Written Evidence submitted by Robert Graham (EEE0014)

 

I am responding to the following points:

 

 

  1. “I-SEM” has not succeeded in delivering energy cost effectively and nor do its policies inspire confidence for future energy security, especially given the over-emphasis on intermittent wind generation.

 

Indications are that NI’s base load generators are being pushed out, so that NI will have to rely heavily on cross-border supply.  That is unacceptably vulnerable for when the inevitable crisis eventually arrives, no matter what is written down on paper.

 

  1. The closure of Ballylumford and Kilroot power stations, in the absence of efficient NI-based thermal generation to provide stability and grid balance, will lead to degraded security of supply and NI’s dependence on vulnerable transmission across long distances from the inadequate thermal generation capacity of another jurisdiction.

 

The DETI’s “Review of the Costs and Benefits of the Northern Ireland Executive’s 40% Renewable Electricity Target” (29 May 2015)  confirmed (on page 28) that wind energy cannot provide security of supply, for which it is necessary to maintain the traditional generating capacity:

 

“As the deployment of renewable electricity technology increases, generation from coal fired and gas-fired CCGT technologies is displaced as shown in Box 3. However this reduction in the output of conventional fossil fuel fired technologies does not mean that coal and gas fired plant can be retired, as this plant is required at times when wind levels drop, and to ensure that the amount of non-synchronous generation, particularly from wind generation, remains within the limit of what the NI electricity transmission system can safely accommodate.”

 

The Moyle interconnector from Scotland has a poor record of resilience.

 

The closures will also produce a very high dependence on the remaining NI based Coolkeeragh power station, which belongs to the RoI state-owned company ESB. This raises further issues and potential conflicts of interest such as tariff setting in another jurisdiction.

 

  1. The question as to what obstacles remain to the North-South Interconnector appears to imply that the interconnector must be a ‘given’.

 

This is far from clear when one reads the DETI’s report on their “Review of the Costs and Benefits of the Northern Ireland Executive’s 40% Renewable Electricity Target” (29 May 2015).

 

Figure 2 of the report shows that the maximum ‘net present value’ (NPV) of costs and benefits to the NI economy is achieved with 25% renewables, taking full account of the benefits to Northern Ireland in terms of CO2 savings, air quality and assumed job creation (but not job losses).  The NPV economic benefit to NI reaches a peak of £304million at 25% renewables.

 

Further renewables in NI above the 25% level (i.e. essentially above the current level) produce incremental losses so that at 40% renewables the NPV is reduced to £120million, destroying £184million of NI’s economic value.  This loss is directly attributable to the North-South Interconnector (£100m) and other infrastructure costs to support wind energy.

 

How could the destruction of value on this scale possibly be considered to support retaining the 40% target (and its associated expenditure) as is claimed in the conclusion of the report?

 

Furthermore, despite job creation being by far the largest component of the benefits identified in the DETI’s report, the projected number of long term jobs included in their assumptions is not disclosed.  The report takes credit for the benefit of all jobs assumed to be created by the renewable energy industry, and admits that this assumption is ‘the major uncertainty’ in the analysis.  It makes no allowance for job losses in the wider economy.

 

Thus the net cost-benefits used in the conclusions of the DETI’s report include the benefits of direct, indirect and ‘induced’ jobs, but carry no recognition of the impact of high electricity prices on jobs, households and businesses in the wider NI economy. Even so, the projected economic benefit of more wind energy is a resounding negative; the evidence provided in the report conflicts directly with the conclusion of the report.

 

  1. The Republic of Ireland’s dogged pursuit of wind energy in line with EU energy policy and its proposed energy integration with the EU, through a Celtic Interconnector or other means, will tie it even more closely to a Teutonic style mirage of energy philosophy that is at odds with common sense and economics.  Although of course the German reality is the burning of vast quantities of dirty coal.

 

  1. Post Brexit, Northern Ireland (and the UK as a whole) needs to find its own way.

 

 

23 February 2018