, LNG, according to a recent government report. Some 80% of Ireland's gas, as I have already said, is coming from the UK. That means therefore roughly 25% of gas is already coming from LNG. Would Professor McMullin agree with that assessment in the first instance?

On fracked gas, Ireland’s position is we want to ban it, but considering the fact that 25% of LNG, from my assessment, already comes from the UK, are we already importing fracked gas? Therefore, to avoid importing fracked gas, would a better scenario be one of the preferred options Professor McMullin mentioned, which was to consider the floating storage regasification unit, FSRU, or floating LNG option? Would Professor McMullin consider that perhaps to be a better way to ensure 100% we were not importing fracked gas?

Professor McMullin mentioned that if a geopolitical scenario were to emerge where there were attacks on our interconnectors, such attacks would be just as likely to occur on an LNG terminal. Surely infrastructure that is laid in the depths of the ocean is more of a target than, for example, a floating LNG ship in a harbour in Ireland?

Professor Barry McMullin:

I thank the Deputy for those questions. I will not comment on the specific share of LNG in the UK system as I do not have those numbers to hand.

Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe it is 35% according to a UK report.

Professor Barry McMullin:

I certainly do not dispute that figure. I have no visibility at all and I am unsure even if the sources of supply of LNG in the UK system are public knowledge. How much of that LNG import into the UK may come from fracked sources is something I have no numbers on.

In principle, it is certainly the case that a proportion of the gas that comes into Ireland from Great Britain has come via LNG routes, and if some of that is coming as fracked gas, then some quantity of it would then be coming into Ireland. I do not have an exact number for the Deputy but it would be small. It would be something of a sledgehammer to crack a nut to deploy domestic LNG to try to mitigate that because we would still be taking in some gas by LNG and would still be bringing gas in over the interconnector. We may not be bringing quite as much via the interconnector but we would still be doing so and we cannot differentiate these sources. We take it from a market supply point at Moffat in Scotland and we cannot say we are taking gas which is coming from the LNG route or from some other route. We are in fact taking whatever gas is available at that hub so we cannot differentiate in that way.

I see the point which the Deputy is making but I am not, shall we say, persuaded that that in itself would provide a very strong argument-----

Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not trying to persuade the professor and was just trying to get his thoughts on this issue.

Professor Barry McMullin:

-----for an LNG option. The Deputy also had a second question.

Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a follow-on point from that, Professor McMullin mentioned that if-----

Professor Barry McMullin:

Yes, the Deputy asked about the attack profile in the very extreme geopolitical scenario. The committee might need experts from quite a different source to comment on that vulnerability. I certainly have no expertise in submarine warfare. I have looked a little bit at the reports on the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline. It was quite sophisticated and the potential actors who are capable of doing that are not very many. Obviously, that sort of attack is easier to execute, the shallower the water is. If somebody was targeting the Irish pipeline, they would be more likely to come as close to shore as they could on either the UK or Irish side, and more likely the Irish side since we have less defensive and monitoring capability in that respect.

I am subject to correction by military hardware experts, but I would be surprised to hear that a geopolitical actor with the capability to do that could not attack in port and liquefied natural gas, LNG, facilities successfully.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My observation on that would be that attacking a subterranean gas pipe network could be less in your face, for want of a better phrase, than on a floating LGN ship.

Professor Barry McMullin:

A military hardware expert is needed. I defer to those.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that.

Professor Barry McMullin:

I will give a shout-out to John Holland, an Irish engineer, who was one of the inventors of the submarine.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Clare man.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He was educated in Limerick

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He went to west Cork for a holiday.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will claim him for the mid-west.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think that is the first time John Holland has been referenced in the committee, and hopefully it will not be the last.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for having to leave. Professor McMullin's contribution has been very useful and I thank him for answering our questions. I want to come back to the basics on this. Both Professor McMullin's submission and that of the International Energy Agency, IEA, are really unequivocal about us not being able to have extra fossil fuel infrastructure and reach our climate targets. If we accept that as the case, and take it back from there, then Professor McMullin's remarks earlier before I left the committee room about the choices we make as to whether the greater risk is around security or the planet, its overheating, and driving ourselves into a situation where that is unviable are important. Not only since the war in Ukraine but prior to that, I think there is a campaign in this country by certain vested interests to have LNG infrastructure, whether that be in Shannon or in Cork. We are now seeing that campaign continue in light of the new situation that is presented by the Ukraine war. I want to push back against that and ask Professor McMullin to reiterate the climate science on this and how our climate targets would be incompatible with new fossil fuel infrastructure including LNG terminals in this country. That is hugely important to the climate movement and to the people who have been campaigning against this. To scientists like yourselves it makes absolute sense. Security risks and all taken into account, the witnesses have given a very good thread of thought on what these risks might amount to. It would seem to me that they are low in terms of the risks we would be putting out there by creating more fossil fuel infrastructure. On the other hand, we are looking at a boom in the LNG industry across the globe, which is quite frightening. I believe this has already been spoken about. We should try to find a way of measuring those two things against each other. I would very much favour this committee and the body politic really thinking about the science rather than just the minimal security risks.

Lastly, again in my absence, there was talk about the danger of blackouts and supply. However, it seems to come from the same quarters of those who push for LNGs to also maintain the proliferation of data centres and we know how much of our energy supply they guzzle up on an annual basis, and increasingly so. Will the witnesses please comment on those few things?

Professor Barry McMullin:

On the climate science point of view, the drumbeat has become so loud that we are almost tuning it out now. However, if we think about the extreme events we have witnessed in the past two or three years, here in Europe, never mind more widely around the world, they are extraordinary in that they are devastating in localised areas. The situation right now in Spain coming into the summer is extremely serious in terms of food production and the extending multi-year drought conditions they are now looking at. We used to have a view of climate risk that comfortably placed it at least ten years or 20 years away.

It is now, as it were, at the gates. The problem is this old turning-the-tanker analogy. It is going to get worse before it gets better. That is already the position. No matter what we do, we are going to be subject to significantly more severe climate impacts. Notwithstanding what I mentioned about the extreme events and temperatures in the recent years, that was against a backdrop where the natural variability of the global system was towards cooler temperatures. There is natural variability in the climate system. The natural tendency has been towards cooler temperatures in the last few years. We are now seeing the re-emergence of so-called El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean. The natural variability is, therefore, returning to higher than average rather than lower than average.

The likelihood is, and this was reflected in the world meteorological assessment, that there is a better than two thirds chance that within the next five years we will see a full year of global average temperatures above more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. That figure of 1.5°C is not a magic number. There is not some switch that suddenly goes on. In terms of our trajectory, however, that is really soon. That does not mean we failed in the context of the Paris objective, which is about the underlying trend; it is about a 30-year average. It absolutely means that we are currently losing the fight collectively and globally, however. Ireland cannot fix that on its own but it can play its own part. I am trying to speak to the Deputy's question about balancing risks.

As I said, it was a simpler world when we said that there were short-term risks and long-terms risks and that we would do the things we needed to do in the short term in the context of the short-term risks and then, on the back burner, on a slower timescale, we would deal with the longer-term risks. However, those timescales are now collapsing on top of each other and are no longer cleanly separated.

I completely and genuinely respect the work this committee continues to do. It is an unenviable task making these judgments and risk assessments and explaining those, particularly when just because something bad happens, that does not mean it has gotten the risk assessment wrong. The point of risk assessment is that bad things may still happen. We can put in place certain mitigation measures but we can never completely mitigate away all risk. Therefore, bad things may still happen. In the political sphere, there will be a tendency for fingers to be pointed and for people to say, "Oh, you got it wrong." The committee can say, "No, we did the risk assessment and, unfortunately, luck was not on our side." As I said, however, we venture into this area of consequences when we are relying on luck being on our side. We really do not want to do that.

I am really saying that in balancing climate risk versus near-term security-of-supply risk, some people talk about an energy trilemma. I do not talk about an energy trilemma. I talk about an energy needs hierarchy. There are three axes to our energy situation, which are security, cost and sustainability. They are not three equal things that we have to balance against each other, however. Sustainability trumps everything. If we do not have a liveable climate, it does not matter how secure the supply of natural gas and oil is. Therefore, at the bottom of the hierarchy is sustainability; that trumps everything else. After that is security. We definitely want the most secure access to energy we can possibly have. After that comes cost. Other things being equal, if we have multiple ways of meeting the sustainability goals and multiple ways of meeting the security thresholds, then, of course, we want the least-cost option. However, it is the last thing in the hierarchy. They are not three equal things that we balance all the time. In doing these risk assessments, we have to bring forward the risk part of climate. The sustainability really has to come into sharper focus. Of course, the committee must manage the near-term risks as best it can, and it is unenviable. In the context of all the things I said about the difficult choices, LNG, gas storage, etc., none of them is perfect.

It will be a complicated mix and difficult judgments will need to be made in that risk assessment.

The climate is completely unforgiving. Whatever we thought about 39°C in London one day last summer, it was an exception last year. It will not be an exception moving forward. Thankfully, Ireland did not experience that last year, but that was just luck. Our turn will come around and we need to do more on adaptation. However, there is a level of climate impact at which adaptation is impossible. Ireland can take credit. We have genuinely world-leading climate legislation. We have a world-leading framework of governance. It is not yet delivering. A lot of stuff still needs to be done and reinforced around that but Ireland can take credit, as a small player, for trying to move the dial on this. That is our best means of ensuring our future security, prosperity and all those things. We are on the right path. Fossil fuels must play a declining role. Difficult judgments must be made about how to make that decline as rapid as possible. I am not gainsaying that. We must keep in mind that the overarching ambition is to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. We must do our best to cut off at the start anything that introduces pressure in the opposite direction, such as a new fossil fuel resource being exploited domestically or a new import route for fossil fuels, and anything that introduces forces into the Irish political and social system that push us subtly and sometimes not so subtly in the opposite direction rather than waiting until they are fully grown and undermining the other measures we are trying to take.

Data centres were mentioned explicitly. Until we reach this wonderful state of 100% decarbonisation, all increase in our energy consumption will lead to higher emissions. If we are not at zero emissions from our energy, increased energy consumption will lead to increased emissions. That is the way it works. Therefore we need to be extraordinarily alert to managing down our energy consumption as much as possible. That means taking efficiency measures wherever possible. We need to look at things we think of as efficiency such as building retrofits, which is an efficiency in itself, and moving to heat pumps, which are very efficient. We talk about coefficient performance rather than efficiency measures. There is more than one from heat pumps. We need to look at industrial consumption and be more aggressive in acting on the consumption of fossil fuels in industry and in supporting industry by investing in indigenous industry and industry supported by foreign direct investment. There are a relatively small number of industrial concerns. There is one huge one in particular that is currently heavily reliant on the direct use of fossil fuels. It is in our national interest to support them in progressing their journey off fossil fuels and substituting as rapidly as possible.

This have never been done. There have been transformations in our energy supply before but they have always been in a context of adding rather than substituting, that is, in increasing our total energy consumption. When we went from using animals to using coal, we dramatically increased our energy use. When we went from coal to oil that dramatically increased it and then we went from oil to gas. All of these were completely different kinds of scenarios.

This is the test. The test for us here in Ireland, and it is the test for global humanity, is to do this for the first time ever but we only get one shot at it. We really have to throw everything we have at this - all the political, social and societal attention we can muster. It is impossible and, as I said in a different context, we will not do too much. We are far too late in the game now that we will invest too much in this transformation. Managing our demand for energy as frugally as possible in the coming years, and certainly for the next 20 years, has to be part of difficult political and societal conversations.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Professor McMullin. I want to speak about demand management because often when we have this conversation it is about blackouts versus security of supply or security of electricity generation. We have never had that proper conversation that we have to live within a reality and within natural boundaries. We are constantly talking about protecting business and future investment. We can have future investment if we not only decarbonisation but we manage our use properly.

A lot of the conversations are around data centres. Ireland invited data centres in without any obligations. Even though the policy is moving in a different direction, there are a lot of other things we do not talk about in terms of demand management. Perhaps Professor McMullin cannot speak about it here but does he believe the conversation relies too heavily on the fear of blackouts and that that is what underpins a lot of these conversations around LNG? I lodged an objection to LNG in Shannon. Everything that I have heard so far today would indicate that nothing has changed. It is still the wrong direction to move in but we need to have a conversation with the public on our overuse of electricity in our homes and workplaces because decarbonisation will happen if we really invest in it but the quicker thing to do is manage how we use electricity.

Professor Barry McMullin:

Yes, I totally support that position and might even go slightly further. As the Senator said, we must look at managing within planetary boundaries. That means managing aggregate societal metabolism but that comes down to the size of the economy. All economic activities, and every transaction, involves some underpinning energy but some are much more energy intensive than others. In the case of data centres, we have chosen to specialise in a form of economic activity that is extremely energy intensive and at a time when the opposite would have made more sense. Again, the committee may want to consider this matter on another occasion. Foreign direct investment comes about by way of a mandate to the State body that is responsible for promoting that. That mandate, arguably, should contain language that expressly states that the criteria that must be assessed in that is the energy intensity of whatever new economic activity is being attracted. Also, IDA Ireland must be mandated to prioritise attracting economic activity and, similarly, Enterprise Ireland in promoting economic activity or enterprise. They must be mandated to look for those economic opportunities - they exist, so I agree with the Senator - that carry with them the least additional energy use or, in some cases, there is economic activity that reduces energy use like heat pump installations and these kinds of things.

So prioritising the management of our economic activity and the portfolio of economic activity in our system from that energy perspective, or the emissions perspective more generally, would be very beneficial.

Yes, that is the situation we are in. It is not going to be easy. The planetary boundaries framework, with which members of this committee will be well familiar, has been generalised into this doughnut perspective where there is an inner boundary of basic, dignified human living so that is the social foundation that everybody needs. The overarching political challenge for the next several decades here in Ireland, and in the developed world generally, is how to bring ourselves back inside the boundaries, and we are currently outside the planetary framework boundaries, while at the same time protecting that social foundation. It is not like there are no ideas for how to do this. There is a huge amount of research, investigation, proposals and experiments in all parts of the world. Again, there was a big meeting held in the European Parliament last week or the week before to consider the growth and post-growth opportunities, ideas and perspectives. I would encourage the committee to consider inviting some experts in those topics to look at the Irish situation specifically and offer some insights into what might be the most opportune interventions in the Irish system.

Yes, the Senator is right that it is a society-wide discussion. That discussion is not happening. There is a role for politicians in that but there are other societal actors. Academics have a role to play. I do what I can but my peers could step forward a bit more. I have many very good peers but the academy generally in Ireland has maybe not been as strong on these issues as it could be. We had the intervention by the President a couple of weeks ago. It was very helpful as the President provoked wider societal conversation but that tailed off very quickly. How to build a societal conversation that is more sustained on that is difficult.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not just about future inward investment. It is also about what we are doing right now and that is the conversation. What I seek from the professor is a recommendation that we do engage in that communication because if there was concerted demand management then we would not be having a conversation on blackouts.

Professor Barry McMullin:

I am on record previously with this very committee as advocating for a moratorium on new and pending data centre deployments.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We do talk about data centres. What I am talking about is the stuff that we are doing right now rather than future investment.

Professor Barry McMullin:

Yes. Those decisions on new data centre deployments are happening as we speak. I agree with the Senator that the stuff we are already doing is very important and things like the role of the transport sector and the switch to shared mode transport is central to that but, also, not travelling as much as we do. For various reasons the aviation sector tends to get hived off as a separate item for discussion. From a global or atmospheric perspective, it does not realise that we think aviation is something special. It just goes into the atmosphere. I think the aviation sector, particularly in terms of managing what role that plays in what we think is a successful society, would bear specific investigation. More generally, we must look at the role of material consumption in what makes a strong society and whether there is potential for a better society with better welfare and more well-being on the back of lower material consumption.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Or the 1950s.

Professor Barry McMullin:

-----and that is not what I want to talk about at all. It is a positive future of well-being.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Professor McMullin for that and also Senator O'Reilly.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A number of commentators in this general area have spoken about the risk to the gas connections, the need for diversification, the implications of the war in Ukraine, the imminent threat of blackouts, and we have touched on a number of these to dispel the confusion that has been inserted into this debate. My own concern, and we have dealt with it there, is this State's ability to manage demand. It has shown very little ability. Both Professor McMullin and the previous contributor have raised the importance of that and dealt with it well. The other element is the ability to deliver renewables at pace and scale. Obviously, this is a very important factor in terms of considering the risks and in ensuring the lights are kept on into the future. Does Professor McMullin have any reflections on that and on the importance of having targets and an offshore auction? He will be aware that there are concerns about planning. This is literally breaking new ground in every way. Will he speak to the importance of that energy transition and building energy infrastructure on a scale we have never done before? Some of our difficulty is in delivering energy infrastructure such as gas power plants. Will he speak to that piece?

In reflecting on the energy security review, does Professor McMullin accept the need for gas storage? Does he think there is a case for not needing it or that we could find an alternative, bearing in mind that it is probably going to be five or eight years before we have a suitable facility in place, or does he accept that we need it and it is a question of what form it will take?

Professor Barry McMullin:

The capacity issue is a real concern. We are doing something that has not been attempted before here or anywhere else and it is clear that our systems are straining. Getting the public administrative systems in operation is a potential obstacle that needs to be addressed and resolved. I am not commenting directly on the proposed legislation in that but it is clear that there has been dysfunction particularly in the planning system. We need a functioning planning system. We need development that is properly assessed. We need development where stakeholders are involved and there is an opportunity and engagement. We need all of those things but we need it to function at speed nonetheless and those things are difficult to square; I will not make any bones about that. We are straining to develop fast enough. The Deputy referred to the renewables capacity development. We have to do everything we can to facilitate that happening, particularly the offshore projects that have now received offers. We want to see those progress successfully and as quickly as possible. However, the other infrastructure point I emphasise is grid. This decarbonisation story is largely a story of electrification. It is taking things that have not traditionally been done directly with electricity and doing them with electricity.

While it is important to manage our total energy use as frugally as possible, and ideally reduce it, our electricity use is definitely going to increase. There is no way of going through this transition without dramatically increasing our electricity use. All the pathways involve that and probably the doubling of our electricity use. That means visible electricity infrastructure otherwise known as transmission lines, pylons, and grid. We need to be doubling that at least. It will not all be overhead but a lot of it will need to be. First, I do not think there is general awareness across Irish society that this has to happen and it has to happen really fast if we are to deliver on the things on which we say we want to deliver. Second, there is not the acceptance. Awareness comes before acceptance but we need to get to the awareness point at least. We need to progress through that and help wider society understand why this is the path we have to follow and why this is the technical requirement for a largely electrified society. It will not be 100% electrified but it will be a largely electrified society. It will involve visible grid infrastructure and that will get in people's eye line. I happen to think some pylons are not that ugly but I am an exception. I appreciate people's concerns about disruption and there is a lot of bad faith misinformation spread about health risks from transmission lines. There is all sorts of stuff that goes on around that. As we get deeper into this, there is a real risk if we have not done the communication part much more strongly to prepare people for the fact that this is going to happen in every part of the country. It will not just be one transmission line in one local place. This needs to happen and it needs to happen at speed and scale all over the country in the coming years.

Yes, there is going to be wind turbines. There will be bigger turbines on land and turbines offshore that will be visible. Anybody who - as I have frequently - has taken the land route to Europe through Holyhead and the train across north Wales, will see massive offshore wind development and what it looks like. I will not argue the aesthetics but to me at least, there is no competition there between a compromise of visual aesthetics against all the other kinds of risk we have discussed in this session. Of course, there are concerns about marine ecology and about interacting with fisheries and all of those things need to be addressed. However, they need to be addressed at speed and at scale.

We are not going to get everything right. It is not going to be pretty. We will make some mistakes but we do not have a time machine and the only way of doing this perfectly is with one of those. We do not have a time machine so can only work in the scenario we now have now. As an engineering colleague at a recent event bemoaned, or his caricature of this situation was, that our biggest problem is too much paper. We have all the plans in the world but translating those plans into physical engineering infrastructure on the ground is the big struggle. It is unprecedented and is going to be difficult. We are not going to get everything right.

In Ireland, we are making the attempt. Society at large supports the principle and we saw this in the citizens' assembly. It is persuaded of the principle and Ireland is blessed as that is not true of all country's of the world. Irish society at large supports the principle but it is still quite unsure and vague about what the practical implications are. Therefore, more advanced notice and advanced warning would assist in helping people understand that this is going to be intrusive in places.

Community engagement is very important and we need to do more of it and a lot of it. However, community engagement does not mean community veto. These are things for the greater good. We need to have means to assess the greater good in all these things, make balanced assessments of that and then press ahead with actual projects and make them happen.

On the storage question, I am equivocal. I will be honest. This is a subjective risk assessment. Where I land is to say that we just do not have the time any more to go ahead on too many multiple parallel fronts. Notwithstanding the fact that there are risks, we have to put our eggs into some baskets. For me, the security of supply risk for gas, particularly in respect of potential disruption of the interconnectors to Great Britain against the backdrop of declining Corrib gas supplies, merits some mitigation measures within the next five years. This is placing your bets territory and a subjective assessment of the risks. I would be wanting to place the bets on gaseous storage but trying to proceed particularly with the Kinsale head possibility. Secondarily, if we can engage diplomatically, there can be a shared cost basis, shared benefit approaches and a potential European contribution to a cross-Border gas storage facility in Northern Ireland. That is where I land. I respect that other people given exactly the same data may make a different value judgment and land in a different place.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have three primary questions. The first is to build on the point about the massive electrification problem that we have. Notwithstanding that we need to reduce energy consumption, we are electrifying more and more, particularly in housing and transport as well. The professor talked about the need for a new grid and made a very strong case that we need to accept that, get on with it and understand that this is part of the transition. Perhaps somewhat paradoxically, it is the Government's policy that we also need new capacity generation in the system as well. We need new gas generation infrastructure, largely to enable the variable renewables. As we increase our renewables through 50%, 60% and 70%, there will be times when we do not have the variable renewables. Therefore, paradoxically, it actually makes sense on a decarbonisation pathway to invest in some new fossil fuel infrastructure. I would like the professor's comments on that.

To delve into the argument about LNG versus gaseous storage off the Old Head of Kinsale and-or the Islandmagee project in Northern Ireland which the professor mentioned, if the decision is that one of those projects makes more sense from a strategic and security of supply point of view over LNG down in north Kerry, then it is a question of the timescales for delivery of these projects and the cost versus LNG in north Kerry as well. Maybe it is a question for those who are promoting each of those projects. I note the professor's suggestion that the committee might invite the ESB in. It is a very good suggestion. It made a suggestion to the energy security review with respect to the gas field off Kinsale.

The third question relates to the professor's opening statement and the points he made around the exploitation of our own indigenous fossil fuel reserves off the coast. He made the point very strongly that it just does not fit with our Paris goals notwithstanding that there are licences already issued. Perhaps he could speak to that point in the context of energy security. We are increasingly hearing the narrative that security of supply is enhanced by exploiting our own indigenous resources so we are not relying on some third party or some volatile state at the other side of the world for the fossil fuel energy that we do need. Does the professor have anything to say about exploitation of those reserves vis-à-visthe security of supply argument? This is just so we can be armed with something when those arguments come back at us.

Professor Barry McMullin:

The Cathaoirleach saved the good ones for last. We cannot run an electricity system without so-called firm generation capacity. That is capacity that can run on demand to meet peak demand. In the energy system as a whole, there has to be enough of this kind of generation capacity that can meet firm demand. Excluded from that normally are wind and solar. It might be night-time or the wind might not be blowing, so they cannot arbitrarily meet firm demand, although when we go offshore, we get a certain level of pretty well firm demand. In the Irish case, as we are electrifying other things and as we are building out more renewables, we still have to have enough firm generating capacity to meet the peak demand even when there is not any wind or solar. This means having the generating plant to do that. The preferred plant, which, arguably, is the least emissions-intensive, although it depends because it is a complicated equation, is using natural gas, maybe with some biomethane in future years. We are not going to have a huge amount of biomethane, even with the most optimistic projections. We are talking about a little bit of displacement of that gas and a certain amount of gas.

As long as we are going to be relying on natural gas generation to meet that firm demand, we have to have the plant. If we retire other kinds of plant such as Moneypoint and the oil plant at Tarbert, which is at end of life, in order to continue peak demand - and an increasing peak as we are electrifying heating and transport - we need additional generation capacity. At the moment, that needs building a new gas-fired plant. That is what we can get off the shelf to do that. I accept and endorse that this is happening and that it needs to continue to happen. However, it is not straightforward. The kind of plant we are now deploying is technically called open-cycle gas turbine plant. That is lower efficiency than so-called combined cycle gas turbine plant, which we are using in certain big gas-fired stations. The problem with the latter is that it is much more capital intensive, although it delivers much higher efficiency. It is much more expensive. If we are not running it much of the time it is harder to make the combined cycle plant economical. If we successfully decarbonise, we have to have this new plant on standby but we are trying to minimise the amount of time for which it runs.

From an economic perspective, having a really expensive capital plant for that is not very attractive. It means that some of the advantage of reducing the run hours in emissions terms, if we move the fleet towards these open-cycle plants that are less efficient, some of the advantage in reducing the run hours is evaporating because we are using less efficient plant. It is not a great trajectory. We really need other options. There are other options but they are not mature. We cannot go out in the markets or at least they would not be competitive in an auction-type system.

We definitely need more battery. By buffering short-term fluctuations with battery, we can then allow the combined cycle plants, which are slower both to start up and to shut down, to run for longer and we can get over the start-up and shut-down variations. More battery will allow us, on a 24-hour cycle, to shave the peak in order that the peak where we need another form of generation will not be the daily peak but a daily average, although there will be still a winter peak relative to a summer peak. This is something of which we need to do more, and it would reduce the need for gas plant.

The longer term picture relates to thermal plant gas turbines that do not run on natural gas but on something else, and the devil in the detail concerns what else they run on. Insofar as possible, as we are supporting the build-out of new gas turbines, we want to future-proof them such that they will be able to run on alternative fuels. The candidates in play are the direct combustion of hydrogen; ammonia, which is somewhat controversial because it tends to involves knocks, although there is no carbon in it; or synthetic methanol, a carbon-based fuel. I recently visited the technical university of Berlin, where there is a specialist the committee may want to invite before it on another occasion. He sees tremendous potential for that methanol route.

There is a new form of gas turbine of which only one scale example is operating in the world at the moment. It is a 50 MW gas turbine, operating at scale, using a new technology called Allam cycle, which allows it to operate at a higher temperature, meaning higher efficiency. We can offset the shift from combined cycle to open cycle and regain that efficiency by going to these Allam cycle gas turbines. Additionally, the secret sauce of the Allam cycle turbine is that the working fluid - I am sorry for getting technical - is mostly carbon dioxide. The net result is that we can build a closed system where methanol is taken in and combusted, water and carbon dioxide are released and, if there is a source of hydrogen, the carbon dioxide can be recycled to produce methanol again, with water. There is a closed cycle and the carbon never leaves the system, so there are no emissions. The reason I suggest this rather than the direct combustion of hydrogen is that hydrogen is difficult to store and manage in large quantities. We can produce it from renewable energy, but storing it in large quantities is difficult. I mentioned developing natural gas storage that could be repurposed for hydrogen and that is certainly a pathway, but methanol is a liquid in normal conditions, which is easy to store. At the other end of the cycle, we would have to store carbon dioxide, which is a bit more difficult to store but still much easier to store than hydrogen.

I think there is an opportunity, even as we build out new gas-fired capacity, to ring-fence some of that for trying to accelerate the deployment of these kinds of technologies that will allow us to migrate away from natural gas. As I said, there is only one Allam cycle plant in the world at the moment, but the commercial company behind it is looking for new sites to go to. It was originally focused on a so-called carbon capture and storage market for which it is also suitable, but in the Irish context it would be about demonstrating a closed cycle system. Even short of that, it would immediately deliver efficiency comparable to a combined cycle rather than to these low-efficiency open cycle systems we are currently procuring. There are already opportunities, even in the steps we are currently taking, to accelerate that development.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Methanol is a derivative of hydrogen.

Professor Barry McMullin:

Yes.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we are going down a hydrogen pathway, it might veer off towards methanol.

Professor Barry McMullin:

Yes, exactly, but it will potentially resolve a number of the problems with hydrogen in this specific context of providing firm electricity capacity. The committee would have to invite in Professor Browne, and I think he would be very happy to give it evidence. He has been looking at this intensively and thinks that, even from a direct-cost point of view, this is very close to being pencilled out in a situation where there is access to large-scale renewable energy generation where otherwise there would be difficulty.

The danger at the moment, although this is a silly thing to say, is that if we are too successful in building out our wind energy, we will have too much electricity at certain times. Let us be optimistic for a moment and assume success in rolling out that offshore wind deployment. In parallel with that, we will need to work on the routes to market for that additional energy at peak wind conditions, and the methanol route is an interesting one. The basic technology is not quite off the shelf, but it is not low level. It is fairly well-established technology.

I commented there on the storage issue but I am not sure whether I said enough in response to the Cathaoirleach's question.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about LNG versus gaseous storage?

Professor Barry McMullin:

The trump consideration for me in this is the climate impact. In the case of the LNG we are talking about, the energy overhead in liquefying, or in the case of a strategic store the energy overhead in keeping it liquid, translates into emissions.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I am trying to get at is that it seems to me that gaseous storage makes a lot more sense from a strategic point of view, but the next question is how quickly it could be developed and how costly it would be versus floating LNG units.

Professor Barry McMullin:

Developing and getting our hands on a floating FSRU would involve a time delay, and getting a supply chain that would reliably provide us with non-fracked LNG is also not something that could be done overnight. LNG mitigation might be slightly faster, but perhaps by only two years.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the long run, it might make less sense.

Professor Barry McMullin:

To me, the strategic interest means that slightly faster deployment is not enough to outweigh the strategic benefits.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My final question related to indigenous fossil fuels and the energy security argument that means we would not have to rely on the Saudis or the Russians for oil and gas.

Professor Barry McMullin:

Of course, in a geopolitically very fractious century, which is what we have ahead of us no matter what way you cut it, energy is fundamental to societal welfare, so securing energy supply is essential. I could go back to the emergency during the Second World War, when the lack of energy supply was devastating to Irish society. That is very important and indigenous supply, insofar as possible, is the best answer to that. We know where the wind is and we know it is low carbon. We know also where the sun is and when it is there and we know it is low carbon. In the case of the fossil fuels, we kind of know something is there, although we do not really know how much or what it will cost to bring it onshore. The societal licence for that is certainly questionable, even if it could be brought onshore.

I really think the strategic interest of Ireland is absolutely in indigenous energy and not in indigenous fossil energy.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I thank Professor McMullin very much for that very comprehensive set of answers to my questions. We will take a second round. Senator Boylan wanted to come in.

Professor Barry McMullin:

There is a second round?

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is. We will-----

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to go. I thank the witnesses very much.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to go as well. I thank everyone.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Boylan may come in.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief because Professor McMullin has been very comprehensive today. We have learned a huge amount about energy systems.

I will pick up on that point around the importance of demand reduction. We tabled a parliamentary question to the Department asking for the number of people working on demand reduction. We were told that 76 people are working on demand-side management but there is nobody specifically working on demand reduction. I would like to hear Professor McMullin's views on how important it is that we start focusing on that. We have not met our targets that we agreed in the EU in November 2022 to reduce electricity demand. In fact, Ireland was one of the few that went up by 6%.

The very final point is more to do with gas. While the large energy users such as data centres have come up in the conversation, we know that to date there are 11 islanded data centres connected directly to the gas grid because they cannot get connection to the electricity grid. The Government's response is that the islanded data centres run contrary to our climate objectives and the climate action plan. Gas networks Ireland believes that is not the case, however. It referred to the data centres' connection to the network. It believes it can meet that demand in the future through the use of biomethane and hydrogen. It is interesting that we have a semi-State body saying one thing and the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications, Government and climate action plan saying another. Is it possible to meet that demand through biomethane and potentially hydrogen down the road if we keep connecting large energy users to the gas grid? Should we be changing the mandate of Gas Networks Ireland?

Professor Barry McMullin:

On the first question, I need to say there is a term of art on demand management, which, in the electricity sector in particular, is definitely different from demand reduction. It means moving demand around in time. Demand reduction is a different thing. It means reducing demand. There is much activity around demand management. We also talk about flexible demand and flexibility of demand. They are important to managing the system but they are not central to the overarching picture of decarbonisation.

We certainly need consideration of measures and interventions or whatever that would limit aggregate energy use. As I said, electricity needs to grow, but other things need to shrink, at least commensurately and preferably faster against a background of a growing population. It is not easy. In terms of how many people and whether there should be staff in the public system investigating and responsible for this, yes, I think there should. I would not want to comment on how many or where they should be located.

I am sorry; the other question was----

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was about Gas Networks Ireland.

Professor Barry McMullin:

It was about Gas Networks Ireland and those particular data centres. The gas grid is a public asset that, obviously, society at large has an interest in getting value out of and Gas Networks Ireland's remit, effectively, is to maximise the benefit to Irish society of that infrastructure. It is understandable that it will seek to maximise the opportunities for that.

Substituting natural gas with biomethane can go a little way towards decarbonisation. In theory, 100% biomethane could be used in place of 100% natural gas. That is the attraction of biomethane. The actual biomethane resource in Ireland is very limited, however. It is very constrained.

If it were to be ring-fenced for one particular purpose, we could identify certain large industry with no other way of decarbonising other than continuing to burn methane. There is some compelling reason why that is the right route. We are talking about less than 20% of current gas consumption. I would guess it is more like 10%. Will we continue to maintain the existing national network just to supply that 10%? I do not think so. We are looking at a fundamental re-evaluation of that national asset, which bits of it will be preserved and for what purpose. Can bits of it transition to 100% hydrogen? They probably can. However, it will be bits of it. Once we transition to 100% hydrogen, everybody hanging off that piece of infrastructure must transition to 100% hydrogen. That is a difficult thing to do. That should not be done with customers when they are all over the place. We want to look at clusters of use. We need a new mandate for Gas Networks Ireland to bring forward a plan for explaining the evolution of that infrastructure. Which bits of it will be fully retired and when? We would need a timescale for that. Which bits of it can transition to 100% hydrogen? Which bits might serve as 100% biomethane? Gas Networks Ireland is well able to respond to that challenge but, to date, it has not been given that challenge.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those are all the questions the committee has for now. It is time for lunch. It has been an incredibly interesting session and it is seldom that one person sits on that side of the table and answers all the questions. I feel for Professor McMullin but he did incredibly well. The session was thought-provoking with respect to how we go forward with our energy system and considerations of security of supply. There is a considerable amount of food for thought there. I thank the professor for giving us his time and expertise. We will consider his contribution in any future work we do. We take on board his suggestions for sessions the committee might have with other relevant stakeholders.

I also thank Mr. Molnár who left after about 45 minutes of the meeting. His contributions were also very insightful.