Reading through the "debates" in the Dail is a painful exercise. They often feature repetitive and conflicting speeches fueled by idealism and ideology and rarely containing any facts or rational thinking. This is particularly the case in debates on energy. So it was with great relief that an actual expert was recently questioned in a Dail committee. Dr Neil Walker is the energy representative of Ireland's largest business group IBEC. The discussion was on energy security and petroleum exploration.
Dr. Neil Walker:
My doctorate is in climate policy. I want to come back on Deputy Eamon Ryan's [Green Party] question about why we would view one set of forecasts as more accurate than another. All forecasts are wrong, almost by definition. We tend to use the word "projections". We project under business as usual and then constrain it. Depending on the assumptions we make, the model will throw up different least-cost solutions. We can tell it we want a reduction of 8% or 95%. We can make assumptions on the roll-out of electrification of heat, deep retrofit, transport decarbonisation through electrification or gas fuel prices and the model will come up with different answers. Generally, they run the model numerous times and identify the no-regrets measures. Gas-fired generation is a no-regrets measure.
There is no obvious alternative. It is worth pointing out, though, that even if we were somehow able to achieve 100% wind power generation on the system, which would fall over on day one when the winds start blowing, it would be very difficult to get beyond 50%. We are leading the world in going up to 70% for short periods, but to get 50% on average through the year is an extraordinary technical achievement. Denmark is hugely interconnected to Germany so it can produce a lot more because it is relying on fossil generation, indeed, coal-fired generation, from Germany to keep the lights on when the wind stops blowing.
One of the points about renewable heat is that it is grossly underfunded.
In recent years, we have spent €300 million to €350 per annum on renewable energy sources for electricity, RES-E, but almost nothing on renewable heat or transport. That reflects policy measures that have been in place since Deputy Eamon Ryan was Minister. The emphasis has been on renewable electricity which, unfortunately, makes no contribution to our national target. Our 20% target excludes the power sector and was not intended to be met through domestic effort. The European Commission ran a model which determined the most cost-effective approach. It then weighted that because Ireland was regarded as a rich country - it was before the collapse of the economy. Three years later, in 2012, the Commission realised the sums were incorrect and re-ran the model to determine what each country's cost-efficient effort would be if there were no boundaries in Europe and everything was done cost-effectively in the effort-sharing sector. For Ireland, that would imply no reduction but we had a 20% target, with the implication that we would do whatever possible in terms of cost efficiency but would then have a significant shortfall and need to buy international credits.
Four or five years ago, it seemed likely that we would get at least halfway to the 20% target. However, the economy has since boomed, more cars are being driven, more houses are being built and we are consuming more energy but do not have the renewable heat and transport incentives which should have been in place ten years ago. We have strongly advocated for a significant increase in that expenditure. There was a very cordial exchange at the national economic dialogue in the past week or so and there is a general understanding among many NGOs, the business community and even the farming community about what needs to be done to reduce emissions.
On the issue raised by Deputy Bríd Smith, I cannot comment on the figure of 30% less emissions for European and indigenous oil and gas but, because I used to advise the Commission for Energy Regulation on natural gas, I am aware of the very big compressors in Moffat which pump gas from Scotland to Ireland. For every 100 therms that are shipped, approximately one to 1.5 therms must be burned. That is a small amount but the gas only needs to travel 200 miles. Proportionately more would have to be burned if the gas was travelling a far longer distance and far more so in the case of liquified natural gas, LNG.
Several years ago, the Economic and Social Research Institute pointed out the catastrophic consequences of a loss in gas, as might be caused by an issue at the connection point in Moffat, and welcomed the possibility of a backup source. In the absence of piped gas from an indigenous field as a backup, it was determined that an LNG terminal would probably be needed. LNG has a far bigger carbon footprint because the gas which comes out of the ground must be compressed in order to liquify it, which is very energy intensive. It must then be transported, stored and evaporated, all of which uses energy. The laws of physics mean that the production and delivery of LNG will always be more energy intensive than that of gas delivered through a long-distance pipeline. That is why LNG is more expensive and the reason a terminal has not been built in Ireland. Such a terminal would probably require a subsidy but the Department or regulator may decide that is what we need. There is a premium on having diversity or security of supply.
In terms of whether we are importing Russian, Norwegian or British gas, one must identify which would be the marginal producer if we were consuming one more therm of gas. Would Norway produce the extra therm or be producing flat out or constrained by the pipe? Britain may have untapped supplies or the gas may come from the Continent. If the additional therm of gas came from the Continent, one must seek its origin. In the case of a country at the end of the pipe which is consuming more because less is being produced domestically, one must ask which marginal producer will cover the shortfall. Russia may be that producer. I have never investigated that issue but I suspect the gas probably originates in eastern Europe or beyond.
It works the other way. The Corrib gas field is connected to the east and some of our gas is probably consumed in Vladivostok. Following the Russian gas dispute in 2008-09, the entire European gas system was changed to a two-way flow system and, similar to the oil market, a fungible market. Ultimately, the argument being made by Dr. Walker is based on security. However, as it is unlikely that an indigenous gas field will be found, relying on it for security is an incredibly risky strategy. To a certain extent, our only option is to rely on the United Kingdom and European system for gas. I have not heard anything to suggest that we will not be able to continue to rely on it. The senior British Brexit negotiators have stated that they wish to maintain energy co-operation no matter what happens. Does Dr. Walker have reason to doubt that? How do we get greater security by looking for gas that is unlikely to be found and saying the other routes are insecure? If they are not secure, they are not secure.
Dr. Neil Walker:
I am talking about physical or contractual insecurity. We hope that Brexit will be orderly and that mutual co-operation will survive but if not, we will be relying on a treaty. We do not know if Britain will stand over treaties which predate the Single Market rules. A significant amount of money is being spent twinning the pipes from Scotland but the gas comes off the Transco system at one point: Moffat. If something were to happen there - God forbid - we would be in serious trouble because that is the route which currently supplies 60% of our gas and will supply 100% of it in the future.
That argument suggests we need another connection to the United Kingdom rather than betting everything on a gas field being found 200 miles out in the Atlantic.
Dr. Neil Walker:
If one does not think it will ever come ashore, one need not ban it.
It was at this point that climate change extremist Professor John Sweeney was called on who accused Dr Walker of being disingenuous, before eventually backtracking :
I call Professor Sweeney, to be followed by Dr. Slevin.
Professor John Sweeney:
I wish to return to the University College Cork, UCC, modelling which has been advanced as - and is - an excellent least cost model. I very much admire the work of Professor Ó Gallachóir. However, Dr. Walker made a couple of points regarding outputs which I wish to address. The two scenarios chosen by IBEC, one of which is based on the research of Dr. Alessandro Chiodi and others, are non-Paris-compliant scenarios. However, the model is very sensitive to the input assumptions which are made. As Dr. Walker stated, one will get different answers depending on the weapons one chooses as inputs. Under those scenarios, Ireland's CO2 emissions would have to be reduced by 16% by 2020 and 44% by 2030 in order to comply with the model pathway which is required. I note Dr. Walker is not very keen on the 20% target for 2020 and I suspect he would not be very happy about a 44% target for 2030. However, a reference which is not included the IBEC submission and is a Paris-compliant scenario confirms Ireland would exceed its Paris requirements in terms of the quota referenced elsewhere of 766 million tonnes of CO2 by 2033. It is disingenuous to begin picking solutions without looking closely at the assumptions concerned.
Dr. Walker may respond later.
Dr. Neil Walker:
I refute the accusation that I have acted disingenuously. We cut and pasted tables from the summary report. We do not have a target for 2033. In fact, we do not yet have a confirmed target for 2030, although it is moving towards agreement. I would be very happy for Professor Sweeney to withdraw the suggestion that IBEC has tried to be disingenuous.
Professor John Sweeney:
In various parts of the ECC literature, a fair Paris requirement of 766 million tonnes of CO2 is specified. If one looks at the projections for Paris compliance in the recent publication, "Technical support on developing low-carbon energy roadmaps for Ireland", which deals with zero carbon energy pathways for Ireland consistent with the Paris Agreement climate policy, it is confirmed at pages 1 to 13 that they are producing a scenario which would exceed the Paris fair requirement by 2033. I am not talking about targets.
Dr. Neil Walker:
Does Dr. Sweeney withdraw his suggestion that I have been disingenuous; yes or no?
Professor John Sweeney:
I say Dr. Walker has been selective in choosing the literature. I think that is fine.
We will let Dr. Sweeney continue.
