Sir, We write in response to your recent articles (January 8th and February 7th) about the proposed £120 million Europeat peat powered station planned for the Kildare/Offaly border. The Irish Peatland Conservation Council is surprised that there appears to be no mention of the impact that such a development will most certainly have on the environment.
We would like to outline the background in which a peat fired station is being considered. The ESB projects that energy demand will increase by three per cent to 4.5 per cent a year after reduction measures have been implemented. It plans to meet this requirement by increasing capacity, and to some extent by reducing demand.
It is projected that from the year 2000 onwards the importation of electricity will account for 10 per cent of supply. Underlying this, we have the prospect of deregulation of the electricity industry which appears to be the current trend throughout Europe. If deregulation does occur, indigenous companies supplying electricity will have to compete economically. Electricity generated by peat is three times as expensive as that generated by coal and twice as expensive as gas therefore indigenous companies supplying electricity will have difficulty competing with outside suppliers.
We have to look at what energy conservation measures can be taken here to reduce demand. Demand side management (DSM), a strategy which emerged in the US after the oil crisis in the 1970s led to the set up of consultancy services for industry to look at ways to reduce fuel bills. It was found that it was often cheaper to distribute energy efficient light bulbs to low income families, to provide interest free loans for the insulation of homes and double glazing and also for the purchase of energy efficient appliances than building new power stations. The implementation of DSM measures meant that by 1988, the need for six large power plants to be built was avoided.
The developers of Europeat claim that numerous jobs will be created as a result of the development. However DSM measures also generate employment. Reduced fuel bills allow companies to spend more money elsewhere, indirectly creating jobs. Also there is a considerable amount of employment to be generated from consultancy, insulating homes and instalment of double glazing etc.
However what most concerns IPCC is the immediate impact on the environment that such a development may have. Bord Mona has indicated that while scope exists for private enterprise to supply up to 10 per cent of the plant's fuel requirements, the Bord is to be the "sole contracted fuel supplier." It is essential that Bord na Mona give a clear guarantee that no peat from conservation worthy areas will be used in energy generation and provide a monitoring mechanism to ensure that this is so.
In addition, peat produces more carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, than either coal or gas and is less environmentally friendly as a fuel source. Ireland, along with the rest of Europe, is committed to decreasing or at least stabilising carbon dioxide emissions.
The question IPCC is asking is how Ireland's expected energy needs will be met in the coming decades and, more importantly, is a peat fired station the most appropriate way to meet this demand? Is anyone seriously investigating what effective energy conservation measures can be taken here to reduce demand? Energy efficiency programmes do work. In Sweden for instance energy demand has increased by only 10 per cent between 1970 and 1992 mainly as a result of such programmes.
The Government and the European Union are providing approximately £120 million to build this power plant. Is it not time to commit funding to measures that would reduce our demand for energy? How about more energy conservation rather than consumption? Yours, etc.,
Irish Peatland
Conservation Council Head Office, 119 Capel Street, Dublin 1.