It could be described as a ferocious, quick-fire double punch. The target? The critical players leading Ireland’s clean energy transition over coming decades and pursuit of the Holy Grail, a net-zero economy by 2050.
The rude awakening, in effect, poured scorn on big talk that it’s simply a matter of time before Ireland becomes “the Saudi Arabia of wind”; exporting vast quantities of electrons to power mainland Europe.
First came an unusually outspoken report from the National Economic and Social Council (Nesc) released on Good Friday afternoon, saying Ireland’s policy on the transition to green energy lacks clarity, with stakeholders not on the same page from a strategic standpoint.
We may have “a unique energy advantage in Europe”, yet questions about how the transition will be made remain unanswered and, perhaps most damning, “much of Ireland’s policy action for transition in the power sector is headed into fog”.
Second came the verdict this week of the Irish Academy of Engineering (IAE), an all-island think tank, declaring energy policy needs to “go beyond wishful thinking and to be replaced by the realities of engineering, finance and project delivery”.
Its cold assessment of available technologies suggests it is impossible to achieve the legal requirement and policy objective of climate neutrality by mid-century. And there is an absence of a plan, as it sees it, to deliver 352 essential, large energy infrastructure projects.
Key questions about renewable energy capacity requirements, the rationale for surplus power generation, its optimal use, price competitiveness and the method of energy export remain unanswered
— National Economic and Social Council
These range across onshore and fixed-bottom wind offshore, solar, interconnectors, transmission lines, battery storage and backup generation. It includes “many hundreds of kilometres of overhead transmission lines”. The absence of hydrogen and floating offshore technology is notable – though it does not dismiss them as non-runners.
Those most responsible for the transition and associated infrastructure development are the Government (including key departments delivering policy and dictating market conditions), ESB, EirGrid and the Commission for the Regulation of Utilities.
As there is a national mandate to accelerate the scale-up of renewables, other State agencies are in the mix, ranging across planning (especially marine), enterprise and local development.
While the finger of blame was not directed at any single actor, collective responsibility could not be clearer, as “visibility and certainty are low” across the board – as Nesc put it. Easter break aside, none has disputed the withering assessments.
Nesc detailed failings and gaps that risk a lack of action on transition to clean energy that will add costs for Ireland – that also runs contrary to the narrative foreseeing lots of cheap renewables.
“There is a lack of evidence-based certainty about future energy prices in Ireland and, if anything, consumers might expect higher rather than lower energy costs as the transition progresses. This is despite the cost of renewable power production being competitive with that of fossil fuels over the long term.”
Compounding matters are issues about future reliability of the country’s energy supply. This may undermine national competitiveness and the transition narrative “with an absence of actions to reinforce both the energy transition and economic resilience”.
Nesc identifies four primary risks. On electricity supply, it warns reliability may worsen over periods of the transition if not addressed. There is “no clear visibility of the power system’s reliability beyond 2032”.
Clarity is needed on total system cost of transition in the power sector and the distribution of those costs, while “key questions about renewable energy capacity requirements, the rationale for surplus power generation, its optimal use, price competitiveness and the method of energy export remain unanswered”.
On enterprise opportunities, it says “there is no single, comprehensive estimate available to policymakers of the sales, exports and jobs, etc that can be expected from delivering transition targets”.
The IAE pulls no punches on energy reliability and security. It questions the feasibility of decarbonising the electricity sector and wider energy sector by 2050, given “an unavoidable dependence on natural gas” that will still apply then and maybe beyond.
Much of its concerns relate to ensuring power supply when demand will increase from 34 terawatt hours (TWh) in 2024 to 80TWh by 2050.
It also highlights vulnerability to possible disruptions to the supply side of natural gas due to heavy reliance on it as the energy source of last resort for electricity generation. The Government’s move to create an offshore LNG reserve to address security of supply risk is inadequate both in terms of storage capacity and infrastructure.
“A small, leased floating storage regasification unit operated to not impact on the operation of the market is unlikely to be sufficient,” says IAE energy and climate action committee chairman Eamonn O’Reilly, the former head of Dublin Port.
Ireland is an island with no indigenous energy sources that can provide the energy security the country needs, he adds. “Renewables can supply a lot of energy but need backup to ensure reliability of supply. Because renewables cannot get over the first hurdle of reliability, they cannot provide energy security. In 2024, Ireland’s near 5,000 megawatts (MW) of wind provided less than 500MW of power for 2,127 hours” – equivalent to 88 days over a year.
“No amount of oversupply of renewables can guarantee power when the wind and sun are not sufficiently available, not even Government’s enormous 2050 target of 54,000MW. There will always be a requirement for alternative backup power sources to ensure reliability.”
Similar concerns apply to interconnectors, the IAE says. In 2024, 15 per cent of the country’s electricity requirement was met by imports. “The need for energy security suggests Ireland should have a low, or very low, ultimate dependence on interconnectors because we have no control on the supply that might be available when we need it most.”
O’Reilly accepts there are many complexities in the transition feeding into their position, which is not advocating rowback – “it is not climate denial; we are not saying don’t do renewables”.
The IAE backs “an inevitable compromise on net zero by 2050 ... but you can never predict the future. You can only plan on the basis of the technology you have today. So you can’t get to net zero by 2050. No way.”
Despite this, it still backs moves to maximise renewables while “other technologies that could become available over the next 25 years include floating offshore wind, hydrogen and small modular nuclear reactors”.
Those advocating hydrogen and floating, including the ESB, should get their act together and even proceed to planning “and see where it goes”, he says.
“But you can’t rely on hydrogen and floating to get us to net zero by 2050. If we over-rely on that you might find you can’t power the country.”
Government has set a target to achieve a climate-neutral electricity system by 2050 – and accepted the imposition of enormous financial penalties by the EU if this objective is not achieved – “without first understanding and demonstrating how it is feasible”, he says.
Echoing Nesc concerns, O’Reilly notes “this has been done without estimating how much the endeavour will cost and what impact it will have on the already high price consumers pay for electricity in Ireland”.
Taoiseach Micheál Martin said the Nesc findings would inform the future approach to the energy transition. Previously, the Coalition decided to establish a new infrastructure unit within the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in tandem with reforms to tackle regulatory barriers impeding growth and development.
There are many in the renewables sector who believe his response is acknowledgment that the Government needs to be more rigorous and strategically coherent.
“The scale of resources needed to deliver a secure and stable green energy system means that we must accelerate investment, both public and private,” Martin said. He announced a new “climate investment clearing house” to accelerate progress and to work with all stakeholders “to ensure we have the conditions in place to achieve this energy transformation in an effective, timely and sustainable manner, while ensuring the ongoing competitiveness of the Irish economy”.
He is to host a joint Government-industry forum on offshore renewables in coming weeks, “to scope out the role of the clearing house and how we can best progress delivery of Ireland’s offshore renewable energy objectives”.
The cross-department Offshore Wind Delivery Taskforce in place since 2022 includes key State agencies, but industry sources say they could be more involved, particularly in bringing solutions to the table. Nobody questions the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications’ determination to deliver, along with that of the ESB and EirGrid, but they contend a robust mechanism to ensure accountability in other agencies is largely absent.
Ireland aims to transform its power system over the next 25 years by reducing fossil fuel use and ramping up renewables, accepting this is key to addressing climate change. They may be brutally frank in tone, but neither report is saying “we shouldn’t be doing this”.
Nesc recommends a phased approach to drive progress. Immediate actions include “improving conditions for clean energy infrastructure (planning, skills, financing, grid and supply chains) and establishing new institutional arrangements for better co-ordination”.
Next should be moves “to address key knowledge gaps, to demonstrate sustainable renewable power demand, and to ensure economic benefits are realised domestically”.
In the longer term is a need “to produce competitively priced energy for export, to develop export methods and to manage associated challenges, if proven practical and viable”.
Ireland’s decarbonisation potential includes ability to meet all, or almost all, of our power demand from renewable energy sources – to reach “domestic net-zero emissions”, Nesc concludes. There is also the prospect of producing surplus clean energy, it says, to power enterprise and spur new opportunities – and to export surplus clean energy – if proven practical and viable.
Nesc analyst Dr Cathal FitzGerald, however, said its research reveals uncertainty about the impact on our economic resilience in terms of energy reliability, price, jobs and exports. “These in turn highlight broader issues to be resolved and a strong imperative for action.”
The energy transition must be progressed despite all the complexities involved, he underlined, while being mindful “the cost of inaction would be enormous and devastating”.
