Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, to the House and congratulate him on his appointment.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Seanad Éireann, recognising the need for Ireland to be energy independent, supports the various efforts to ensure that Ireland is protected against a shortage of energy in the years ahead. These efforts should include wind, wave, solar, tidal, off-shore gas, nuclear fusion and nuclear fission.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am not sure if this is his first time to come to the House in his ministerial capacity. We welcome the opportunity to have him here at this early stage.

I am disappointed the Government decided to table an amendment to the motion. I purposely worded it in a way that the Government would not have to table an amendment to it. I thought it was neutrally worded and would present the opportunity to debate a topic that I consider important.

Senator O'Toole and I will lead in introducing this motion. As the 12 minutes speaking time I have been allocated is short, I will limit my contribution to one aspect of this debate and Senator O'Toole will speak about another aspect of it. The fact that I will limit my contribution, to a large extent, to one topic does not mean that I do not have a great deal of time for the other topics in this debate.

There is an urgent need for Ireland to be protected against a shortage of energy supply in the years ahead. We should be examining all the energy options. This debate should include wind, wave, solar, tidal, off-shore gas and nuclear energy. My aim is to bring together the debates on security of supply and climate change and to find the best way to address these crucial issues.

I am disappointed there has not been a proper debate on the energy issue to date, one that properly analyses the best ways to make Ireland energy independent. That is the wording I used in this motion. We must carefully explore the potential energies and go beyond merely promoting certain energies because they have what I would call a feel good factor. This debate must also not succumb to scaremongering or to lobbying. We must come together and examine what is best for Ireland, not only for those who are my age but for the next generation and future generations.

Ireland has one of the highest energy dependency rates of any country in Europe with approximately 90% of all the country's energies having to be imported, according to EU figures. The question will be asked as to whether so-called renewable energies alone will help to address such dependency and make us energy independent in the future.

I was asked on radio and television programmes a few years ago what business I would enter if I was to go into business now. In that respect, I would say that I would be enthusiastic about the opportunities in the energy sector, particularly in sustainable energy. There are opportunities in that sector but we must develop them because it is necessary to do so to meet the needs of the next generation.

This issue is linked to whether renewable energies will significantly contribute to reducing our level of CO2 emissions. Renewable energy sources in this country account for just 2.6% of all our energy needs. This is far short of the Government's target of 20% by 2020. In 1997, the industrial nations of the world agreed at Kyoto to reduce CO2 emissions but we have a long way to go before we get anywhere near what we have to achieve. We must examine the options to make this country less dependent on outside sources of energy so we cease being one of the most energy-dependent countries of the 27 member states - we could be one of the worst in this regard - while at the same time reducing our CO2 emissions.

We need to have a more open debate on the various sources of energy and I include nuclear energy upon which I will speak for the next few minutes of my contribution. There has been a significant shift in the thinking on nuclear power over the past number of years, particularly in recent months. Many opponents of nuclear power have changed their minds over atomic energy because of the urgent need to look at energy independence and to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Environmentalists such as Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace, UK Green Party candidate, Chris Goodall, and the chairman of the UK Environment Agency, Chris Smith Finsbury, are now lobbying for the use of nuclear power. They announced their support about six weeks ago. None of these people was in favour of nuclear power a decade ago, but recent scientific evidence of just how severe climate change may become as a result of the burning of oil, gas and coal in conventional power stations, has transformed their views. It is a measure of how urgent the CO2 problem has become that some anti-nuclear environmentalists have lately been willing to reconsider their long-standing opposition to nuclear power. James Lovelock, who is a former chief scientist for NASA and was the first person to discover the hole in the ozone layer, believes that in the short term, "Only nuclear power can now halt global warming". He argues that we "should regard nuclear energy as something that could be available from new power stations in five years and could see us through the troubled times ahead when the climate changes and there are shortages of food and fuel and major demographic changes".

There is more than just a shift in thinking; changes are taking place and all over Europe governments are realising that in order to secure their energy supplies in the face of threatening behaviour from oil-supplying countries such as Russia, nuclear power is probably the only way forward. Poland wants its first nuclear plant by 2020 and Britain decided last year to replace its ageing nuclear reactors and create new sites. France has ordered its 61st nuclear generator and Finland is building the largest reactor in the world, which is expected to open in 2011. Nuclear reactors are to be built in Sweden for the first time in nearly 30 years. I was in Sweden two weeks ago and this is a talking point. People remember how opposed they were to nuclear power in the past but they have decided to abandon the commitment made in 1980 to phase out nuclear power. Sweden is just one of a number of EU countries that have chosen nuclear energy to diversify from fossil fuels and meet tough climate-change targets for cutting CO2 emissions. It will replace the country's existing ten reactors, which supply roughly half of its electricity. It is interesting to note that no public money will be invested in the nuclear industry and all funding will come from the private sector. The example of Sweden demonstrates that a country renowned for its progressive ideas when it comes to the environment, that has extensive hydroelectric energy resources and where popular opinion has been against nuclear power previously, can have a radical change in both popular and government opinion. In this country we still cling to the outdated condemnation of nuclear power through our Electricity Regulation Act 1999. I remember when that Act went through this House we all nodded our heads in agreement with it. Austria, too, fell victim to intense lobbying and environmentalists stopped a nuclear plant in Austria from being switched on and instead Austria built two coal fired power plants with long-term effects on the environment.

With the exception of Chernobyl, there have not been any deaths as a result of nuclear power but this must be compared to the number of people who died in coal mines. I do not agree completely with the sentiment expressed by Mr. James Lovelock because while I agree that nuclear power is important, we should also give renewable sources of energy a chance. It is correct to incentivise the use of renewable energy and the question has to be asked whether it is possible to go beyond 20% of energy being renewable energy, given the limitations of supply and the unreliability of wind etc.

The reason for my argument in favour of nuclear power is because we have been afraid in the past to talk about nuclear power. Now we have discovered that we must look elsewhere because of the challenges facing us and facing the next generation in particular. The interesting fact about nuclear power is that it is, in so far as we know, much safer than other sources of energy. I know everyone thinks of what happened at Chernobyl and also what happened in America at -----

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Long Island.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I think it was another island.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was Three-Mile Island.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator. Nobody died there and they were able to close down the reactor. However, the accident at Chernobyl rightly scared everybody. The challenges facing us with regard to CO2 emissions and the Kyoto Protocol are such that as a cost factor we must consider some alternative. Senator O'Toole will speak about some of the other areas of energy such as tidal, wave, wind and solar energy. I agree we must concentrate on those energy sources and I look forward to hearing other views on this issue. However, we must include all of those options without excluding the nuclear option as it has the capacity to solve the problems in the years ahead. It will not happen overnight and if we are to invest such a large sum of money into creating nuclear energy in Ireland we need to do something about it now.

I note that interconnectors will provide energy from other places, in particular from Britain and we will be able to avail of nuclear power coming from somewhere else but that is an Irish solution to an Irish problem. It is a case of not having it ourselves but using somebody else's nuclear power.

In France nuclear energy is solving financial problems and also an energy problem which France faced up to a long time ago. I am impressed that in France, one's energy bill shows the source of the energy. I would like to see if this could be done in Ireland.

My reason for tabling this motion is because both Senator O'Toole and I believe there is a challenge facing the country and we must face up to that challenge. I have concentrated in my contribution on one particular aspect and I look forward to hearing other contributions to the debate which I hope will provide solutions for the future.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the motion.

I congratulate my colleague, Senator Quinn, on tabling this motion as it is a very important subject. I also congratulate and welcome to the House, the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Calleary. He and I soldiered together on the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security before his elevation. Much of what we are discussing was discussed by us both formally and informally within and without the House. I wish him well in his Ministry.

In honour of his presence in the House I will talk substantially about his county of Mayo. First, I will conclude the debate on nuclear energy. I do not support nuclear energy but the I support the points made by Senator Quinn. The issue has to be discussed and examined. One of the issues on which I have strong views is that nuclear is considered as one big issue. I would like to hear a clear distinction between nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is where the isotopes drive madly into each other and create energy. However, the problem is that it cannot be stopped and this is still happening in Chernobyl, 25 years later and we have no control over it. On the other hand, nuclear fusion is where the isotopes are merged together. It is in a much more controlled environment, although it needs much more heat to do it. The long-term waste is less and the half-life where it is dangerous is much shorter, one tenth that of fission, so it is far less dangerous to future generations. The current nuclear fission leaves waste that will be there for hundreds of years and we have not worked out how we will sort that out yet. I will return to that.

When Senator Quinn and I discussed this I said I would like to make this as practical and as down to earth as possible. Looking at what we have in various parts of Ireland, we are as rich in energy as almost any place in Europe. The Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, will know this because he and I have examined it very closely.

I want to mention the extraordinary, progressive, creative and advanced work being done by Mayo County Council. It was mind-boggling to meet Mr. Des Mahon, the Mayo county manager, ably assisted by people such as Mr. Peter Hynes and others, who have led the way. For people who talk about what county councils do and do not do, and the importance of local authorities, here are rural models for other counties to look at. I will give an example and tell Members the things we could do. I ask people to keep in mind one figure. The amount of energy that comes through the grid to our houses at peak every day, around 6 p.m. is approximately 5,000 MW in the middle of winter and approximately 3,500 MW in the summer. That can be seen on the EirGrid website which shows what we are using on any day of the week at any time.

Mayo County Council has a proposal to build a wind farm in Bellacorrick in Mayo. There used to be a turf burning power station there and the Cathaoirleach would be well aware of the importance of turf burning in his constituency. The last turf burning station in Bellacorrick was demolished approximately two years ago. There is an existing wind farm and there is a proposal for a larger wind farm. The county council has all the bits put together and can deal with it at its end but there are national problems. The problem of getting onto the grid has been solved but it must deal with planning and other issues and we must return to that. When in full flow that wind farm will produce 500 MW. That is between one seventh and one tenth of Ireland's daily requirements produced in one area in County Mayo. That is what can be done and it is completely renewable. I will come back to the storage issue and the non-reliance on wind as a total solution.

On the climate change committee we see many maps, for example geological maps showing oil rich areas. Off the north-west coast of Ireland where Shell is working, there is great potential for oil but I will leave that aside. On the map of the world which shows the most energy laden waves, the north Mayo coast is the richest in Europe. The average wave height off Belmullet is approximately 2.5 m to 3 m, about the height of the door jambs in this chamber. That is the average for the year. A metre of that can produce approximately 450 MW per hour, so at least another tenth of our energy and probably more can be produced from Mayo. We are talking about between one quarter and one fifth of our requirement coming from those two sources alone.

A building on Fitzwilliam Square houses a company called OpenHydro. It is the most advanced tidal energy company in the world. Wave energy is from waves going up and down. Tidal energy is from the tide going in and out. They are different. The only example of tidal energy in Ireland is in Strangford Lough, outside this jurisdiction. Strangford Lough has a current of approximately four or five knots, approximately 2.5 m per second, and one needs something like that. One can get that in Bulls Mouth in Achill, along by Kilcradan Point lighthouse in the Shannon Estuary and up closer to Limerick, the Blasket Sound, places on the east coast where the tide runs down the Irish Sea near Arklow Bank and such places, off Galway and other places. It is not huge but it exists.

The company doing that is already connecting to the French grid. It has the contract to do the same in Washington State and Canada and is the only company that has connected a tidal electricity generator to the grid in the Orkneys, which is the most advanced place for tidal wave energy in Great Britain. An Irish company is doing this. Wave energy is like a long crocodile. Tidal energy is called open energy. It is silent and invisible. Not even the most difficult An Taisce member can object to this. It is far underwater, unseen, invisible and poses no danger to navigation. The reason it is called open is that it is open in the middle so seals, dolphins and fish can go through without being damaged. All these possibilities for production exist for us and we are not availing of them. I know the Minister of State's views on this and he knows mine. We have discussed them before. He should make this the priority. Let us take Senator Quinn's points and move it on.

I will not have time to discuss storage, but the electric car is an extraordinary advance for us because electric cars are recharged at night while the windmills at Bellacorrick will be flying and we will be producing energy that no one will want to buy. In Ireland we have no way to store energy. We will have interconnectors to Europe but one still cannot sell it during off-peak times. The only storage we have in Ireland is Turlough Hill where we pump water up during the off-peak hours and drop it down during the peak hours. We get only 80% efficiency from that and there are many more efficient ways of doing it.

I have probably only reached my first paragraph but I can see the Cathaoirleach indicating I must conclude. Senator Quinn raised the importance of this to the climate and the fact there is a green county. The Minister of State's county can lead the world on aspects of wave energy, Ireland can lead the world on aspects of tidal energy and we can sell wind power into Europe. I am not making this up. The Minister of State and I know this. We have examined the figures and put our fingers in the wound, as it were. It can be done. The renewable power stations are not completely efficient yet but they are all generating. We have examined the various ways it can be done and I ask that the Government prioritise this to create jobs. What the ESB announced recently with the extra thousands of jobs is an example of what can be done in this area. I apologise for going over time.

Larry Butler (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"commends the Government for its comprehensive actions to ensure a sustainable energy future for Ireland, delivering a reliable supply, efficient use of energy, competitive prices and diverse fully sustainable energy sources through:

• ensuring that electricity supply consistently meets demand;

• overseeing ongoing investment in electricity and gas networks, including interconnection;

• supporting the accelerated development of a range of renewable energy technologies to meet the national target of 40% renewable energy in electricity in 2020, including wind and ocean;

• ensuring the security and reliability of gas supplies; radically enhancing energy efficiency and conservation; and

• maintaining a stable and sustainable environment for hydrocarbon exploration and production."

I commend the Government's amendment to the motion and I welcome the motion. Senators Quinn and O'Toole have done an excellent job by introducing this motion to the House. I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am very enthused about the possibilities for new energy sources in this country. There is a company called Natural Energy Ireland which has substantial money behind it. It has a plan and a design to provide natural energy in this country that we could export. It is very important for the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to know about this company. I intend to have an all-party meeting with the company in the audio-visual room in the near future because it is a most interesting company. It seeks to build three major centres along the west coast. As Senator O'Toole pointed out, that is where the big energy supply is. The company has estimated that our wealth in energy is equivalent to Saudi Arabia. We could be exporters of energy to the tune of €68 billion. These people have done the figures. Obviously, they would like to become involved in supplying energy to this country and this can be done in different ways.

As Senators will know, our big problem will be planning and there are all sorts of objections in planning issues. We need to devise a planning system for our energy needs. Somebody, somewhere, will object, whether in counties Kerry, Cork, Limerick or in the west. It happened in Dublin when people from County Kerry objected to the M50. How stupid is that? We must amend the planning situation. Local authorities should be able to provide a permit system whereby planning could be granted for energy projects. This is in the interests of the nation. It is as simple as that. We do not want our energy projects held up for five or ten years. We see what is going on at present in the west. We cannot tolerate this. It is no longer acceptable because the situation is too serious. We are 98% dependent on outside energy and we cannot continue like that.

We all know wind energy is in very good supply along the west coast but the wind does not blow all the time. This company has devised a seaside development system of storing that energy in which an area would be flooded by canals. When the wind blows this would work according to the Turlough Hill project design in which the wind pushes the water up to a higher table, thereby storing the energy. When the time is right the energy can be released back into the grid.

The people involved believe three major projects would supply the entire country with energy. This figure refers to gigawatts, not megawatts. It is a gigantic development. I shall invite the persons concerned to the House to talk to all parties because we should all put our heads together on this. It is a very important project and if we do not take it on board we will not get out of our current situation. We are the dearest country in Europe for energy. That makes us the dearest country for the setting up of industry because we must charge too much for the present supply.

It is important to provide some figures concerning this project. Our present system costs us €30 billion to bring a ten-year supply into this country. We could build three projects of this kind, paying €2.5 billion for the water development and €1.1 million for each generator. That will give some idea of the cost. One such development could supply 7,000 MW which shows what a project of this nature could do for the country in terms of selling back into the grid. We must design our system now. There is discussion of the new grid being built in Tarbert which is very welcome but it must be designed to fit into a system such as this.

I thank Senator Quinn for tabling this motion. However, with power of this kind we do not need nuclear power. We could provide supply with the natural energy we have. We must consider that this country is known all over the world as the green country, and that is how our agricultural exports are known. It would be a shame not to keep using as much natural energy as we have in this country. Solar energy is another technology. It is in its infancy now but will be a considerable power in the next two to three years. There are advances already whereby one can run central heating from solar energy.

I am excited by the new approach in this country towards energy and I welcome the fact that Senator Quinn mentioned nuclear power. If we did not have a better system we would have to consider that option. However, we have a system in place and people are working on developing others. I intend to invite such people to the House to talk to Senators about their work. It would be very interesting and I hope this will happen in the coming weeks.

Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Martin Mansergh, to the House and also the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Calleary, who has left. Deputy Calleary sat with me on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security and I wish him well in his Ministry. New Ministers might bring new ideas to Government and ideas and new vision are needed now.

I compliment Senator Feargal Quinn and the Independent Senators on bringing this motion before the House. This issue should be high on our agenda because of its significance for our country's future and the development of our economy in terms of energy security. Ireland is essentially a very small island that is overly dependent on fossil fuels across many sectors of the economy. I am disappointed by the Government amendment to the motion because it merely restates and reaffirms our dependence on fossil fuels. There is nothing new in the amendment except that the Government acknowledges it will support a range of renewable energy technologies. It does not offer any specifics or ideas concerning how it will do this nor did I hear any such discussed in the debate since it commenced.

Fine Gael supports the general thrust of this motion. The party recently published a policy document, Rebuilding Ireland, which gives specific focus to building renewable energy infrastructure that would secure the future of Ireland's energy requirements and at the same time stimulate our economy and create thousands of jobs. In times of crisis, when financial markets fail and private investors become risk-averse, the State must lead the way, confident in the long-term direction for the country in a changing world. The State cannot abdicate its responsibility to its citizens in the hope that the global financial community will rescue us. That seems to be the message we are getting from the Government but we need more action.

In the past we have seen how Scandinavian countries exploited the potential they had. They were the first to take wind technology on board and produced an entire industry around it. In Ireland we should be taking similar action. We are surrounded by renewable resources, whether wind or water. As an island, we have these resources available and they should be exploited to their full potential.

The previous waves of Irish industrial innovation and expansion were often stimulated by economic crises and involved a visionary response from the State and the public, for example, the establishment of the ESB in 1927 and the Shannon scheme at Ardnacrusha in 1929. Anyone who reads history books will know there was resistance to that scheme at the time and we all know from whence that resistance came. However, it proved to be a very successful scheme. The State became involved with the German firm, Siemens, and produced one of the biggest infrastructure projects of its kind at the time. It still stands the test of time and has generated thousands of megawatts over the years, providing considerable infrastructure to the country.

That is why Fine Gael now proposes €11 billion in new investments in key technologies and network infrastructure for the period 2010 to 2013. This is needed to reposition Ireland as the most competitive and sustainable economy in Europe within the coming decade. Examples of the types of investments that can be delivered include next-generation broadband - often discussed in this House - and more electricity storage infrastructure, including pump storage stations similar to those at Turlough Hill. That again was an ESB innovation and has contributed significantly to our economy. The new charging and electricity grid infrastructure needed to introduce electric cars provided by domestic renewable energy is another area for development as well as more research of the commercialisation of clean bio and ocean hydro related energy to make Ireland a leading player in these emerging sectors.

I have an open mind on nuclear power. It needs to be investigated further and more widely debated. Many have called for a serious examination of the pros and cons of developing nuclear energy in Ireland. This is an area at which perhaps the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security should look because there could be cross-party engagement on this issue. All of the issues could be put on the table, experts asked to come to the committee to discuss all sides of the question and eventually a report compiled. I believe the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, alluded to that on the public record and had no problem with the whole area of nuclear energy being debated. This possibly could be a good thing.

Ireland is a very small country and we have enormous natural resources, as Senator Butler indicated. I wonder whether we need nuclear power stations as a small country with considerable natural resources available. Interconnectors are being developed such as the UK-Ireland one that is in the pipeline at the moment. There should be further interconnectors, perhaps to mainland Europe, because that would give us much more security, ensure our energy reserves for the future and mean we were no longer isolated as we are at present. When those areas are properly thought through and developed, I believe there may not be a need for nuclear power stations in this country. However, that needs to be worked through and it is something the Government should be working on at the moment.

Senator Butler referred to areas in planning that could help renewables. I must give credit to Waterford County Council which has developed under its county development plan a programme for renewables and wind power. It has identified areas in the county in which it believes it is acceptable to develop such wind plans. That is a welcome development that possibly might be replicated in all local authorities.

The Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security, under the chairmanship of Deputy Seán Barrett, has already drafted legislation called the offshore renewable energy development Bill 2009. Experts from the industry have contributed to the committee and this is why it has, on a cross-party basis, produced this Bill, the purpose of which is to provide a simplified transparent and fast-track planning and development framework for offshore renewable technologies in an environmentally sustainable manner while respecting the acquired rights of current lessees and all that. Some €16 billion is available in potential investment in renewables and other energy generating projects awaiting approval from the Commission for Energy Regulation.

Many of those who want to invest in this area and who contributed to the joint committee's proceedings highlighted the barriers that exist within our present planning structures and the bureaucracy of Departments. For example, to achieve an offshore licence can take years. The application will be passed from Billy to Jack, from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and on to the Department with responsibility for the marine. No one really knows who is responsible for issuing these licences and this process is holding up major infrastructural developments.

The joint committee has proposed this Bill in the hope that the Government will debate and enact it, even with amendments, to which I am sure its members are quite open. That is one area which should be looked at and streamlined to make it easier. That would attract investment in its own right.

There are interesting areas, too, such as micro-systems. I want to acknowledge what I believe to be a Green Party initiative, whereby domestic wind power micro-generators can now be installed without prior planning permission. That is a positive move because it makes it easier for people to put in micro-systems and not have to be caught up in bureaucracy.

I believe the use of renewables should be the norm rather than the exception. Unfortunately, for the moment it is really just for the pioneers and those privileged enough to afford them. Renewable energy needs to be more accessible to the wider public, whether in business or domestic situations. More people will buy into that and in its own right it will attract more investment.

We can all pay lip service to renewable energy. The Government now needs to be seen to act on what it has been saying. It needs to help change the mindset in this country, make the infrastructure more easily available and make the systems more flexible to allow that. We need to respond to allow that potential to be fully exploited. Again, I welcome the discussion as an important start to a rolling debate on energy security. Ireland is a small country but if we have the vision and put the right mechanisms in place, we can provide our own energy for the future with the assistance, obviously, of interconnectors to mainland Europe and the UK.

Dan Boyle (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The motion tabled by the Independent Members of the House is very valuable. It gives an opportunity for a very broad-ranging debate. Much of its content is supportive of work that is already being done. It is necessary to appreciate the work that needs to be done from this point onwards to realise the potential which I believe everyone in this House recognises exists. I note that from Senator Coffey's contribution. There are aspects to the motion I could quibble over, but that said I will not deny the need for an ongoing debate, especially regarding the last clause of the motion. I cannot see myself ever being in a position to agree with what is being proposed in that element, but the Minister has gone on record in stating that there is a need for such a debate. He would welcome such a discussion and energetically engage in it.

Ireland is in a very unusual situation as we deal with difficult economic times. However, given the state of technology and the very real needs we have in terms of energy and our commitments towards the planet in terms of being environmentally responsible citizens, we also have enormous opportunities. This is something I believe many Members of the House already recognise. I recall one of our first lessons in tíreolaíocht in secondary school, in the standard textbook of the time, that the first paragraph said Ireland was a country without natural resources. Natural resources were always taken to be oil, gas or coal. It is particularly ironic that at this stage of our economic history in particular, we are seen to be a country awash with natural resources which we have chosen for a number of policy reasons not to exploit fully.

Now, however, we must give active consideration to putting the means and the infrastructure in place towards utilising these natural resources. Ireland is one of the most energy-dependent countries in the world in terms of fossil fuels. Because we lack what was referred to in the past as natural resources, we import much of the energy we need. We have the capacity through wind alone to produce enough energy to meet our current and even our future needs 30 times over. This could be an energy exporting country. The moves that have been made in terms of connecting Ireland into the development of a nascent European super-grid, with the current interconnector between Northern Ireland and Scotland and the approval of the interconnector between the east coast of Ireland and Wales, and even the possible development in the near future of an interconnector between the south of Ireland and France, give us the means to secure our energy needs into the future and to develop our capacity to become an exporter of energy.

I am confident we can do this. Already there is enthusiasm among many industry practitioners about what is possible and what needs to be done to make real that possibility. I have cited the example of a number of companies operating in this area and it is fair that the House, through its record, should record what is being done in that regard. Take, for example, the work being done by Ocean Energy, a Cork-based company which is doing research into wave energy in Galway involving the development of large metal turbines which would bob up and down in the sea. It has a three quarter-size model already and the idea is to develop a nest of perhaps up to 70 full-sized models producing the requirement in one such wave farm alone equivalent to what we have as the current target for wave energy.

Then there is the work of OpenHydro, a company based in County Louth, which is now a world leader in the development of wave energy in terms of attaching turbines on the seabed with reversing rotating blades changing every six hours and a potential source of 24 hours of energy. The prototype for its research is being done off the coast of Scotland, yet it is employing 30 people here, engaging in engineering work and providing a potential that could realise a great deal of economic hope and opportunity for Ireland in the future.

I wish to speak briefly on the final part of the motion because I believe it is the intent of the Independent Senators to have a more open and honest debate on such an issue. On the one hand, we have the question of cold fusion. I am glad to state that I am not a nuclear physicist but I am led to believe that, according to the scientific debate, this is a distant and perhaps unattainable dream. However, it if proves to be possible, we can examine how it would provide an alternative to current nuclear energy technology.

We had a farce some years ago when two scientists claimed to have come up with an answer, but it was shown to be one of the biggest shams in scientific history. Since some people are seeking such an alternative, others are open to seeing that happen. However, the difficulty with current nuclear technology is that it is very expensive. The lead-in time for any nuclear installation can take up to 20 years and the economic cost of that is phenomenal. It would be far better to invest that capital in renewable energy which gives a better return for one's buck.

The other aspect is that, even 50 or 60 years after its initial development as an energy source, nuclear technology is still very dangerous. We recently celebrated - if that is the right word - the 23rd anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. The world is fortunate not to have had a full-blown nuclear accident at many of the plants around the place. For instance, nuclear installations in eastern Europe, including those in Bulgaria and Romania - the old Magnox installations - are accidents waiting to happen. Many of them are still in use. Ireland's involvement in EURATOM, which I am not happy about at the best of times, should be working towards decommissioning many of these plants rather than developing nuclear technology.

The ultimate problem of nuclear power is that the waste that comes about as a result of the process remains radioactive for thousands of years. Therefore, in terms of meeting our immediate energy needs, we are asking future generations to live with an unacceptable and hazardous risk that will outlive us and them as well as putting the planet at risk. If it is possible to overcome these problems and if nuclear energy can be developed through technological advances and other means, then it should be kept on the table and there should be an open and honest debate about it. However, I do not feel now is the time or that it is likely in the near future.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ba bhreá liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit. Tréaslaím leis mo chomhghleacaí, an Seanadóir Quinn, as ucht an cheist seo a chur faoi bhráid an tSeanaid inniu. Is ábhar fíor-thábhachtach é cheist an fhuinnimh. Tá an tábhacht a bhaineann le bheith neamhspleách i gcúrsaí fuinnimh fite fuaite le cheist cosaint na timpeallachta. Mar sin, tréaslaím leis an Seanadóir.

Senator Quinn must be commended for raising this highly relevant issue. It is vital we continue to work towards having a safe and sustainable low-carbon economy. To put this matter in context, we have an obligation to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 through a combined approach of using 20% renewable energies by 2020 and increasing energy efficiency by 20% in time for 2020. This is the so-called 20-20-20 package.

The Government has committed to achieving by 2020 a 20% reduction in energy demand across the whole of the economy through energy efficiency measures. Recognising that the Government must lead by example, it is right that we are committed to achieving a 33% reduction in public sector energy use.

The 2007 White Paper on energy set a target of 33% for electricity consumption from renewable resources by 2020, but the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has revised Ireland's renewable energy target upwards in this year's carbon budget. The new target is 40% of electricity consumption from renewable generation by 2020.

By way of the Irish energy research programmes, €12.675 million will be established for energy research, which includes a €7 million allocation for ocean energy research programmes. Hopefully this will see progress on the establishment of a grid-connected test facility off the coast of Mayo. It will also fund grant assistance under the ocean energy prototype fund, among other measures.

In the long-term, we have reason to be even more optimistic. We should aim for Ireland to become a technology leader in wave-tide energy. Why not? Just as Denmark led the way in wind power, Ireland could become a leader in this new technology, thus creating an industry in supplying the rest of the world.

The achievement of our renewable energy targets will require an investment in infrastructure. EirGrid calculates that a €4 billion investment is needed in the period up to 2025. We must not underestimate the planning difficulties in terms of construction of wind farms and the transport of energy from west to east. Sites designated under the habitats and birds directives are subject to fairly strict protection under EU law. If these realities are not taken into account early in policy and project development, then problems can and will emerge.

We need better regulation to enable new renewable electricity producers to gain access to the grid. We also need a change in attitude on the part of all of us to accept that wind turbines and wave energy solutions will have a visual impact on our landscape and coasts. However, provided this is managed properly, it is preferable to the legacy of increased climate damage and the exhaustion of all fossil fuel resources, which we will otherwise pass on to our grandchildren.

Wind energy is crucial both as a short and medium-term priority. Studies have indicated that onshore and offshore wind turbines can deliver at least 40% of our energy requirements, which currently stand at roughly 5,000 MW of electricity.

The State already has about 800 MW of power from wind turbines, which will substantially increase if applications by wind-park developers are successful. The Government will likely surpass its goal of having 1,200 MW of wind power by 2010. The goal is to get 40% of Ireland's electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

We are in a unique position when it comes to wind energy potential. The average capacity factory for onshore wind turbines - the measure of how much time the turbine is cranking out power - is 25% in Europe. In Ireland it is 35%. It is important to remember also that it costs less to generate power from wind than from gas.

Dublin has joined the Covenant of Mayors, an initiative in EU cities to go beyond the EU targets of 20-20-20 by 2020. Local authorities have a key role in mitigating climate change. More than half of greenhouse gas emissions are created in and by cities. Some 80% of the population lives and works in cities where up to 80% of energy is consumed. Local authorities, being the closest administrations to citizens, are ideally positioned to understand these concerns. Moreover, they can address challenges in a comprehensive way, thus facilitating the conciliation between public and private interests. They can also facilitate the integration of sustainable energy into overall local development goals, be it through the development of alternative energy, more efficient energy use, or changes in behaviour.

Local governments must therefore become leading actors for implementing sustainable energy policies and must be recognised and supported in their efforts. The Covenant of Mayors is an ambitious initiative of the European Commission that gives the lead to Europe's pioneering cities to mitigate climate change through the implementation of intelligent, local and sustainable energy policies. These policies create stable local jobs and increase citizens' quality of life as well as addressing crucial social issues.

I wish to conclude with a word on nuclear fission energy. I realise this is the hot-button topic in any debate of this kind and I have noted the amendment proposed my Fine Gael colleagues. It has been a success in France, where about 80% of energy is nuclear sourced. We must acknowledge that nuclear energy is capable of stimulating job growth in local communities. Nuclear energy is also a baseload energy, that is, a source of constantly generated energy, which is an important supplement to other forms of renewable energy that tend to fluctuate more in output.

Even though it has a good safety track record in developed countries, we must be very careful in our deliberations on this particular energy source as the potential for catastrophic harm is so great. Safety is not the only issue regarding nuclear energy. Approved nuclear units produce 1.2 gigawatts of energy, far in advance of what Ireland needs. Perhaps we could develop greater energy interconnection with the UK. We could develop a trade in wind and nuclear energy which would be to the mutual benefit to both parties.

I thank Senator Quinn again for highlighting this vital issue of energy independence and the related issue renewable energy. If we manage renewable energy effectively now, we will greatly enhance the prospects of Ireland becoming a cleaner and more economically stable environment in which our children and grandchildren may flourish. If, however, we fail to manage renewable energy effectively or waste time before giving it the requisite attention, the environmental and economic consequences will be dire. Gabhaim míle buíochas arís leis an Seanadóir Quinn as ucht an ábhar seo a chur ar aghaidh chun díospóireachta inniu.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit. In éineacht le Seanadóirí eile, ba mhaith liom an Seanadóir Quinn a mholadh as ucht an rún seo a chur ar an chlár. Mar a dúirt an Seanadóir Mullen, tá ábhar fíor-tábhachtach agus oiriúnach os ár gcomhair. Tá dualgas orainn an ábhar fíor-thábhachtach seo a phlé go minic.

I listened carefully to Senator Quinn's contribution in proposing the motion but remain more sympathetic to the Government and Fine Gael Party amendments for reasons I will explain. The Senator made an interesting point about Ireland's dependency on imported energy, noting that renewable energy accounts for only 2% of energy consumption, whereas the target is 20%. Unfortunately, there is no alternative to the use of fossil fuels in transport.

Senator Quinn and I hold diverging views on the issue of nuclear power. I was interested to note his reference to a shift taking place among certain scientists who previously opposed nuclear power but are coming to regard the need to move towards nuclear power as the lesser of two evils. Their changing position owes much to the challenges to the environment arising from climate change since the middle of the previous century.

When I was first elected a county councillor in Wexford in 1979 Government policy on energy was led by Senator O'Malley's father, Mr. Des O'Malley, who was Minister for Industry and Commerce. At that time, county councillors were placed under considerable pressure to support the Minister's policy of introducing nuclear power. I and another Wexford County Councillor were very reluctant to do so given the highly controversial proposal to build a nuclear power plant at Carnsore.

Having examined the issue I could clearly see the economic justification for nuclear power being made at the time. However, the subsequent downturn resulted in a change in Government priorities and it was no longer necessary to accelerate expansion of our energy generation capacity. My opposition to nuclear power was based on the belief that there was insufficient justification for the generation of nuclear waste, which has a lifespan of thousands of years, to address a short-term economic need. My view that this waste would have adverse environmental effects on future generations has been borne out by subsequent developments in the nuclear industry. We have all heard and read about some of the horrific stories connected with the Sellafield nuclear plant, particularly the lack of transparency and secrecy surrounding some of the major accidents at that location, and other nuclear facilities elsewhere, including Chernobyl.

It is generally recognised that substantial amounts of nuclear waste are buried in locations at the bottom of the sea which have probably not even be marked and will continue to pose a major threat to the environment for thousands of years. While I do not have scientific evidence to support this view, I have no doubt that at the root of many cancers lies the irresponsible manner in which nuclear waste has been disposed of. For these reasons, I remain a strong opponent of the nuclear industry.

I fully support efforts to move towards a green agenda or, as Senator Butler described it, the generation of natural energy. A number of Irish energy companies are leading the field in this area having established operations in wind where we have been most successful.

Irish energy policy has three main goals, namely, to maintain secure energy supplies, support economic growth and competitiveness - a highly appropriate objective in current circumstances - and ensure energy supply and use is environmentally sustainable. We have made significant progress on some of these goals. In 2006-07, for example, gas accounted for 25% of our primary energy demand. Currently, 96% of gas used in Ireland is imported from Britain via interconnectors.

It is important to note, when considering the controversy surrounding the Corrib gas field, that the field will meet 60% of our annual gas demand for around five years from when it enters production until it starts to decline. It is essential, therefore, to bring this gas ashore as soon as possible and support the exploration industry in trying to find other gas and oil fields which will help secure energy independence and provide the sustainability we require.

Ireland has also invested heavily in gas storage on an all-island basis. Investment in the high pressure transmission network by Bord Gáis Éireann is substantial. In addition to the Mayo gas pipeline, a North-South pipeline is under development.

Many people in County Wexford were apprehensive when the ESB decided to dispose of its two generating stations at Tarbert and Great Island which is close to where I live. Both facilities have been acquired by Endesa, a Spanish company, which will operate them as gas fired plants. This is a positive development which will result in much-needed competition. Regulation should be reviewed to ensure its primary objective is to give consumers a better deal. I am far from convinced that the Commissioner for Energy Regulation considers competition an overriding priority.

In the area of electricity, substantial investment is being made in the North-South and east-west interconnectors, both of which should be operating by 2012. We have also decided to introduce a smart metering programme. I understand 21,000 ESB customers will have a smart meter installed in the coming months to enable them to control and reduce their electricity bills.

Ireland is moving in the right direction. Electricity generated by wind has increased from 5.2% of overall electricity production in 2004 to 12% currently. While I support the use of electric cars, unfortunately there does not appear to by any corresponding innovation in the heavy goods vehicle area, to facilitate a move away from oil, the fuel of the transport industry.

We are moving in the right direction regarding electricity and renewable energy is the way to go. Wind, solar and tidal wave power were mentioned. Other than wind, the other technologies still require significant development before they will be efficiently operated. We are moving in the right direction. It is important we remain focused on it because not only is oil contributing to CO2 and climate change and having an adverse impact, it is also a finite resource. Depending on who one believes there is a quite a possibility we will not have oil past the second half of this century. Economists are predicting when the current downturn starts to go on the incline, the price of oil will go in the very same direction and will become very expensive. There is much motivation for us to move in the direction of renewable energy.

Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no doubt we have a very unusual future ahead of us. It is difficult to say what direction it is taking. We are looking at wind and wave power as alternatives to using gas and oil. They involve their own inherent costs which are quite significant, no matter how much we may say they are sustainable or easier on the environment than other forms of energy supply such as gas and oil. One must ask if perhaps we should try to change our approach a little more than just looking at alternatives to gas and oil and look at fuel efficiency, not just the conservation issues the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, is well-known for regarding housing stock, but across the board.

For instance, on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean there are the United States of America and Europe. What makes European cars so much more fuel efficient than American cars? If one is in America one hardly ever sees a family car powered by diesel and the efficiency of its cars overall is abysmal, whereas in Europe we have been pushing for years to make our cars more fuel efficient and get the maximum amount of milage out of them. This is because we use taxes to keep the cost of fuel up, as opposed to America where petrol is extremely cheap. It is only in the last number of years the United States is changing its approach and trying to improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles on its highways.

We should perhaps look at focusing on and putting all our efforts into efficiency. For instance, in the Houses of the Oireachtas, in terms of making savings, what happens the hundreds of reports Members receive from the Department of Transport, the Department of Health and Children and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? I presume they go for recycling or go in the bin. The majority of Members, unless they concern an area one has a particular interest in, do not even read them.

The same goes for all the information one gets in this House. Far too much of it is printed and delivered into our letter boxes and is not relevant. If we were to talk about efficiencies we should start with the Houses of the Oireachtas. An bord snip is looking at us, but its idea of efficiency is to get rid of us completely, which may not be necessary. There are ways of improving efficiency across the public service and Civil Service. Some private companies are better at this. There is no way a private organisation would turn out the amount of reports and paper trails on different issues which crop up on a daily basis at the same level as the public service and Civil Service.

The HSE threw out a significant amount of its headed paper simply because it changed its title. We see a waste of resources across the public service and Civil Service, such as inefficient buildings we constructed in the last number of years which should not have been allowed to happen. We need to look at how we are using energy across the public service and Civil Service. I know the Minister, Deputy Ryan, is interested in this and is looking at conserving energy in the housing stock of the ordinary man and woman, but we could be a little more pushy regarding making savings in what we spend in the private and public sector and we should have an emphasis on that.

Energy, such as that which comes from gas and oil, is a finite resource and will eventually run out, but there is not much point in expending millions of euro in looking for alternatives and we will not get the same efficiency out of energy produced from wind and wave power. Each kilowatt hour produced by wind and wave is expensive and will always remain so. It will be difficult to drive the technology to the point where we can push the price per kilowatt hour down simply because the wear and tear, especially of wave power, is quite extreme. Wind power has a certain amount of input costs we should keep in mind.

It is nice to have the luxury of saying we are against nuclear power because as long as we have the east-west and North-South connectors we can use all the nuclear power we want from the UK so we do not have to worry about having to build nuclear power plants on our own little island. However, we will be using nuclear power from the British mainland once those connectors are up and running and when we need to get energy from the UK. It is nice to have that luxury.

Looking at future energy needs, we should focus on conservation because it is the most significant issue. We are paying for energy costs all the time. If one looks across the economy, costs for many things are going down, but one area in which we do not see costs reducing is in services provided by Government. Anybody who receives a water charges or rates bill from the local authorities or applies for a driving licence or any service from local and public authorities and Government services is seeing costs going up. If one is looking at a new era of austerity, we should focus more on costs and I would like to see the response of the Minister, Deputy Ryan.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to have been called to speak immediately on coming into the House. I am especially glad the Minister, Deputy Ryan, is here because I have some suggestions, questions and prods to deliver directly to him. First, I welcome him to the House and say I am extremely glad a person of his capacity, commitment and political and ideological background is in his position. It is fortunate the Green Party has this significant role at this juncture.

I commend my good friend and colleague, Senator Feargal Quinn, on tabling this very important motion, which is seconded by Senator O'Toole. I lent my name to it because I believe in most of it. However, I have some reservations about the nuclear element although fission and fusion are relatively safe and are well down the list of recommendations. Senator Quinn has been very courageous in this area. He has, as I have, taken an interest in the area of nuclear energy. I cannot speak for Senator Quinn, but I had a long period of resistance to this idea. I believe the Green Party in Ireland perhaps still has, although the Green Party in England appears to have changed its mind.

I have not actually changed my mind. I have simply prised it a little further open. It is for that reason that Senator Quinn and I have a motion on this matter on the Order Paper. It proposes: "That Seanad Éireann requests the Government to establish as a matter of urgency an expert committee to examine in an impartial fashion the feasibility, benefits and potential hazards of nuclear energy generation." That is the first step. We must face this issue because of the pollutant nature of fossil fuel-based generating systems. We must establish the facts. It was following a meeting with two friends of mine who are involved in the nuclear area that I agreed to table that motion. I am not quite as supportive as Senator Quinn. I would not be gung ho for nuclear energy but to behave responsibly, we must establish the facts.

A number of people, especially on the Opposition benches and in the Green component of the Government but most particularly my colleagues, Senators Bacik, O'Toole and Quinn, have been pushing for the use of natural energy sources for a number of years. There are, of course, problems. The Minister will have seen a newspaper report in recent days of a very exciting development, launched in the presence of Ms Angela Merkel, where the difficulties of wind generation and the fluctuation of supply appear to have been solved by a capacity to store energy and bring it on stream when the wind drops, avoiding the sporadic pattern which is a major problem of wind generation and guaranteeing continuity of supply. We can learn from this.

The Minister spoke about the virtues of the electric car. I drove one outside this House about two weeks ago. It was a Mitsubishi produced by Mr. Joe Clarke of Westbrook Motors in Parnell Street, Dublin 1 in the north inner city. It was one of 11 cars which have been made, is valued at €1 million and I was allowed to drive it. It was a wonderful experience. One simply turned the key, there was no noise, no exhaust, the drive was very smooth and there was good acceleration. The technology probably needs to be tweaked because of the limited mileage the car can achieve but it is well on the way. Today, I received a report by the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security entitled Drive for Zero: Electric Vehicles are a Winning Proposition.

I principally wish to direct my pleas to the Minister about wave energy. We have a substantial natural resource, particularly on the Atlantic coast. It is estimated we could eventually supply all the energy needs of the island of Ireland from that one source and perhaps export energy. We have the natural ingredients. We have the resource, the research community, the appropriate policy, the incentives - with a feed-in-tariff for wave energy of 22 cent per kilowatt hour - and the technology developers. However, since the announcement of this Government strategy only €500,000 has been invested by the Government. That is not enough and it must be increased. That amount was made available to UCC. None of the developers themselves, who are the most exposed to financial uncertainty, received a single cent.

The Minister has said he sees the emergence of a local wave energy industry as being akin to the establishment of the first portakabin by Intel in Leixlip. If that is the case and there is job potential, should he not be supplying similar levels of support? This is not happening. It is all the more important because of the retention of intellectual property, profits and expertise in Ireland. The European Commission quotes ten to 20 jobs per megawatt installed ocean energy capacity. A national target of 500 megawatts should produce 10,000 jobs. Wave energy is a very worthwhile investment. I believe the Minister's heart is in the right place. I hope he can use this debate and an independent contribution like mine to strengthen his hand at Cabinet and to ensure the Government makes this investment.

Wavebob, the company in which I am interested, has a joint venture with Vattenfall, a Swedish company, to develop wave farms off the west coast of Ireland. This is a clear vote of confidence by the international community, but they need further support. In the United States under President Obama's stimulus package, $250 million will be made available to support ocean energy development. What are we doing? We are in danger of being caught if the Scottish authorities facilitate planning permissions and the US supplies the money. We do not want to be outmanoeuvred by the Scottish, as we were in the whiskey trade.

Matthew Simmons wrote Twilight in the Desert, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar. He was one of the first proponents of peak oil theory and called such energy sources the Holy Grail for the future of energy. We are trying to grow a business. At the moment the wave company to which I refer gets most of its support and finance from Sweden. That must stop. One of the directors of the company is a personal friend of mine and I put that on the table. I have no personal investment in any of this. I refer to someone I have known for many years and whom I respect, namely, Mr. William Dick. Even with personal guarantees, these people cannot squeeze money out of the banks.

Science Foundation Ireland awards hundreds of millions of euro for research and design but these people cannot get any of it because they work as a small, private industry. Tax relief on research and design is meaningless in the case of this company. SFI funds flow to third level institutions, but little goes to research. The company to which I refer has a bunch of very bright people doing seriously advanced work. All those involved are graduates, post-doctorate researchers and so on. It has talent from throughout the world; some seven nationalities are represented. It is relatively easy to get funding from Enterprise Ireland for collaborative research with a university. The company has two leading scientists in training with funding totalling approximately €700,000, but the universities have a different approach. They take time and tend to publish commercially sensitive material.

Will the Minister examine this? The Minister should invest in wave energy, about which he spoke so prophetically. When I use the term "invest", I do not mean €500 million, but substantially more than that.

Fiona O'Malley (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister. It is always reassuring and inspiring to hear him speak on this subject, which is the basis and stimulation of his political life. No doubt he has a long-term interest in the area, a message which we receive very strongly when listening to him speak on the topic. I refer to comments made by the Minister, especially the remarks on political will. Anything can occur when political will is in place. This is the reason we are especially fortunate to have Deputy Ryan in the Ministry. He is certainly not wanting in political will.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. Senator Norris made reference to the development of ocean energy, an area in which we could improve. It is fair enough for Senator Norris to urge for more money to be invested in it, but times are difficult. In an ideal world more money would be made available. However, we can try to ensure the legislative framework is such that legislation is not a barrier to progress and I refer in particular to the Foreshore Act in this regard. This area should be addressed. The last thing we need is barriers to access to investment in the private sector. As the Minister correctly stated, we have the best resources to develop wind and ocean energy. We must be enthusiastic and welcome people into the area by getting rid of barriers which exist. I impress upon the Minister the need to do work in this area. I realise there is toing and froing between the committee and the Department related to the legislation we have drafted. However, we all seek the same result and I call on the Minister to act in this area.

Earlier, I listened to Senator Quinn. I agreed with his point, that is, there is no reason for a Government amendment to the motion. It is clear how carefully he has crafted the motion, which is wide open, could not cause offence and is seeking an open debate on the matter. Of course, when I examined the supplementary Order Paper I saw the Government amendment. It is clear the Government is proud of its work in this area, which is fair enough. It is unfortunate the Senator's motion was not accepted.

Equally, I was very disappointed with the Fine Gael amendment. At the root of our problem is a fear about discussing the matter. The Minister spoke very eloquently about why we must open the debate. I concur with his comments to the effect that we were the two parties on the previous Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security which consistently called for a debate on the nuclear energy issue, and with very good reason. The Minister is convinced of the argument that it is a matter of safety and economics. However, what we heard from the Minister this evening must receive a wider audience. At least he is courageous enough to examine the matter and to call on others to discuss it. The cowardice of other political parties and people on this matter is terrible. They run from the issue of nuclear power, but we must face up to it.

Senator Twomey referred to interconnectivity. He is fooling himself if he believes we will be able to take nuclear generated electricity from the United Kingdom and mainland Europe in future. We are already doing so. He stated it is nice that we can have that luxury, which is a typical Irish response. That point of view accepts that other countries will take risks but that we receive the benefit of those risks without debating the matter ourselves. That is why I am especially disappointed with the Fine Gael motion. They simply wish to shut down debate on the issue. They do not wish to be associated with any debate concerning nuclear power, which is not to the credit of the party because the people are ready for a proper debate.

The basis of Senator Quinn's motion concerns security of supply and climate change and we are all agreed on these matters. The Minister spoke very eloquently about the issue of climate change and also stated that our competitiveness is vitally important. I have been interested in and have worked in this area for the past seven or eight years. There is sometimes a knee-jerk reaction to nuclear power and an instinct to close down any negotiation on the matter. One really must inform oneself rather than close one's mind.

It has been interesting to see the issues of climate change and renewable energy move from the political sidelines to centre stage. Senator Quinn made reference to the issue of environmental safety. I encountered a quote when doing research for this area which gave me pause for thought. One cause of climate change trouble is high carbon emissions from coal and gas burning. That is a reality. The high emissions of greenhouse gases in these areas will destroy the planet.

I refer to the question of the destructive qualities of nuclear power. Senator Quinn mentioned statistics which indicate nuclear power has not caused more damage than other sources of power. There is a quote, upon which we should all reflect, to the effect that a low carbon future is simply impossible without nuclear power. If we were honest with ourselves we would realise that is true. We must acknowledge the damage that burning coal and gas has done in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. We must also recognise the role that nuclear power must play internationally. I agree with one point made by the Minister concerning the national grid and whether it has the capacity to deal with nuclear power. There is also the matter of whether there should be such a station in Ireland. The Minister will be well aware of the views and we have discussed the matter previously.

Ireland's heavy dependency on imported fuels would be even worse if such countries as France and the United Kingdom did not have nuclear power. I would welcome an honest and open debate which is why I commend Senator Quinn for raising the subject. Last year, there was an interruption in gas supply because of a dispute between the Ukraine and Russia. In such circumstances France would look after itself in the first instance, as would the United Kingdom. Luckily, France is heavily dependent on nuclear power such that it does not mind exporting and has plenty of energy to sell. I welcome the debate and I hope we attain what the committee seeks, that is, an open debate on the matter. More people should hear the contributions made this evening, especially that of the Minister.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Senator Mary White. I welcome the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, back to the House. It is great to listen to him as he has a great knowledge and is very much on top of his brief. This is not the first time the Seanad has heard him speak about different types of energy. He said at the beginning of his speech that energy is one of the greatest challenges the country faces but that there are also huge opportunities. That is true. The Government should take on board Fine Gael's policy document on creating 100,000 jobs. I am disappointed the Government has not taken it on board. It should look closely at the document.

I commend Senator Quinn on lodging the motion and giving Members an opportunity to discuss this important issue. I am rather disappointed with Senator O'Malley because Senator Coffey did qualify Fine Gael's position. He said the issue of nuclear power should be debated openly but separately.

Fiona O'Malley (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment is a sly move then, and a cowardly one.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have time to discuss the many other issues that Senator Quinn raises in the motion, never mind nuclear power which is a huge issue. It should be debated and this is an ideal forum.

Fiona O'Malley (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why did the Senator's party omit it from the amendment then?

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Coffey qualified the position on nuclear power. It should be debated.

Fiona O'Malley (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment should be withdrawn then.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Our amendment has been lodged and I agree with Senator Coffey that we should discuss it in the House.

Fiona O'Malley (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Burke is not being consistent.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My local authority in County Mayo has amended its county development plan to include various types of energy such as solar, wave and wind power. Many local authorities have not done so and they should. That would help with the planning process for wind and wave power projects. Senator O'Malley said there could be problems down the road for offshore licences and so forth. The issue should be considered by every local authority, especially those in coastal areas which have potential for wind and wave power. As an island country, we have golden opportunities to export energy. We should be in the export business. We have more wind and waves than the majority of European countries but there are obstacles.

I welcome the report that was commissioned by the Oireachtas committee, which contains some criticism, perhaps in small print, of the Minister's Department and suggests it is not moving quickly enough. It is a good report and I commend the committee on what it says, particularly about electric vehicles.

Sustainable Energy Ireland is like a secret service in some respects. Getting a smart meter is not the easiest task in the world. We need to have the infrastructure in place. That leads me to the interconnector and the separation of the national grid. The Minister is moving in the right direction, but the report suggests he is moving slowly in some areas.

The Acting Chairman is looking at Senator White, so I will conclude now.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Senator O'Malley. I compliment the Minister on his contribution over the years to alternative energy and congratulate him on putting the issue of nuclear energy on the radar. I will make a few points on the problems with wind energy projects and I hope the Minister will take on the issues.

At present 1,014 MW is pumped out by wind energy and 1,500 MW is ready to go between 2009 and 2014. I will talk about the problems facing the projects that are contracted and ready to go. A substantial number of wind farm projects are ready to begin construction but a number of factors are delaying progress, including delays in getting a grid connection. The majority of the projects that have a contract to connect are likely to be connected in 2009 or 2010, but a number will not get a connection until 2014. There is considerable concern in the wind energy industry that the grid will not be delivered in time to allow all the projects to be built. There is even more concern about grid connections for projects under Gate 3. Most projects in development are finding it increasingly difficult to secure finance. A number of banks are not lending and the level of equity required by the banks has risen significantly. The delay in getting grid connections is causing problems for a number of developers whose planning permissions for projects are running out.

The benefits of wind energy include the creation of jobs in development, construction, maintenance, operations, management, law, finance and insurance; the provision of security against oil price volatility; an increase in our energy independence; and assistance with our environmental commitments on climate change.

There is a serious lack of joined-up thinking between the various bodies that deal with the wind energy industry, including the Commission for Energy Regulation, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, EirGrid, ESB Networks and Sustainable Energy Ireland. The renewable energy development programme was set up a number of years ago to consider energy policy, support structures and so on, but in recent times it has not been an active entity. This body consists of members from all areas of the renewables industry, decision makers such as CER and EirGrid and academics. It should be reactivated quickly and given adequate resources to allow it to achieve its full potential.

Small-scale projects should also be supported. We must make development easier and reduce red tape. One advantage of small-scale projects is that they can be developed by local communities or local companies, thus increasing the local benefits. The programme that SEI is running to encourage micro-generation is welcome, but it must be managed properly and the correct control measures and training must be put in place. On behalf of people who are involved in wind energy, I say to the Minister that it is critical we resolve these issues.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank everyone who spoke in the debate. In particular, I appreciate the interest the Minister has shown and the words he used. He said the CO2 targets are challenging, and they certainly are, but he spoke with enthusiasm, confidence and, I think, a knowledge of the technology. On that basis, energy security is in good hands. I was also delighted to hear that the Minister is willing to talk about nuclear power despite the views he has expressed in the past.

Senators Coffey and Burke both confirmed they are willing to talk about nuclear power. If they are willing to debate it, I am not sure why the amendment was lodged, but the fact they are willing to debate it is interesting. I especially thank Senator O'Malley for her criticism of those who have a closed mind and are unwilling to debate the topic. The reason for lodging the motion was to have the debate, to open it up and ensure we talk about the various energy sources. It was particularly interesting to hear Senator Mary White talk about the frustrations and delays that are happening, particularly with wind energy projects.

There is a lot of evidence that wind farms are not an answer to global warming in countries such as Ireland and northern Europe in general.

I was in Austria recently and could not be believe the number of wind turbines between Vienna and Bratislava. The Germans, who have invested more than anybody in wind farms, are finding that, despite having more than 17,000 wind turbines, the nation is emitting more carbon than before it built them. According to estimates, this is due to the fact the turbines are only about 17% efficient because the wind does not blow at the right speed often enough to do any better. As a result, 83% of the electricity which should come from wind must come from coal burning power stations which can never work at optimum efficiency because they must forever adjust to the fluctuating flow from wind generation. We must solve that if we are to get on top of wind energy.

In short, being intermittent, wind power must always be backed up by more reliable fossil fuel or nuclear plants. At present, wind energy is incapable of satisfying the growing demands for energy but I hope we overcome that. Even with the huge attraction of subsidies, energy companies are increasingly abandoning wind as an effective and green source of energy, and I am sure the Minister knows that. For example, one of the oldest and most efficient wind farms in Britain is to be dismantled and replaced by a nuclear power station under plans drawn up by a German-owned power group. That concerns me.

I refer to tidal energy, an area we must exploit. It was interesting to hear Senator O'Toole's views. Tidal waves and currents possess huge potential for low carbon energy generation. However, efforts to harness them have been hampered by the difficulty of designing devices which can tolerate harsh oceanic conditions. This year, however, power generating buoys which harness wave energy 50 m under water were put to the test in the UK and the world's first commercial scale tide turbine delivered electricity to the UK national grid. I mention that because much work is going on to achieve that.

Danish support for wind power helped that country to establish worldwide leadership in the building of turbines. Ireland must do the same with wave and tidal power. We have the opportunity and the ability, as Senator Mary White mentioned, and we know we can do something about it. However, this will not solve our current problems. We need to look at all other resources as well.

Ireland has spent approximately €920 million in four years buying credits under the Kyoto scheme to pay for our carbon emissions. The money we spend on four years' worth of carbon emissions credits is just shy of the €1 billion it would take for Ireland to build a medium-sized nuclear power station. The cost of decommissioning a nuclear plant might add another €250 million or so to this figure. However, this looks like a calculation worth examining. Nuclear is nearly a carbon-free energy. It is not entirely carbon free as there is some carbon use in its construction but, overall, nuclear is a very low carbon emitter so let us not close our minds to it.

We must ask why there has been a massive shift towards nuclear power over other forms of renewable energy across Europe. Can we be truly energy independent by just relying on energies such as wind and wave power? Why are we ignoring the fact that nuclear energy is the most green type of energy because it does not have any of these emissions? Would we save more in the long term by reducing our carbon emissions by going down the nuclear road? Are certain forms of renewable energy profiting from subsidies and favouritism even if they are not the best long-term solution for this country? In effect, are we kidding ourselves that we will ever get close to, let alone go beyond, 20% of our energy being produced by renewable energies?

In a time when energy supply is more volatile than ever, when countries are committed to reducing emissions and when we need to plan for the future, Ireland needs to be energy independent. We must not rule out any one form of energy due to past prejudices, misinformation or lobbying.

This motion has given us a chance to debate this issue. It has been a very useful debate and I thank everybody who spoke. I thank the Minister, in particular, for his open mind. However, I urge him not to allow us to close our minds to the threat not only to us, but to future generations. We must solve this problem so let us not close our minds to every form of energy available.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Fiona O'Malley (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ag 10.30 a.m. amárach.