Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House. In his opening statement the proposer of the motion made reference to the lack of representation of some of the groups. He might look at the Government benches, which are not exactly full in terms of its Members taking an interest in this issue. There is a convention that we do not make references to absent Members but, in the interest of balance, I am making reference to absent Members on the Government side. It tends to happen a good deal.

This is an issue on which I have spoken many times in the past ten years in this House. I spent eight years arguing about the lack of Government commitment to the building regulations which were anticipated by Brussels in 1997. We continued to build houses that did not meet the regulations, knowing we should not have done so. Some 250,000 houses in the Dublin city area were built using cavity blocks and these will never meet the standard required, which is a disgrace. Of all the things the building industry did over the years, that was the worst. I do not blame those involved in the industry because they built in accordance with the regulations.

People claim the building industry is concerned with regard to regulations. That is not the case. If developers are required to do something, then they will do it. If, however, there is no requirement, it will not be done. It is impossible to retrofit insulation to houses built using cavity blocks. The Cathaoirleach, who has a background in the industry to which I refer, will understand what I am saying.

I compliment the Green Party on insisting, when it entered Government, that the building regulations be brought into play almost immediately. The advent of those regulations is a welcome development. However, as stated on several occasions, I am of the view that, as happens in certain parts of Spain, it should be a requirement that a method of producing renewable energy be attached to the structure of every house built from this day forward. In that context, I refer in particular to developments involving single houses. The method I would recommend is that which involves photovoltaic solar panels. Such panels are quite sophisticated and are now more efficient than water-heating solar panels. Given that it is hoped to put in place smart meters in people's houses, putting in place photovoltaic panels would be an easy and attractive option.

Photovoltaic panels convert solar energy into electricity in small amounts and this passes straight into the metering system. The introduction of smart meters would mean that people's bills would be automatically reduced. The amounts of energy involved are very small but people would receive credit for producing them. This electricity is used directly in one's home and, as a result, one is obliged to use less of that provided by the ESB.

I recently drove through the Minister of State's constituency and had occasion to use the Carlow bypass. On each occasion on which I drive on a new bypass, I am struck by the same thought, namely, when will the Government recognise that it would be extremely cheap to make provision for rail lines to run alongside motorways? It would not be very difficult to ensure that enough space was provided adjacent to a motorway to allow a rail line to be laid, perhaps retrospectively. Developments of this nature are the way of the future and they are certainly achievable.

Senator Boyle formerly served as his party's spokesperson on finance in the Lower House. I wish to bring to his attention a point I have raised with various Ministers. There is an ongoing row in respect of energy and waste. If someone erects a couple of wind turbines, people are queuing up to have them knocked down. The position is similar when anyone mentions the creation of incineration facilities to deal with waste. We should consider this matter from the point of view of economics. Any community that is prepared to take full responsibility for dealing independently with its own energy and waste requirements should receive a tax break. The provision of such tax breaks would not be difficult. When considering this matter, I examined the energy requirements of the peninsula on which I was born and raised in west Kerry. It is easy to estimate the amount of electricity the ESB provides to a peninsula in any given year. There are a number of ways the energy requirements of the peninsula in question could be met. For example, it could be done by means of the putting in place of wind generation facilities off the west coast. This might upset some people from the east coast who travel to the west in order to gaze upon the Atlantic and who might see a few wind turbines in the distance. That is their tough luck.

We should also engage in a closer examination of incineration. I am not sure where the Green Party stands in respect of incineration but I sense its members hate discussing it. I am not sure, however, that incineration is the answer. I do not believe it is either as bad or as good as certain individuals state. I am certain, however, that it is a great deal better than landfill, particularly in the context of the difficulties that can arise as a result of leakage into the soil, atmospheric emissions, etc. Consideration certainly should be given to the introduction of incineration.

The previous speaker will be well aware that a new bridge was built to span Achill Sound. I do not know if the Minister of State is familiar with Achill Sound but if one sails a boat into it when the tide is changing, one's craft takes off like a bullet. Why was it not possible to put in place a facility to harness tidal energy at Achill Sound? It is almost as if nature designed Achill Sound in such a way that the water whips through at great speed at a particular time and then comes rushing back in the opposite direction 12 hours later.

When proposing the motion, Senator Boyle inquired as to how we might develop technology. We can develop technology only by literally doing so. There is some involvement from the South in what is being attempted in County Down at present. Those working on the project to harness tidal energy near Carlingford are working in the dark to some extent. It is significant and impressive that they are not sure of all the answers. I am extremely excited by the fact that they have achieved so much, that they will monitor what happens from now on and that they will learn as they go. Why are we not doing something similar at Achill Sound? Who in the Government is responsible for examining proposals of this nature? If I spent a month in one of the relevant Departments, the staff there would be working non-stop for six years afterwards and I could go on holiday. There are so many simple steps which could be taken but which we are failing to take.

There is an urgent need to deal with the matter of wind generation. Why is it not possible to include the provision and construction of wind generators under the urgent infrastructure legislation? It is worthwhile and in the national interest that we should become energy independent. It certainly would be attractive to do so at a time when we are at the mercy of oil companies. I cannot understand why sensible people cannot be appointed to indicate areas where it is suitable to construct wind turbines. There always will be some level of interference involved. When one cuts one's lawn, however, one is interfering with nature. We must make compromises as we proceed. I am of the view that we should include wind generators under the relevant legislation.

Senator Boyle also inquired as to what we should do to get ahead. There are two major issues relating to energy in respect of which final development is required. The first involves nuclear fusion as opposed to nuclear fission. I am not in favour of nuclear power but I would like to examine the arguments in favour and against it. I can see how much safer fusion reactors would be when compared to those at Chernobyl and other locations. Nuclear fusion is certainly attractive. A nuclear fusion reactor is being developed in France — at a location adjacent to its nuclear fission reactors — because that country was successful in its bid to host the project. Nuclear fusion will be extremely important for the future.

The second and more important issue — in respect of which, perhaps, greater scientific and intellectual input is required — involves the use of hydrogen. The latter is one of the most useful and easy to use fuels. Hydrogen fuel cells can be transported anywhere and BMW and many of the main car manufacturers have produced prototype hydrogen cars. Hydrogen is one of the most common elements in the world. One need only remove it from water — H2O — in order to obtain access to a great source of energy. Can it be removed from water? The answer is yes. This is being done by means of a process which means that one can almost get as much out of it as one puts in. The cost and energy required to remove the hydrogen from water almost equates to the amount of hydrogen produced by the process.

There are certain aspects which make the use of hydrogen attractive. If the process relating to its production can be further developed, hydrogen will become a source of energy for the future. In addition, when one burns hydrogen, the only waste product is pure distilled water. There is no dirt. There is also a storage facility aspect to this matter. At present in Ireland all the electricity produced at peak level is used. At the lower level, we use the electricity to do other things. The best example would be what happens at Turlough Hill in County Wicklow, where water is pumped up into an elevated reservoir during the night and then allowed to run down during the day in order to produce electricity. The cost of this is 20%; in other words, we get only an 80% return in respect of the energy we use to pump the water up to the reservoir. It is possible to achieve a better return from hydrogen. It would be a better way of saving fuel, energy and electricity at non-peak times. That is something the Government should support in our universities.

That is three options — nuclear fusion, hydrogen extraction from water and energy generated from waste, which has already been discussed by Government. There is much to be done and I welcome this debate. I hope decisions will be taken by the Government.