Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on what are crucial issues for our country, namely, where we get our energy supplies from, how we can maintain security of supply, be competitive and meet our climate change targets. Although it may have moved down the agenda in some peoples' minds in the last six months or so, given the economic crisis which has developed and oil prices having come down from $150 to some $50 per barrel, the reality is the energy issue remains the greatest challenge we face and is also an opportunity we can rise to.

The challenge in meeting our climate change targets, which we have agreed as mandatory targets in the European Union, should not be underestimated, particularly if one considers we will have to go beyond the European Union targets of a 20% to 30% reduction. In my lifetime, I see us making a reduction in our emissions in the order of 80% or more. That is the scale of the challenge. In an area where 60% of climate change emissions come from the energy area we must provide the solution in energy more than anywhere else.

The imperative to do that is added to by the fact we are clearly facing a peak in global oil production. The figure today is that roughly 80 million barrels of oil are being produced. The analysis being done by the International Energy Agency, which was previously very cautious on the issue of a peak in global oil production, could not be more alarming. There is no clear path to where the world could continue to see a growth in production in oil beyond whatever the final peak figure is, but we clearly have to start preparing now for not just an expansion but a contraction in the availability of the light sweet crudes which have powered the earth and the growing economy for the last 100 years.

When one looks at the use of oil in our food production, transport system and in everyday materials made from oil-based plastics, it is an immense challenge unlike any other we have faced in terms of the scale of change which will occur. That is why I am pleased to come to this Chamber to discuss what can be done to manage this contraction. I am confident we can do so successfully and, moreover, that it can offer us an opportunity. I see a path through this change which can deliver for our country not only a secure supply and our contribution to the reduction of climate change emissions but also a competitive economy. There will be a twin-track advancement of our energy policy in the development of our own renewable energy resources and in the promotion of energy efficiency as the only long-term secure hedge from rising international fossil fuel prices.

I disagree with Senator Twomey that the development of ocean energy will be uneconomic. From our current vantage point, it is a frontier technology. However, as it develops and becomes commercialised, I am confident it will become economic. The British Government is developing some 33 gigawatts of ocean energy in the next ten years, which is a short timeframe in energy terms. We have a far greater resource, with much stronger winds and much more powerful waves. When that technology is developed - and we should engage in that development so that the jobs it creates are here - we will have an economic resource that will power our country and also earn us revenue through its exportation to the rest of Europe.

One can look at energy in different ways. I will restrict my comments to the three main usage areas, namely, for electricity production, heat production and transport, and will outline some of the initiatives we are taking and the opportunities that present. In regard to electricity production, the path on which we are set is one that is properly planned. We have undertaken a detailed all-island grid study to determine how our grid can be developed to tap into renewable resources such as wind power. Detailed analysis has been done by leading international experts who agree that even in the next ten years, it will be possible to obtain up to 40% of our electricity supply from wind.

Most of that will come from onshore wind. We have already built 1,000 MW of wind power and I expect to quadruple that in the next ten years to 4,000 MW. This is already subsidising our electricity system and bringing down electricity prices. Why would we not continue that process? After that, we must look to develop offshore wind power. In the interim, we might get something like 2,000 MW of offshore wind or offshore wave and tidal power. After that, when the technology is no longer frontier but mainstream, we will have the opportunity to expand on a greater scale by tapping into our massive ocean resources. The future will involve powering this country by clean electricity which can be used in a range of other areas. The ocean energy unit in Sustainable Energy Ireland, in conjunction with my Department, is tasked with planning for the delivery of that future today.

These developments are essential because the reality is that we are excessively dependent on gas for our electricity production. Currently, some 80% of that gas is coming from the North Sea. However, the latter has already gone through its own peak, as recently as seven or eight years ago, in oil and gas production. In the aftermath of that peak, supply is declining by 7% to 8% per annum, yet we are obtaining 80% of our gas from that source. Like the United Kingdom, we face a dramatic change in our energy future in terms of our reliance on gas. We will increasingly rely on Norwegian gas, after which we will have to go further and further afield, to Algeria, Russia and so on. These sources of supply are not secure and cannot be depended upon. The cause of our increased electricity prices is this dependence on gas. We must move away from that dependence.

To achieve the objective of cheaper and cleaner local energy from wind and ocean, we must build our grid out to the west, north west and south west of this country. That is not very popular and not particularly easy to do, but it must be done. Otherwise, we will not be in a position to tap into that alternative supply and will miss out on the greatest natural resource opportunity this country has. I ask Senators to take that into account when the issue of grid development arises.

I have never shied away from a debate on the development of nuclear energy. Senator O'Malley will know that from our days together on the Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I have consistently said there should be a debate without preconditions and preconceptions. It is through such a debate that the reality of our situation will become clear, namely, that it is in wind and other renewable power supplies that we have the greatest economic advantage. We are beginning to develop expertise in these areas, but we have no expertise in nuclear power generation. Our grid is not well suited to nuclear energy. The latter requires massive plants which would be heavily subsidised by the State. It would require a much larger grid with a very large back-up facility, which would be uneconomic.

Such realities will become apparent in any comprehensive debate on these issues, and the political imperative behind the development of renewables will become clear. This is the case not only in this State but elsewhere. While only one nuclear plant is currently being built in Europe, the equivalent of ten nuclear power plants is being built in wind power generation every year. Everybody must wake up and see what is happening, where the money is going, what is being built and what is effective in energy terms. The future is not nuclear but renewable and we have the best resources in the world. Why in God's name are we constantly returning to scratch this itch? Is it because it is a controversial issue and there is a perception that only political correctness is preventing us from addressing the nuclear energy issue? That is not the case. The reality is that it is sensible and sane energy policy to switch to renewables. In addition, the introduction of smart meters will ensure a network that provides better and more efficient use of the electricity we generate.

We have more difficulty in switching away from the use of fossils in the production of heat. This challenge is often underestimated because it is not as sexy. People will talk all night about nuclear power plants but not about the combined heat and power boilers that may be used to heat buildings. It is quite warm in the Chamber today. Far more energy is being used to heat it than is required for lighting or for the sound system. We are often blind to the cause of greatest energy usage because we do not see it. However, it counts for a large part of our emissions.

Adding to the difficulties of effecting change in this area is the infrastructure that has been built up over 100 years. To switch from gas and oil boilers to geothermal, heat pump, wood-fired, solar-fired and other alternative heating systems is a disruptive technological initiative that requires Government leadership. That is what we are trying to do in terms of the insulation and the greener home schemes we are supporting. These initiatives are not intended to be there forever but rather to kick-start an alternative supply system that does not rely on imported fossil fuels. We will extend that further with the launch in the coming days of the national energy efficiency action plan. This looks to the State to take a lead by going beyond the European Union target of a 20% improvement in energy efficiency to seek an improvement of 33% in the next ten years.

To achieve this objective will require the retrofitting of public buildings. There are 3,000 buildings in public use which are larger than 1,000 sq. m. These are the buildings we should target by looking at innovative ways of heating them such as using energy service companies to deliver the reductions in heat usage via new technologies. The capital for that can be repaid from the savings that will be garnered in the next five to ten years. Under this model, capital can be raised without an adverse effect on the Exchequer's balance sheet. We can simultaneously make savings for the State and deliver a new economic stimulus. The installation schemes we have already introduced will provide some 4,000 additional jobs. However, that is only the beginning. The ESB has gone further by predicting the creation of 6,000 jobs under the various schemes on which it is working, such as smart metering, electric vehicles and so on. Why stop there? I want to go further in our use of energy in public buildings so that we can create a new economy through energy efficiency.

I am conscious that this must be a limited discussion. I will be pleased to return to discuss any one issue at a later date. In regard to transport, the greatest risk in terms of a peak in global oil production relates to the transport sector because it is the most difficult area in which to seek alternative power solutions. The combustion engine has been honed to perfection in the past 100 years in terms of energy efficiency and placement within a vehicle body. However, we must now look for something different because that light, sweet crude oil which has powered those cars and trucks for the past 100 years will not be as readily available in the coming decades.

One of the main alternatives is in the development of electric vehicles and we are well placed as a country to start switching to that technology. It suits us. Our island is not that large. We do not have our own oil resources. We have huge variable renewable power supplies that can be stored in many ways in a battery system in a car fleet. In the middle of the night, when there is no use for wind power, we can power up our cars much more cheaply than at the local petrol station. That is why we have signed a memorandum of understanding with Renault-Nissan and the ESB to deliver those technologies here. We are not stopping with those companies. We are open to business with any company which has intent in this area. We want to be one of the leading countries in developing these possibilities and by dint of those agreements we have signalled internationally that we are.

People see this as futuristic, slightly marginal or not the main deal. It is. The technology is developing and massive resources are being invested in it by motor companies across the world. For us, it presents a huge potential to protect ourselves from the future peak in oil production.

That is only the start. We need to do a myriad of other things. More than anything else, we need to change our mindset. We need a collective agreement that this is our mission and a task that we can achieve. We need to wake up to the fact that others are doing it. The American Administration is determinedly going in this direction. We should both lead and follow. From this area there will be jobs. It will not be easy, it will take time but it is achievable. The only thing stopping us is lack of imagination and political will. An alternative, 100% renewable, zero emissions future in energy is perfectly attainable for this country. It is the best economic course and one we can achieve on the back of our own natural resources. We should put all our efforts towards that task. It gives us a real future which we can aim for and hand on to our children with pride.