Ireland will fail to meet Greenhouse Gas Targets - EPA

by Owen Martin

The EPA have announced that Ireland will miss it's EU Greenhouse Gas emission targets for 2020 because of a growing economy and increases in agriculture and transport activities. The media are warning of EU fines.

Firstly, the EU is in no position to enforce fines for failing to meet emissions or renewable targets. The UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee have repeatedly issued rulings stating that the EU are in breach of the Aarhus Convention in relation to Ireland's renewable energy plans. So unless Ireland decides to simply lie down in the face of bullying European Union bureaucrats, there will be no fines. 

Secondly, consecutive EU policies have resulted in increased greenhouse gas emissions. By allowing beef imports from countries like Brazil into the EU, shipping and transport emissions will have increased. As Marine Le Pen has pointed out, if you want sustainable agriculture, then grow your own crops and invest in your own farms. The last thing that should be done is to ship beef into your country from 5,000 miles away. 

Another EU policy is that member states should accept millions of refugees. This will increase demand on food, electricity, housing and other resources increasing emissions. 

EU energy policies have increased electricity prices and driven energy intensive industries outside of the EU effectively outsourcing emissions elsewhere on the (same) planet. 

To whom do these policies benefit ? To whom would a fine against Ireland benefit ? It is exactly because of the contradictions inherent in EU policy right now that it is becoming ever more unpopular.

Most EU Renewable Targets Will Not Be Met

While the media and lobbyists keep insisting that fines loom over us unless we act urgently and not wasting time to do a cost benefit analysis, what they don't tell you is that most EU countries are now on track to miss their 2020 targets. The EU have finally admitted that biofuels were a waste of time. Most countries are learning the hard way that other sources of renewables like wind and solar were not all that they were "cracked up to be" either. 

Some ferocious overselling (and little analysis) has taken place. 

The EU funded website Keep on Track shows which countries are on track and which aren't in meeting their 2020 renewable targets.

Here is the list of some of the countries NOT on track to meet their 2020 targets :

• Portugal
• Spain
• France
• Belgium
• Netherlands
• Germany
• Slovenia
• Czech Republic
• Poland
• Slovakia
• Finland
• Latvia
• UK
• Denmark (doubts)
• Greece

I would personally add Ireland to the list, we have done little on transport and heating initiatives, instead focusing almost entirely on wind generation. With about 20% of electricity consumption coming from wind over six or seven years, we have to make up another 17% by the next three years (in an increasingly legal quagmire).

That to me seems like a disaster for the EU and it's wall to wall green lobby groups. The question is will they admit they got it all wrong ? 

New Report on Biomass

BW Energy have published a new report on the attractiveness of biomass for Ireland as a means of achieving our 2020 targets rather than continuing with expensive and unreliable wind energy. The report can be accessed here :

Unlocking Ireland’s biomass potential –converting Moneypoint coal fired power station to sustainable biomass.


There are many interesting points made and two which really stuck out at me :

• Ireland has the best growing climate for forestry in Europe with substantial scope to expand due to low forest cover. With around 730,000 hectares under forest, Ireland is one of the least forested countries in the European Union (11% cover compared to an average of 18%) despite its climatic conditions being the best for biomass production. Indeed, according to the Paterson Climatic Index Ireland scores 10 ha/m3 annual biomass production potential whilst Finland, where 18% of energy is produced by biomass , rates only 3.8ha/m3 .

• According to the SEAI in 2011, 0.5 million m3 of forestry thinnings – a key potential source of sustainable biomass - was left uncollected on the Irish forest floor.

I've written about the advantages of biomass over wind energy here before - it provides dispatchable power, can be stored, not as weather dependent as wind, displacement of coal rather than gas etc. One thing the report doesnt really address is the increased use of oil as a result of harvesting the biomass but wind energy also increases dependence on oil. Indeed, Eirgrid have recently stated that capacity of demand side units, a fancy name for industrial diesel generators,  have reached 230MW and is set to increase further (this after ESB closed down most of it's oil generating power stations!).

Installing more wind energy will certainly increase reliance on fast acting generators like diesel and open gas cycle turbines. Given that the agricultural industry is dependent on oil anyway, transferring 8% of total land to biomass production, probably won't change total oil dependence in the agricultural sector overall (and possibly there will be scope for some biofuels when biomass industry is up and running).

Biomass has been tried before in Ireland. In the late 70s, we signed an international agreement to run biomass trials for energy conversion :

Grants were given by the then EEC, and ESB and Bord Na Mona became interested in developing it. Crops grew quite well in good soil conditions but the planting of bogs became a complete failure. Biomass was ultimately abandoned in 1985. Des O'Malley's (Fianna Fail) nuclear plans were scuppered by Fine Gael in the early 80's who favoured coal power instead. Moneypoint power station very nearly ended up been powered by much cleaner and lower emitting nuclear energy but ended up coal fired in the end. 

There is now a possibility of making amends for this and converting Moneypoint to biomass if BW Energy's plan turn out robust enough (I can't see too much wrong with it). The following article describes how the biomass trials failed in the late 70s / early 80s and argues that it was in fact a missed opportunity rather than a failure in biomass as a technology. Are we to miss that opportunity once again because of adherence to lesser technologies ?

Biomass Energy Crops - What Went Wrong (Irish Times, 1986 - click to expand)

France ignores European Court of Justice ruling

Ireland is likely to miss its renewable energy targets for 2020, resulting in hefty fines - Irish Times, 2015.

I came across this article today and it struck me as another good example of how judgements made by the European Court of Justice are simply ignored by Member States - in this case, France. Too often we peasants are threatened by our political class with fines from our European masters. But if France don't bother complying with ECJ rulings, then why should Ireland, or anyone else for that matter ? 

There are good reasons to believe that France, Germany, Greece, Poland, Spain and the UK will miss their 2020 targets. The bogeyman of EU fines should not be used to force the people of Ireland to accept short term, hasty and poorly thought out decisions on energy.

References

Likelihood of Member States meeting their 2020 targets :

See pages 78-79 of EPAW submission - http://westcorkwind.com/images/Adobe/EPAW_N-S.pdf

I'm French, but I've lost my patience with the EU. I'll be voting Leave - Article published by Telegraph, Feb 2015

What will happen if Europe enters a cold period ?

The winter of 2010 was characterized by low temperatures and low wind speeds. It was considered a 1 in 10 year i.e. a year like this comes around roughly once in ten years. But there are long term cycles which determine temperature in Europe. The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is the dominant mode of winter climate variability in the North Atlantic region. A negative NAO results in low temperatures and weaker storms and a positive, vice versa. The NAO oscillates between positive and negative every few decades and there are hints of a transition to a negative NAO at the present time. This could mean that we are entering a cold and calm period in the coming decade with weather much like the winter of 2010.

So what will this mean for Ireland's energy strategy ?

Along with the amount of installed wind capacity (currently 2,200MW which needs to be at least doubled by 2020 but may well be trebled) there are two main factors which determine whether or not Ireland meets its renewable targets :

1. The strength and frequency of the wind blowing during the year (I will use the term capacity factor¹) and 
2. Annual demand for electricity (total electricity consumption over the year).

Capacity Factor  

In 2010, according to Eirgrid, average capacity factors for wind was 24% (see page 33 here) well below the average of 31%. Long cold periods usually bring calm weather and this would be a disaster for the wind industry and Ireland's energy policy. The wind farms would receive less income from the market and some would go bankrupt.

So could they increase the PSO Levy to save them from bankruptcy ? Well the simple answer is no. The PSO Levy exists to bring the income they receive from the market (about € 50 per MWh) up to the subsidized REFIT level (€ 80MWh). So the less power a wind farm produces, the less it receives from the market and the less it receives from the PSO Levy. Payments from the PSO Levy are directly linked to the power a generator produces. It cannot be used to generate additional income over and above what a generator produces. 

Electricity Demand 

Eirgrid explain :

The actual amount of renewable energy this requires will depend on the demand in future years, the forecast of which has decreased due to the economic downturn. 
(Eirgrid Capacity Statement 2015)

The renewable targets essentially depend on the outcome of a simple equation - total wind output divided by total electricity consumption or demand. The higher the demand the smaller the renewable generation percentage and vice versa.

A long cold period will create higher demand for electricity (peak demand hit 5,100MW during the winter of 2010) :

Temperature has a more significant effect on electricity demand, as was particularly evident over the two severe winters of 2010 and 2011, when temperatures plunged and demand rose (Eirgrid Capacity Statement 2015)

So extended periods of cold temperature will increase the bottom figure in our equation (demand) reducing the percentage of wind in our energy mix and eroding the bottom line for many wind companies.


So basically, if the NAO becomes negative for a prolonged period, wind output goes down, demand goes up, and the percentage of wind relative to our electricity needs goes down, meaning our renewable energy targets will be next to impossible to meet regardless of how much wind capacity we install.

There will be alot of head scratching should this happen. Perhaps we shouldnt have put all our eggs in one basket we will most likely be told by journalists who will have suddenly become experts but refused to listen to anything other than the official line at the time².

¹Capacity factor gives the amount of energy actually produced in a year relative to the maximum that could have been produced, had a generator been generating at full capacity all year.
²There have been notable exceptions - economist Colm McCarthy for example

Cadburys job losses - Our government is sleepwalking into another unemployment disaster

This week saw 100 new jobs in Ireland from Apple but over 200 job losses as Cadburys moved some of its manufacturing plant out of the country.

As can be seen on this chart, Poland is ranked 24th and Ireland the 5th for the highest electricity prices for industrial users in Europe :

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Energy_price_statistics

There is an interesting discussion here on the Polish energy policy :

Garcia called “illogical” the fact that companies will have to pay more for energy just because it is ecological. He argued that this would limit the investment potential of the sector, pose a threat in terms of competitiveness and lead to moving production outside the EU.  

“To grow, you need energy – in this case the cheapest energy possible. Energy prices in the EU are expected to grow and this is a threat,” he said.

Poland set a renewable target of 19% for electricity compared to Ireland's 40%. As can be seen here Poland is not expected to even meet these targets :

http://www.keepontrack.eu/keeping-track/poland/2014/

Their government did not transpose the EU Renewable Energy Directive into national law. The European Commission were not happy and in March 2013 proposed a daily penalty of €133,000, around €48m a year. By December 2014, this proposed fine was reduced to € 61,000 a day, about €22 million a year. I can find no date for a judgement that will actually impose the fine. There are no subsidies for renewable generation and no multi-billion Euro investment to upgrade its already adequate grid infrastructure.  We are told by Keep On Track that the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk expresses the argument that energy generated from [renewable] sources is the most expensive one and contributes to growing energy prices for end users, deteriorates the landscape and adversely affects the functioning of the electricity system. Contrast this position with that of Irish politicians who tell us idiotically that renewable generation will bring down the price of electricity.

So where are Cadbury planning on moving their manufacturing plant to - well, you guessed it - Poland. England has seen two Cadbury plants close a few years ago and move to Poland so it shouldn't have come as big surprise that Irish plants were next :


But on Tuesday it said earlier plans by Cadbury to close the plant and move production to Poland were too advanced - Cadbury plant, Somerdale,  BBC News 2010 

But days after the takeover was completed the firm controversially announced that it would close the plant and move production to Poland - Cadbury plant, Keynsham, BBC News 2011

The plant in Coolock, Dublin opened in 1964, the Somerdale plant in England opened in 1935. 

Jobs Minister Richard Bruton said about the Irish closures :

“Unfortunately, due to a cost base which is significantly out of line with competitor countries, it appears likely that the company will proceed,” he said in a statement today.

Of course, the costs of energy is just one cost but it is quite a significant one for a manufacturing firm, whereas it would be less for say a financial services firm.

So we can see a trend here. The EU monster is getting angry and beginning to growl. The Polish government stands up to it, while the Irish government grovels at the monster's feet, while warning its own people about fines for disobeying Big Brother. The net result is that Poland gains 200 jobs, while 200 hard working Irish people are now forced to seek handouts at the Social Welfare office. 

This trend can only continue - 10 closures like the plant in Coolock equates to a minimum of social welfare payments of € 20 million per year, roughly equal to the fines threatened by the EU on Poland for failing to implement the EU's energy policy. Then there is the tax take, council rates and the contribution to local economies to take into account. Who are the smart people here, who are the ones who have the best grasp of maths and economics ?

Meanwhile Richard Bruton is flapping around like a headless chicken blaming a cost base which his government are responsible for. But we know the energy policy will not change, so expect more flapping and unfortunately more job losses to come.

Renewable Targets 2020

Can Ireland realistically meet its renewable targets by 2020 ?

Ireland has a target of 40% of electricity consumption from renewables by 2020. It is at around 20% at the moment. It is envisaged that the vast bulk of the targets will be met by wind generation. This graph shows how wind has been doing in the past few years:

The first thing that struck me is that the graph seems to be an inverse of a graph I published on a previous blog in relation to CO2 intensity (the third graph in that link). So the same logic applies - adding more wind to the system does not necessarily lead to an increase in the fuel mix for wind. Some 300MW of wind was added between 2011 and 2013 but we are still at about 16% of total fuel mix for electricity consumption. There's been a slight increase of just over half a percent from the position of wind in 2011. If we extrapolate this growth rate out to 2020, we come out with a fuel mix percentage figure for wind of 20.5% in 2020 (with a total installed wind capacity of 3,944MW). When you add in the other renewables (assuming Moneypoint won't be converted to biomass), unless a miracle occurs and God grants us high consistent wind speeds just below the cut out speed for a wind turbine, we will be well under the target of 40%.  

So one has to ask what exactly are the Irish authorities expecting from this huge over investment in electricity generation ? Even if they somehow manage to push through the planning system another 1,000MW to bring total wind capacity to 5,000MW, this will only bring us to 22%, with a total figure for renewables of 26% - 28%. They may be banking on an increase in large industry using their own diesel generation power, reducing demand, and increasing the fuel mix that way. But diesel generation capacity, (known as Demand Side Units), only stands at 160MW at the moment. Its hard to see it making a big impact, but is certainly one to watch in the future. This form of generation will appear off the books as most of it will be off grid so to speak. It's purpose is to reduce electricity consumption from the grid. In any event, one wonders how an increase in diesel generation is making a transition to sustainable forms of electricity generation.

There is also another potential problem in that some of the present older wind capacity will need to be replaced. There is some evidence from Denmark of technical issues with larger turbines of 2MW and above. Any difficulties in obtaining finance to replace old wind fleet or technical issues with the newer larger turbines will also pose problems.

Will the European Commission fine Ireland for not meeting its targets ?

Much is made in the Irish media of fines from Europe of €400 million for not meeting the targets. In reality, it takes many years of proceedings in the European Court before it ever reaches a position that a Member State is fined. In fact the number of times this has happened in the whole history of the EEC/EU is still in the teens. There is a website funded by the EU’s Intelligent Energy Europe Programme ‘Keep on Track’, whose function is to track the progress towards the EU’s 20% renewable energy by 2020 programme :

http://www.keepontrack.eu/

The website’s press release of 6^th October 2014 could not be clearer: 

“14 EU Member States will fail to meet their 20% renewables target by 2020, as progress stands today”.

Indeed France, Spain, UK and Poland are not expected to meet the targets :

And Germany is now in doubt after a reform of their renewable supports (EEG) in August 2014, which reduced significantly the previous generous renewable subsidies. This reform gained popular support due to the soaring electricity prices, amounting to a doubling of electricity rates, since these renewable supports were introduced in 2000. So it is clear Ireland will not be alone. Take for example Poland. 90% of Poland’s electricity comes from coal and the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, last year stated that (see link at bottom of page) :

"Poland will continue to back coal and invest in the coal-mining industry” 

Poland has never implemented generous support schemes for renewables.

The EC is also on a slippery legal footing when it comes to Member States Renewable Action Plans. In relation to Ireland, there are many complaints that our NREAP (National Renewable Energy Action Plan) prepared back in 2009 completely disregarded the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and International Environmental law. There was for example, no consideration of alternatives, no cost benefit analysis, no quantification of emissions savings, no Strategic Environmental Assessment, inadequate provision for public participation (only a two week timeframe), no means for members of the public to get affordable access to justice. One of the main principles of the Aarhus Convention, now ratified by 47 members, (eventually and begrudgingly by Ireland in 2012), is that the public should have a say in plans that affect the environment when all options are open. But the door has been closed on the public since 2009 after a poorly advertised two week consultation and the Irish State pressed ahead with large scale wind energy development plans. 

A complaint by a chemical engineer, Pat Swords, was accepted by UNECE Meeting of the Parties (which is the 47 countries to have ratified the Convention) in July this year :

http://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/treaties/public-participation/aarhus-convention/envpptfwg/envppcc/envppccimplementation/fifth-meeting-of-the-parties-2014/european-union-decision-v9g.html

So we now have the above declaration in International Law, which is automatically a breach of Community and National Law. This decision requires :

"that the Party concerned [the EC] ensure that the arrangements for public participation in its member States are transparent and fair and that within those arrangements the necessary information is provided to the public. In addition, such a regulatory framework and/or clear instructions must ensure that the requirements of article 6, paragraphs 3, 4 and 8, of the Convention are met, including reasonable time frames, allowing sufficient time for informing the public and for the public to prepare and participate effectively, allowing for early public participation when all options are open, and ensuring that due account is taken of the outcome of the public participation. Moreover, the Party concerned must adapt the manner in which it evaluates NREAPs accordingly" 

In essence not only does the Commission have to report on progress on the above to UNECE in December 2014, it already having being determined that progress to date has been inadequate with regard to its International Treaty Obligations, but proceeding further with the NREAP in Ireland is a breach of International, Community and National law, for which liability will most definitely ensue.

So we can see the difficulties the European Commission, itself having breached International Law in relation to the acceptance of Ireland's plan for meeting the targets, will have with taking Ireland to task over failing to meet those targets. In fact, the onus is now on the Commission to sort out the legal failings in Ireland's renewable plan.

Poland will stick with coal, PM pledges

http://www.thenews.pl/1/12/Artykul/146850,-Poland-will-stick-with-coal-PM-pledges