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

37. To ask the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he has considered the conversion of Moneypoint power plant to biomass; if he has conducted a cost-benefit analysis; if conversion would facilitate Ireland in reaching its 2020 carbon targets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44796/15]

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This question relates to the energy mix, particularly the use of biomass at Moneypoint, and whether a cost-benefit analysis has been carried out, given that the Moneypoint plant has a lifespan up to 2025.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The overarching objective of the Government's energy policy is to ensure secure and sustainable supplies of competitively priced energy for all consumers. A well balanced fuel mix that provides reliable energy, minimises costs and protects against supply disruptions and price volatility is essential for Irish consumers. Fossil fuels will remain part of the energy mix as we transition to a largely decarbonised energy system by 2050.

The choice of fuel used in the plant at Moneypoint is, in the first instance, a matter for the operator, the ESB, and I have no role or function in this regard. No specific cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken by my Department of the potential or otherwise of converting the plant to use biomass. However, there are a number of important issues that would need to be considered in this regard.

The conversion of Moneypoint to biomass would require significant levels of capital investment by the operator. In recent weeks I have seen the figure of €300 million for the cost of conversion. Support tariffs substantially higher than those available for wind, which has been the most cost-effective renewable technology in the Irish electricity market, would also be required which could lead to increased electricity prices. Substantially more biomass than is available domestically would be required, with large amounts of the resource having to be imported, leading to potential uncertainty in terms of security of supply. The sustainability of transporting large amounts of imported biomass would also be a cause for concern. The commitment of substantial amounts of biomass to Moneypoint would divert scarce biomass away from the renewable heat sector, where biomass can be used more efficiently and where fewer alternative technologies exist. Before Moneypoint comes to the end of its operating life in its current configuration, in 2025, the most suitable replacement low-carbon generation technology will have to be identified.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Given that Moneypoint generates a large amount of energy and has a lifespan to 2025, the ESB must have done some thinking about the future of the plant. While I accept that biomass has to be imported, so does coal, which will not be sustainable. No matter how one views this there will be cost implications. There could be cost implications if we do not meet our targets that we are perhaps not counting at the moment, such as fines. Would the ESB keep the Minister apprised of its thinking if it was doing a cost-benefit analysis? I presume it would. Does the Minister have any idea what it is thinking about for Moneypoint, given the amount that plant generates?

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The ESB would and does keep me informed of its thinking. It is a decision for it. The White Paper will be published tomorrow but in the context of the transition we are embarked upon and that we must deliver to achieve a low carbon economy the fuel mix is an important policy question for the State and will have to be dealt with. Decisions will have to be made on Moneypoint within the next five years because it will come to the end of its current configuration in 2025. Moneypoint is well served by the grid. It is an important facility. I see a good future for it as a generator but the question is what to do if and when coal is phased out. The ESB could replace it with a new coal station and we would all have doubts about that. Some people advocate some carbon capture and sequestration for which there are new technologies. Would it be replaced with a gas-fired station or incorporate partial biomass? I do not exclude any of these possibilities but I listed the negative indicators that need to be addressed for conversion to biomass and the cost that would be visited on the consumer.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the thinking, given the prospect of fines if we do not meet our targets? Some of the old generating stations attract subsidies. Presumably those subsidies would not apply if they use fuel that would lead to our paying a fine because that would be a double whammy. Has that been considered?

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The supports for the peat stations will cease in 2019. Decisions have been made about those subsidies. This will be a transition. It will not happen in one fell swoop because there are people whose livelihoods and jobs depend on many of these generating stations. We have to ensure that the transition also serves people who have worked for many years with these old technologies and show them the positive opportunities and potential that now exists in terms of embracing new technologies and renewable energy. There will be jobs and great potential for jobs and job creation in the renewable energy sector, not just in onshore wind but across the board. These issues are being actively addressed and are treated and elaborated in the White Paper, which will be published tomorrow.