RENEWABLE ENERGY & CLIMATE PROTECTION
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Climate Change and Energy Security – Electricity (31/01/08)
Energy Security and Climate Change (07/11/07)
Energy Developments in the West (17/10/07)
Climate Change and Carbon Emissions (11/10/07)
Climate Protection Bill (03/10/07)
Incandescent Light Bulbs (03/04/07)
Energy Resources (11/10/06)
Wind Farms (11/05/06)
Energy Resources (16/02/06)
Alternative Energy Sources (22/11/05)
Wind Energy (17/11/05)
Environmental Debate Request (12/10/05)
Climate Change and Energy Security – Electricity
31/01/08 - I believe there is an agenda running on the EirGrid issue. .. I believe we are walking head first into major difficulties with electricity and electricity security. … There are three aspects to electricity in the country. The national grid brings electricity from there to local transformers around the country. The electricity network brings it from the transformers into houses. According to the programme for Government, we are now about to package up the national grid into one neat company and run it separately to the rest. That is the biggest mistake. Of all the people who could come in here, nobody knows more about packaging parts of a public utility than the Minister. He even had to walk away from his party Whip on a similar issue on one occasion.
The only parts of the whole system that we need to examine is the grid and the network. It does not matter where the generation comes from. Once we put down international interconnectors, we can buy and sell the stuff from Europe.
A grid is being set up which is now being packaged. I want to put on the record that I believe the national grid will be privatised in five years’ time. Therefore, we might own the generation capacity and the network which brings it to Mrs Murphy’s door, but we will not own the national grid which brings it as far as the local network. This happened before in New Zealand. As soon as the grid was sold off in New Zealand, there were immediate problems. Who was going to pay to connect the grid to the network? The first place in which they encountered difficulty was in Wellington, the capital city, which was left without power for three full weeks while the company which owned the grid held the Government to ransom to pay for the connection from the grid to the local network. That is already happening in this country. Private providers charge exorbitant rates at peak usage times to the Government in order to provide the surplus we need. A few years ago we had to buy in portable generators and that is what happened.
The national grid needs about €2 billion in investment. Either the Government pays the money and it will be a prosperous company later sold off to the greedy private sector, or the Government could do what it did with Aer Lingus. It could state that it has not got the €2 billion to invest in the company, will blame Europe for not being able to invest in it and state that it must get the private sector in to do it. I believe that will happen.
To have energy security we need to have storage capacity. How do we store electricity? If we create 100% electricity at six o’clock in the morning when people are getting up and it is needed at six in the evening when people are cooking, how do we get the balance right, and where do we hold the electricity? … I have put this question previously to the Department and was told the interconnector would do it. In other words, it is sold into the grid. The grid we are selling it back to is in the UK, which has precisely the same type of peaks and troughs as Ireland. That is not the answer, but there are ways for storing electricity, although I am not an expert in this area. If we take hydrogen based electricity, the substance in most supply on this earth is water, H2O, hydrogen and oxygen. One of the difficulties is that it is not effective and efficient to remove hydrogen from water and then use it for power. It takes almost as much energy to subtract the hydrogen as one will get from burning it. That is precisely why it appears an extraordinary good way to have storage. If we use our spare capacity to extract hydrogen from water and then use this for power when it is needed, it is the cleanest energy on earth. The waste produced by the burning or usage of hydrogen is clean drinkable potable water. There is no better way of approaching it and we should do it.
In simple terms, however, what Ireland is doing with waste is in breach of European regulations. Waste is supposed to be disposed of as closely as possible to the point at which it has been created. We are disposing of enormous amounts of waste in China. That cannot be right. It is not right. I do not know whether any colleague here has ever tried to track a piece of waste. I tried to do it two years ago, and again last year, to see where it gets to from the doorstep, into various distribution channels, and how it is checked as regards where it ends up. The figures are all over the place. If they were to be audited, half the people involved would be sacked because it is not possible to track them. Nobody knows what percentage finishes up in China.
…. The way we are moving at the moment, in creating a separate company, EirGrid, in the midst of an electricity utility is inexplicable. I do not know why we are doing this. …. I see nothing wrong with the ESB continuing to own the grid system and running it properly in its own interest. Neither will I condone Europe taking the blame for this, by the way. All I suggest may be done well within the parameters laid down by Europe.
Back to top of the page
Energy Security and Climate Change
07/11/07 - The decision by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the building regulations on insulation, is the most progressive made in this area since I entered the Seanad. Senators are well aware that I and former Senator, Deputy Brian Hayes, have pushed this issue for years. I contend that since 1998 we have built over 250,000 sub-standard insulated houses despite being well aware they did not meet the regulations. The Government invented a new form of measuring heat loss through the roof when the rest of the world measured it on the basis of the amount of energy required to heat a cubic metre of house space annually. I welcome the fact that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, has now introduced that system.
I have also been seeking the introduction of smart meters. I was pleased to hear the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources say during the week that if people have wind generators or micro-generators at home they can feed surplus energy back into the grid and be paid for it, however small the amount.
On a number of occasions recently, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has raised the question of waste-derived fuel and variations of it. Effectively, this is a basic scientific idea but it is not rocket science. It captures methane from landfill waste. There is a more progressive method of creating waste-derived fuel, which is being developed at the University of Limerick. It could replace incineration here were we to opt for it.
A year ago, I proposed … that… every new house should be required to have a wind generator or solar panels. There are many other things that could be done but that would be a simple measure. It has been done in other parts of the world.
We also need to discuss the issue of nuclear energy, although I am completely opposed to it. …. Something has changed, however, and it is rocket science. It is the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Fission involves a nuclear isotope running wildly in an enclosed space and is uncontrollable, as we saw in Chernobyl, which will still be causing trouble in 1,000 years’ time. Nuclear fusion is different because it is when both are put together. It is much more controlled, less difficult and poses fewer dangers once used. I am not suggesting that we should go into that but we need a discussion on it, if only to rule it out.
In the last month, BMW has put 200 hydrogen-powered cars on the market. This is basic science as opposed to nuclear science. Water, designated as H2O, comprises two molecules of hydrogen to one of oxygen. The separation of hydrogen from water produces the cleanest source of energy on the planet, and when used the waste is clean water. It represents the future and while it is possible to do it now it cannot yet be done efficiently. In other words, it takes almost as much energy to extract hydrogen from H2O as the energy the hydrogen would produce afterwards. In real terms, therefore, the game is not yet worth the candle but it will develop as a future energy source. We should be examining that possibility now.
Back to top of the page
Energy Developments in the West
17/10/07 - In recent days we read in the newspapers of the development through NUI, Galway of a company which produces sustainable and practical wave energy which produces 1 kilowatt output. This is an extraordinary development which we should discuss.
In the University of Limerick waste derived fuel has been developed. In the context of incineration this is the way forward. It is a completely enclosed system of dealing with waste with no smells, heat, incineration or methane. The methane is captured and used as an alternative fuel. It deals powerfully and economically with waste. This is not green wellies and tweeds. It is real industry developed in the west of Ireland.We should recognise it and know more about it.
Back to top of the page
Climate Change and Carbon Emissions
11/10/07 - I ask the Deputy Leader to examine the issue of climate change and carbon emissions because it is appropriate to his party. Most uninterested people say Ireland is only a small country that can achieve little in this regard. The matter should be localised. I would like the Minister to consider having a carbon audit per county with each county producing an annual report on carbon emissions and how they have changed from year to year. This would localise the matter and make it something people feel they would be better equipped to tackle.
Back to top of the page
Climate Protection Bill
03/10/07 - Six months ago in this House I made three requests. I asked that every house built in this country would be required to have a solar panel or another renewable energy source. I asked that we get rid of the daft system invented by the Department for measuring insulation and heat loss and come to the international and only worthwhile standard of measuring the kilowatt hours of energy required to heat a cubic metre of a house for one year. If I do nothing else in politics, I feel this is important.
The third request I made ties in with the issue. Senator Bacik’s Bill goes through various types of emissions of which the first listed is carbon and the second is methane. It is important to recognise that methane is 20 times as virulent, dangerous and damaging as carbon. Nonetheless, every landfill in the country shoves methane into the atmosphere at an extraordinary pace. We must do something about this.
The Minister and I never agreed on the matter of chemically dealing with waste. I do not know the answer to what is the best way to deal with it. Recently, I met a group which established a research centre at the University of Limerick. It has a completely closed way of dealing with waste with no emissions, olfactory or otherwise. It also captures methane. They told me they could build a plant for €30 million which would deal with 300 million tonnes per year.
Given technological advances, it is now easy to create microenergy such as microhydro-electric energy. If a wind generator is established in Newry or if one creates slightly more energy than one requires in one’s house and it goes back into the grid, the utility pays one for it. This does not happen in the South. This could be done in the morning. It is a matter of one regulation.
I am slightly concerned about biomass. I am concerned that we have not made enough progress on ethanol and the various bio-fuels. It is interesting to note that this year, Irish farmers gained substantially because of the move towards alternative energy. This is a new industry and there is money in it for everybody.
My colleague raised the issue of carbon emissions trading. While we will never have a negative carbon footprint, we need to have regulated carbon trading, but only as part of and at the end of a process. This industry is full of cowboys. Carbon emissions trading can only be done if certified and verified by the UN and if the audit on what is being done, whether dealing with a sink in India or something in Ireland, is carried out by auditors who are approved and recognised. What is happening at present is that people buy carbon credits on the Internet — what are called verified carbon credits. We need the same standards of auditing as for company auditing.
Back to top of the page
Incandescent Light Bulbs
03/04/07 - Last week, while debating the Carbon Fund Bill 2006 with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, I pointed to the incandescent light bulbs in the Chamber and asked whether they could be replaced with environmentally friendly bulbs that do less damage in terms of carbon emissions. I note that the Government issued a statement yesterday to announce its intention to increase the price of incandescent bulbs. That is a regressive and regrettable measure. What does the Government expect people to do? Will they sit and curse the darkness or buy another light bulb? It is simply another stealth tax on bulbs. The proper solution is a ban on incandescent bulbs and an immediate change to modern bulbs. One country, Australia, has already announced that it will ban all incandescent bulbs from 2009. There is no reason Ireland should not show leadership to the rest of the world by beginning to phase out old fashioned carbon emitting bulbs from 2008. Rather than curse the darkness, let us do something positive for the environment by taking that approach. I ask the Leader to bring my suggestion to the attention of the Minister.
Back to top of the page
Energy Resources
11/10/06 - I wish to make some straightforward points. I agree that wind farms might despoil the landscape but we might have to make a choice some time between that and the possibility of sea water encroaching on some of the beautiful parts of the Minister of State’s county, among other areas.
I want to deal firmly with Senator Mansergh’s point about the instability of wind energy. …wind energy blows hot and cold, weak and strong. The reality is that wind energy throughout the country needs to be connected to the one grid because for 90% of the time, wind is blowing somewhere on the island. That is the correct figure. Airtricity put forward a proposal to the European Union to have a bank of wind farms interlinked from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean. There would always be wind blowing, as we can see from normal weather movements. That is the way forward.
I strongly agree with the point made by Senator Finucane on microgeneration. Connecting to the grid is a crucially important part of that, but we heard over a year ago that the connections to the grid are to be suspended. I do not know the reason for that. We did not get an explanation despite.
More importantly, and this is where this country always goes wrong, I am aware that one can get a grant for installing a wood pellet burning stove but one cannot get a grant for installing solar panels or a geothermal heating system. Where is the balance in that policy? What are we doing in that regard? Why can we not adopt the same approach to both options of the availability of a grant?
In terms of bio-fuel,we cannot create an industry for the agricultural community, many of whom the Minister of State represents, while there is a cap on the amount that can be produced under the excise limit. We cannot ask farmers to consider growing a new crop if there is not continuity and certainty of a market and we cannot ask industrialists or other people to develop that industry if they cannot be sure of it either. Currently, the cost of a barrel of crude oil or diesel is approximately $60, although the price fluctuates and was $70 a barrel at one stage. The cost of producing bio-fuel is almost double that at more than $100 a barrel.
I would like to there to be a move forward on the following issues. We should remove the cap on production and consider other ways of making the product more efficient. The Minister of State should also explain the reason renewable energy generation projects are not grant aided in the same way as are wood pellet burning installations. Solar energy appears to be going a-begging. It is almost winter and harnessing the solar energy that is currently outside would heat water to almost 20 degrees, which is enough to knock the sting out of cold water and to reduce many of our energy costs. Will the Minister of State consider those issues? I look forward to hearing his response to them.
Back to top of the page
Wind Farms
11/05/06 - I raised a related matter in the House on a number of occasions, namely, the question of where we stand on renewable energy. A man who was far too bright to be retained in the public service, Eddie O’Connor, has put forward a clear proposal for a linked series of windfarms from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. It is the most creative and progressive proposal to deal with wind energy I have seen. Using more than the regular 150 km or 200 km length of typical weatherfront would provide us with a constant stream of energy, as there would be wind on one end if there was none on the other. Storms in the Baltic might be creating energy while there was no wind in the Mediterranean. Linking them and Ireland would deal with the issue of the non-uniformity of wind energy.
Will the Government explain where it stands on the EU’s consideration of Airtricity’s proposal? It is far too progressive, creative and imaginative for Europe to jump on, but I hope the Government will recognise that the man who could have turned Bord na Móna around but was sacked by the State more than ten years ago for invalid reasons, has a significant contribution to make.
Back to top of the page
Energy Resources
16/02/06 - Good ideas have emerged in this debate but progress will not be made on them without the necessary political push. I remember a time when grants were awarded for work carried out to houses that the State wanted done. Would it not be a good idea if certain initiatives were tied to planning granted for single unit housing, given that many people object to the building of such units? What would be wrong with a decision at national level that every single unit house development — any person building a house on his or her own site — would be required to provide a solar panel for water heating? That would not be an expensive inclusion in the cost of building a house. While it is expensive to fit retrospectively, it would be a reasonable provision when building a house. Every new house should have a 1 KW wind energy generator on the roof.
The Minister of State correctly said that it is difficult to gauge the use of wind energy. The reason one cannot depend on wind energy, according to the ESB, is that for every watt that is potentially produced from wind energy, one must have an equal amount waiting in storage for the day the wind is not blowing. The way one deals with this is to have wind farms all over the country. Some 90% of the time there is wind blowing some place in Ireland and if the wind turbines are interconnected and we look at the 90% of the potential which will always be available, this could be tied into the grid.
People will say that the other big problem with wind farms is the cost of connecting up to the grid and the establishment of a substation. If farmers were encouraged to install single, old-fashioned 500 wind generators, those generators, as far as I know, can connect straight into the grid without a substation. That is something that farmers, in particular, could do. Approximately six months ago a decision was taken whereby the regulator would not accept any proposals for connection to the national grid for the next two years. Unless there is a good reason for it, that is regressive. It should not be happening.
A grant should be available for people who put up a wind generator and a solar panel in their homes, as long as they are properly fitted and will save us all money in the long term. We should have a strategic policy to be energy independent within a certain number of years. There is the Government’s commitment to increase green electricity to 13% of total consumption by 2010. That is a worthwhile goal.
The development of energy from biomass and wood pellets has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past couple of years. Many farmers who are experiencing difficulty in growing crops and getting adequate prices should be encouraged to diversify into biomass, in the form of growing trees that will be cut down and used for wood pellets, in those counties where that can be done efficiently and where a market can be created for them.
I have spoken to farmers in the south-east, who are involved in the creation of biodiesel. Their problem is they cannot get farmers to commit, particularly after the beet debacle, to change their entire operation to get into the development of this area in the fear that the civil servants over in Merrion Street will reapply the excise duty in a couple of years time. The Government should at least state it will not be touched for another ten years so that people can plan and get into it. These are reasonable and sensible suggestions.
We can justify many of the single house developments if we tie in certain measures like wind energy, solar panels and the other system which has not been developed in this country in recent times, micro-hydroelectricity. We all learned 20 or 30 years ago that we have harnessed the vast preponderance of what is available in hydroelectric energy. While that was the truth of it, new efficiencies have been created in this area with new micro-hydroelectric generators; even quite small streams and rivers can feed energy into the national grid. I saw what was available on Google and they exist in all shapes and sizes.
Back to top of the page
Alternative Energy Sources
22/11/05 - A month ago, I raised the need for a debate in this House on supports for alternative energy. I also pointed to the significant number of newspaper articles on the necessity of looking to nuclear energy as a means of dealing with our energy requirements. The British Prime Minister put forward the same proposal yesterday.
There is no doubt that there is major interest in this area. The debate I have called for should encompass an examination of wind energy for domestic uses, solar energy for heating and domestic uses, and proper incentives and supports for biofuels and alternative energy sources, be they wood pellets or whatever. The time for this debate is before the budget. There are actions we can take to deal with the problems relating to the Kyoto Protocol. Nuclear energy is not necessary at this time. I welcome a debate to focus people’s mind on this issue.
Back to top of the page
Wind Energy
17/11/05 - The Government and the ESB have taken the retrograde step of informing the wind farmers’ association that its members cannot apply for connection to the national grid for the next two years. Wind farms are being built around the country, the Government is attempting to persuade people to save energy and we are not harnessing natural energy. Why did the Government and the ESB decide to take this step? Vested interests in the concrete industry and the energy sector are at work here. How can we address this issue? The single housing issue could be resolved. If every new house was required to have a 1 kw wind energy generator and solar panels for water heating, in addition to proper insulation, we would save approximately 30% of our requirements under the Kyoto Protocol. I would welcome a debate on this issue.
Back to top of the page
Environmental Debate Request
12/10/05 - I asked whether we could debate another matter, namely, where Ireland stands on environmental issues, the Kyoto Agreement, etc. Much of the discussion focuses on the area of oil, the costs to our economy and what we are doing wrong. We must take a positive view in respect of this matter. I would welcome a debate with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on his views concerning wind energy, solar energy, wave energy and geothermal heating. I particularly wish to know how these can be made attractive to ordinary householders. Grants were available to householders not too long ago, perhaps sometime during the past 25 years, for making certain improvements to their houses. We could meet many of our Kyoto targets were every house in Ireland to have a 1 kilowatt wind generator, be properly insulated and have some element of solar power. How can we make this attractive and give support? Taking a proactive approach to this issue rather than keeping the debate centred on the cost of oil would save us money in the long term.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas website
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Climate Change and Energy Security – Electricity (31/01/08)
Energy Security and Climate Change (07/11/07)
Energy Developments in the West (17/10/07)
Climate Change and Carbon Emissions (11/10/07)
Climate Protection Bill (03/10/07)
Incandescent Light Bulbs (03/04/07)
Energy Resources (11/10/06)
Wind Farms (11/05/06)
Energy Resources (16/02/06)
Alternative Energy Sources (22/11/05)
Wind Energy (17/11/05)
Environmental Debate Request (12/10/05)
Climate Change and Energy Security – Electricity
31/01/08 - I believe there is an agenda running on the EirGrid issue. .. I believe we are walking head first into major difficulties with electricity and electricity security. … There are three aspects to electricity in the country. The national grid brings electricity from there to local transformers around the country. The electricity network brings it from the transformers into houses. According to the programme for Government, we are now about to package up the national grid into one neat company and run it separately to the rest. That is the biggest mistake. Of all the people who could come in here, nobody knows more about packaging parts of a public utility than the Minister. He even had to walk away from his party Whip on a similar issue on one occasion.
The only parts of the whole system that we need to examine is the grid and the network. It does not matter where the generation comes from. Once we put down international interconnectors, we can buy and sell the stuff from Europe.
A grid is being set up which is now being packaged. I want to put on the record that I believe the national grid will be privatised in five years’ time. Therefore, we might own the generation capacity and the network which brings it to Mrs Murphy’s door, but we will not own the national grid which brings it as far as the local network. This happened before in New Zealand. As soon as the grid was sold off in New Zealand, there were immediate problems. Who was going to pay to connect the grid to the network? The first place in which they encountered difficulty was in Wellington, the capital city, which was left without power for three full weeks while the company which owned the grid held the Government to ransom to pay for the connection from the grid to the local network. That is already happening in this country. Private providers charge exorbitant rates at peak usage times to the Government in order to provide the surplus we need. A few years ago we had to buy in portable generators and that is what happened.
The national grid needs about €2 billion in investment. Either the Government pays the money and it will be a prosperous company later sold off to the greedy private sector, or the Government could do what it did with Aer Lingus. It could state that it has not got the €2 billion to invest in the company, will blame Europe for not being able to invest in it and state that it must get the private sector in to do it. I believe that will happen.
To have energy security we need to have storage capacity. How do we store electricity? If we create 100% electricity at six o’clock in the morning when people are getting up and it is needed at six in the evening when people are cooking, how do we get the balance right, and where do we hold the electricity? … I have put this question previously to the Department and was told the interconnector would do it. In other words, it is sold into the grid. The grid we are selling it back to is in the UK, which has precisely the same type of peaks and troughs as Ireland. That is not the answer, but there are ways for storing electricity, although I am not an expert in this area. If we take hydrogen based electricity, the substance in most supply on this earth is water, H2O, hydrogen and oxygen. One of the difficulties is that it is not effective and efficient to remove hydrogen from water and then use it for power. It takes almost as much energy to subtract the hydrogen as one will get from burning it. That is precisely why it appears an extraordinary good way to have storage. If we use our spare capacity to extract hydrogen from water and then use this for power when it is needed, it is the cleanest energy on earth. The waste produced by the burning or usage of hydrogen is clean drinkable potable water. There is no better way of approaching it and we should do it.
In simple terms, however, what Ireland is doing with waste is in breach of European regulations. Waste is supposed to be disposed of as closely as possible to the point at which it has been created. We are disposing of enormous amounts of waste in China. That cannot be right. It is not right. I do not know whether any colleague here has ever tried to track a piece of waste. I tried to do it two years ago, and again last year, to see where it gets to from the doorstep, into various distribution channels, and how it is checked as regards where it ends up. The figures are all over the place. If they were to be audited, half the people involved would be sacked because it is not possible to track them. Nobody knows what percentage finishes up in China.
…. The way we are moving at the moment, in creating a separate company, EirGrid, in the midst of an electricity utility is inexplicable. I do not know why we are doing this. …. I see nothing wrong with the ESB continuing to own the grid system and running it properly in its own interest. Neither will I condone Europe taking the blame for this, by the way. All I suggest may be done well within the parameters laid down by Europe.
Back to top of the page
Energy Security and Climate Change
07/11/07 - The decision by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the building regulations on insulation, is the most progressive made in this area since I entered the Seanad. Senators are well aware that I and former Senator, Deputy Brian Hayes, have pushed this issue for years. I contend that since 1998 we have built over 250,000 sub-standard insulated houses despite being well aware they did not meet the regulations. The Government invented a new form of measuring heat loss through the roof when the rest of the world measured it on the basis of the amount of energy required to heat a cubic metre of house space annually. I welcome the fact that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, has now introduced that system.
I have also been seeking the introduction of smart meters. I was pleased to hear the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources say during the week that if people have wind generators or micro-generators at home they can feed surplus energy back into the grid and be paid for it, however small the amount.
On a number of occasions recently, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has raised the question of waste-derived fuel and variations of it. Effectively, this is a basic scientific idea but it is not rocket science. It captures methane from landfill waste. There is a more progressive method of creating waste-derived fuel, which is being developed at the University of Limerick. It could replace incineration here were we to opt for it.
A year ago, I proposed … that… every new house should be required to have a wind generator or solar panels. There are many other things that could be done but that would be a simple measure. It has been done in other parts of the world.
We also need to discuss the issue of nuclear energy, although I am completely opposed to it. …. Something has changed, however, and it is rocket science. It is the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Fission involves a nuclear isotope running wildly in an enclosed space and is uncontrollable, as we saw in Chernobyl, which will still be causing trouble in 1,000 years’ time. Nuclear fusion is different because it is when both are put together. It is much more controlled, less difficult and poses fewer dangers once used. I am not suggesting that we should go into that but we need a discussion on it, if only to rule it out.
In the last month, BMW has put 200 hydrogen-powered cars on the market. This is basic science as opposed to nuclear science. Water, designated as H2O, comprises two molecules of hydrogen to one of oxygen. The separation of hydrogen from water produces the cleanest source of energy on the planet, and when used the waste is clean water. It represents the future and while it is possible to do it now it cannot yet be done efficiently. In other words, it takes almost as much energy to extract hydrogen from H2O as the energy the hydrogen would produce afterwards. In real terms, therefore, the game is not yet worth the candle but it will develop as a future energy source. We should be examining that possibility now.
Back to top of the page
Energy Developments in the West
17/10/07 - In recent days we read in the newspapers of the development through NUI, Galway of a company which produces sustainable and practical wave energy which produces 1 kilowatt output. This is an extraordinary development which we should discuss.
In the University of Limerick waste derived fuel has been developed. In the context of incineration this is the way forward. It is a completely enclosed system of dealing with waste with no smells, heat, incineration or methane. The methane is captured and used as an alternative fuel. It deals powerfully and economically with waste. This is not green wellies and tweeds. It is real industry developed in the west of Ireland.We should recognise it and know more about it.
Back to top of the page
Climate Change and Carbon Emissions
11/10/07 - I ask the Deputy Leader to examine the issue of climate change and carbon emissions because it is appropriate to his party. Most uninterested people say Ireland is only a small country that can achieve little in this regard. The matter should be localised. I would like the Minister to consider having a carbon audit per county with each county producing an annual report on carbon emissions and how they have changed from year to year. This would localise the matter and make it something people feel they would be better equipped to tackle.
Back to top of the page
Climate Protection Bill
03/10/07 - Six months ago in this House I made three requests. I asked that every house built in this country would be required to have a solar panel or another renewable energy source. I asked that we get rid of the daft system invented by the Department for measuring insulation and heat loss and come to the international and only worthwhile standard of measuring the kilowatt hours of energy required to heat a cubic metre of a house for one year. If I do nothing else in politics, I feel this is important.
The third request I made ties in with the issue. Senator Bacik’s Bill goes through various types of emissions of which the first listed is carbon and the second is methane. It is important to recognise that methane is 20 times as virulent, dangerous and damaging as carbon. Nonetheless, every landfill in the country shoves methane into the atmosphere at an extraordinary pace. We must do something about this.
The Minister and I never agreed on the matter of chemically dealing with waste. I do not know the answer to what is the best way to deal with it. Recently, I met a group which established a research centre at the University of Limerick. It has a completely closed way of dealing with waste with no emissions, olfactory or otherwise. It also captures methane. They told me they could build a plant for €30 million which would deal with 300 million tonnes per year.
Given technological advances, it is now easy to create microenergy such as microhydro-electric energy. If a wind generator is established in Newry or if one creates slightly more energy than one requires in one’s house and it goes back into the grid, the utility pays one for it. This does not happen in the South. This could be done in the morning. It is a matter of one regulation.
I am slightly concerned about biomass. I am concerned that we have not made enough progress on ethanol and the various bio-fuels. It is interesting to note that this year, Irish farmers gained substantially because of the move towards alternative energy. This is a new industry and there is money in it for everybody.
My colleague raised the issue of carbon emissions trading. While we will never have a negative carbon footprint, we need to have regulated carbon trading, but only as part of and at the end of a process. This industry is full of cowboys. Carbon emissions trading can only be done if certified and verified by the UN and if the audit on what is being done, whether dealing with a sink in India or something in Ireland, is carried out by auditors who are approved and recognised. What is happening at present is that people buy carbon credits on the Internet — what are called verified carbon credits. We need the same standards of auditing as for company auditing.
Back to top of the page
Incandescent Light Bulbs
03/04/07 - Last week, while debating the Carbon Fund Bill 2006 with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, I pointed to the incandescent light bulbs in the Chamber and asked whether they could be replaced with environmentally friendly bulbs that do less damage in terms of carbon emissions. I note that the Government issued a statement yesterday to announce its intention to increase the price of incandescent bulbs. That is a regressive and regrettable measure. What does the Government expect people to do? Will they sit and curse the darkness or buy another light bulb? It is simply another stealth tax on bulbs. The proper solution is a ban on incandescent bulbs and an immediate change to modern bulbs. One country, Australia, has already announced that it will ban all incandescent bulbs from 2009. There is no reason Ireland should not show leadership to the rest of the world by beginning to phase out old fashioned carbon emitting bulbs from 2008. Rather than curse the darkness, let us do something positive for the environment by taking that approach. I ask the Leader to bring my suggestion to the attention of the Minister.
Back to top of the page
Energy Resources
11/10/06 - I wish to make some straightforward points. I agree that wind farms might despoil the landscape but we might have to make a choice some time between that and the possibility of sea water encroaching on some of the beautiful parts of the Minister of State’s county, among other areas.
I want to deal firmly with Senator Mansergh’s point about the instability of wind energy. …wind energy blows hot and cold, weak and strong. The reality is that wind energy throughout the country needs to be connected to the one grid because for 90% of the time, wind is blowing somewhere on the island. That is the correct figure. Airtricity put forward a proposal to the European Union to have a bank of wind farms interlinked from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean. There would always be wind blowing, as we can see from normal weather movements. That is the way forward.
I strongly agree with the point made by Senator Finucane on microgeneration. Connecting to the grid is a crucially important part of that, but we heard over a year ago that the connections to the grid are to be suspended. I do not know the reason for that. We did not get an explanation despite.
More importantly, and this is where this country always goes wrong, I am aware that one can get a grant for installing a wood pellet burning stove but one cannot get a grant for installing solar panels or a geothermal heating system. Where is the balance in that policy? What are we doing in that regard? Why can we not adopt the same approach to both options of the availability of a grant?
In terms of bio-fuel,we cannot create an industry for the agricultural community, many of whom the Minister of State represents, while there is a cap on the amount that can be produced under the excise limit. We cannot ask farmers to consider growing a new crop if there is not continuity and certainty of a market and we cannot ask industrialists or other people to develop that industry if they cannot be sure of it either. Currently, the cost of a barrel of crude oil or diesel is approximately $60, although the price fluctuates and was $70 a barrel at one stage. The cost of producing bio-fuel is almost double that at more than $100 a barrel.
I would like to there to be a move forward on the following issues. We should remove the cap on production and consider other ways of making the product more efficient. The Minister of State should also explain the reason renewable energy generation projects are not grant aided in the same way as are wood pellet burning installations. Solar energy appears to be going a-begging. It is almost winter and harnessing the solar energy that is currently outside would heat water to almost 20 degrees, which is enough to knock the sting out of cold water and to reduce many of our energy costs. Will the Minister of State consider those issues? I look forward to hearing his response to them.
Back to top of the page
Wind Farms
11/05/06 - I raised a related matter in the House on a number of occasions, namely, the question of where we stand on renewable energy. A man who was far too bright to be retained in the public service, Eddie O’Connor, has put forward a clear proposal for a linked series of windfarms from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. It is the most creative and progressive proposal to deal with wind energy I have seen. Using more than the regular 150 km or 200 km length of typical weatherfront would provide us with a constant stream of energy, as there would be wind on one end if there was none on the other. Storms in the Baltic might be creating energy while there was no wind in the Mediterranean. Linking them and Ireland would deal with the issue of the non-uniformity of wind energy.
Will the Government explain where it stands on the EU’s consideration of Airtricity’s proposal? It is far too progressive, creative and imaginative for Europe to jump on, but I hope the Government will recognise that the man who could have turned Bord na Móna around but was sacked by the State more than ten years ago for invalid reasons, has a significant contribution to make.
Back to top of the page
Energy Resources
16/02/06 - Good ideas have emerged in this debate but progress will not be made on them without the necessary political push. I remember a time when grants were awarded for work carried out to houses that the State wanted done. Would it not be a good idea if certain initiatives were tied to planning granted for single unit housing, given that many people object to the building of such units? What would be wrong with a decision at national level that every single unit house development — any person building a house on his or her own site — would be required to provide a solar panel for water heating? That would not be an expensive inclusion in the cost of building a house. While it is expensive to fit retrospectively, it would be a reasonable provision when building a house. Every new house should have a 1 KW wind energy generator on the roof.
The Minister of State correctly said that it is difficult to gauge the use of wind energy. The reason one cannot depend on wind energy, according to the ESB, is that for every watt that is potentially produced from wind energy, one must have an equal amount waiting in storage for the day the wind is not blowing. The way one deals with this is to have wind farms all over the country. Some 90% of the time there is wind blowing some place in Ireland and if the wind turbines are interconnected and we look at the 90% of the potential which will always be available, this could be tied into the grid.
People will say that the other big problem with wind farms is the cost of connecting up to the grid and the establishment of a substation. If farmers were encouraged to install single, old-fashioned 500 wind generators, those generators, as far as I know, can connect straight into the grid without a substation. That is something that farmers, in particular, could do. Approximately six months ago a decision was taken whereby the regulator would not accept any proposals for connection to the national grid for the next two years. Unless there is a good reason for it, that is regressive. It should not be happening.
A grant should be available for people who put up a wind generator and a solar panel in their homes, as long as they are properly fitted and will save us all money in the long term. We should have a strategic policy to be energy independent within a certain number of years. There is the Government’s commitment to increase green electricity to 13% of total consumption by 2010. That is a worthwhile goal.
The development of energy from biomass and wood pellets has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past couple of years. Many farmers who are experiencing difficulty in growing crops and getting adequate prices should be encouraged to diversify into biomass, in the form of growing trees that will be cut down and used for wood pellets, in those counties where that can be done efficiently and where a market can be created for them.
I have spoken to farmers in the south-east, who are involved in the creation of biodiesel. Their problem is they cannot get farmers to commit, particularly after the beet debacle, to change their entire operation to get into the development of this area in the fear that the civil servants over in Merrion Street will reapply the excise duty in a couple of years time. The Government should at least state it will not be touched for another ten years so that people can plan and get into it. These are reasonable and sensible suggestions.
We can justify many of the single house developments if we tie in certain measures like wind energy, solar panels and the other system which has not been developed in this country in recent times, micro-hydroelectricity. We all learned 20 or 30 years ago that we have harnessed the vast preponderance of what is available in hydroelectric energy. While that was the truth of it, new efficiencies have been created in this area with new micro-hydroelectric generators; even quite small streams and rivers can feed energy into the national grid. I saw what was available on Google and they exist in all shapes and sizes.
Back to top of the page
Alternative Energy Sources
22/11/05 - A month ago, I raised the need for a debate in this House on supports for alternative energy. I also pointed to the significant number of newspaper articles on the necessity of looking to nuclear energy as a means of dealing with our energy requirements. The British Prime Minister put forward the same proposal yesterday.
There is no doubt that there is major interest in this area. The debate I have called for should encompass an examination of wind energy for domestic uses, solar energy for heating and domestic uses, and proper incentives and supports for biofuels and alternative energy sources, be they wood pellets or whatever. The time for this debate is before the budget. There are actions we can take to deal with the problems relating to the Kyoto Protocol. Nuclear energy is not necessary at this time. I welcome a debate to focus people’s mind on this issue.
Back to top of the page
Wind Energy
17/11/05 - The Government and the ESB have taken the retrograde step of informing the wind farmers’ association that its members cannot apply for connection to the national grid for the next two years. Wind farms are being built around the country, the Government is attempting to persuade people to save energy and we are not harnessing natural energy. Why did the Government and the ESB decide to take this step? Vested interests in the concrete industry and the energy sector are at work here. How can we address this issue? The single housing issue could be resolved. If every new house was required to have a 1 kw wind energy generator and solar panels for water heating, in addition to proper insulation, we would save approximately 30% of our requirements under the Kyoto Protocol. I would welcome a debate on this issue.
Back to top of the page
Environmental Debate Request
12/10/05 - I asked whether we could debate another matter, namely, where Ireland stands on environmental issues, the Kyoto Agreement, etc. Much of the discussion focuses on the area of oil, the costs to our economy and what we are doing wrong. We must take a positive view in respect of this matter. I would welcome a debate with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on his views concerning wind energy, solar energy, wave energy and geothermal heating. I particularly wish to know how these can be made attractive to ordinary householders. Grants were available to householders not too long ago, perhaps sometime during the past 25 years, for making certain improvements to their houses. We could meet many of our Kyoto targets were every house in Ireland to have a 1 kilowatt wind generator, be properly insulated and have some element of solar power. How can we make this attractive and give support? Taking a proactive approach to this issue rather than keeping the debate centred on the cost of oil would save us money in the long term.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas website