Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will do my best to respond to all of the comments and questions raised in the discussion. I will start with three issues raised by Senator Garvey. She referred to the introduction of green loans for retrofitting, the ability to sell electricity back to the grid and amendments to planning regulations to allow for solar panels. I expect all three to begin within a short number of months. All three should be in place in the next three to four months. All three have a critical role to play and will be of benefit as part of the transition we need to make.

I must beg to differ with Senator Keogan. I am aware of the grid system in California. In fact, I did some work a few years ago on the issue and one of the interesting things in California is the lack of interconnection with neighbouring states. That is a real problem. Optimal grid design in the context of managing variable renewable power requires a level of interconnection and there is a real problem in California in that regard, among other problems. Senator Keogan provided some interesting information on the daily power generation mix in 2017 but even since then, the situation has changed significantly. The cost of battery technology and storage is plummeting, as is the cost of solar and wind generation but the cost of nuclear generation is rising. There are also huge uncertainties around it because it is so expensive and difficult to build. While it is true that we are importing nuclear power from France and Britain in the sense that we cannot differentiate between electrons produced by different generation methods, to go nuclear ourselves would be so expensive and so awkward within our system. I have never had a single person come to me with any serious intent to build a nuclear power plant here. Whatever about our legislation, there has not been a single instance that I can recall in 15 to 20 years working in this area where anyone in this country has seriously proposed that. Anyone making such a proposal would be deemed to be mad. The cost of offshore wind is coming down all the time, with auctions in neighbouring jurisdictions ranging between 40 and 50 cent per kilowatt hour. Bidding for nuclear in Britain, on the other hand, was index-linked at almost three times that level. Why would we go for a power supply that is almost three times more expensive, not to mention the other downsides to it? We differ in our views on this. I always enjoy the debates and conversations around nuclear power but to me it does not make economic sense in our situation.

Senator Dooley also touched on the issue of grid infrastructure. It is critical to bear in mind that the areas of the country where the grid is strong is where the opportunities for economic development will lie. Parts of our country have very weak grid infrastructure. As we all know, it is not easy to build grid infrastructure but Deputy Dooley's comment in that regard was appropriate. He asked if we could build offshore wind power sooner. All going well, we will set out a new climate action plan this Thursday and we will be aiming for somewhere in the region of 5 GW of offshore wind power by the end of this decade, with the potential for up to 30 GW from offshore renewables. We have been talking about this for quite some time and I believe we can deliver at least 5 GW by 2030 but it will be the latter part of this decade before it arrives. We will start with the first grid auction for offshore next year. It will take up to five years from that auction to construction because it will have to get through planning and get finance, as well as going through actual construction. We are talking about the middle to the end of this decade but it is absolutely doable. I do not think it can be done any quicker because we have to get the planning right, protect biodiversity and deal with some of the other concerns that have been raised.

When Senator McGahon started speaking I was in complete agreement with him. The best protection for consumers in this time of very high fossil fuel prices is, as he said, energy efficiency and renewables. However, I do not think nuclear energy is appropriate in our case because it would put up the price. It would further accentuate the problem because typically nuclear plants are very large and we would have to have significant back-up capacity in the event of a plant being closed down. What we need in an increasingly renewable system is flexible, variable supply but nuclear power is not flexible at all. People refer to small, marginal nuclear power plants but I have never seen one and do not know where they are in operation. Perhaps someone could show me a factory producing them. There is a lot of talk about that but I do not think it actually exists in reality or is likely to arrive within the next decade.

In response to Senator Boylan's contribution, I would tend to agree with Senator Pauline O'Reilly's view. There are real issues with data centres and there is absolutely no doubt about that. The increased demand is very significant and if that were to continue unabated, it would present real difficulties. Everything has to fit within the climate plan and data centres are no exception. They know that. They can help by varying demand depending on the balancing we need to do between supply and demand, by having back-up generation that can kick in when wind levels are low and by locating in areas where we do not have to build so much grid, thereby helping to balance the way in which the grid works. There is a variety of grid standards that we can use that will allow us to retain data centres. I am not in favour of a never-ending stream of data centres but neither am I in favour of a complete fatwaor an end to their use because they are a part of the wider economy which we need.

I agree with Senator Moynihan about the need to consider social justice, concern about rising prices as well as energy security and the importance of doing everything we can to make sure that element in the just transition is maintained. She spoke about offshore power coming ashore, with quality, well paid jobs being guaranteed for the supply industries that will service them and so on. I would go back again to the grid and to where the power exists. Where offshore power comes ashore is where the jobs will become available and where the industrial development will occur and accrue. The jobs will be well paid and secure because they will not be dependent on the international gas market or supply chain. We have this renewable resource which gives us a comparative competitive advantage. We live in one of the windiest parts of the planet and wind is one of the main, new, low-cost power sources. A lot of the analysis shows that in the context of where power comes ashore, distance does matter, particularly when we can create new hydrogen back-up supplies and industrial needs close by. Then the equation will start to work and jobs will follow in the locations where both offshore and onshore renewable energy is generated.

I agree with Senator Higgins about the cost of fossil fuels and the fact that the cost is too high if we lose the world. She spoke about EirGrid wanting to extend the use of fossil fuels.We should be careful on that because I do not think that EirGrid does want to extend the date. EirGrid, I understand, will come out next week with its shaping our electricity future plans, which will be of major historical importance for the direction of the economy. In its statements in the past two months, EirGrid has recognised that we will have to retain certain backup fossil fuel power supplies because we have a short supply. It is not that it wants to do that but to ensure we do not have power cuts. As soon as we get the open cycle gas backup generation that we need, we can balance the system. We will be using less gas in that. We have to have new open cycle gas flexible generation. However, this will only be used on a needs-be basis, when the wind is not blowing. While it will provide 2,000 MW of new power supply, it will not use further gas.