ESB’s ‘greenwash’ campaign is a waste of billpayers’ money

ESB deputy chief executive Aidan O’Regan (Letters, November 19) reveals the extent to which tunnel vision plagues the group and no one seems willing to talk about anything before 2020.

Targets are grand, but we know they can be missed, and with the ESB’s current performance we haven’t a hope of meeting them.

ESB’s expensive TV advertising makes me smile. It declares the organisation’s intention to go ‘green’ for the good of future generations.

The fact is it will take generations if it continues to connect renewable energy at the current rate.

Last year, according to its own subsidiary’s figures, less than 60mw of renewable generation capacity was connected by the ESB companies responsible — ESB Networks and EirGrid.

This equates to an addition of 0.8% of total installed capacity during 2007.

According to the figures available from EirGrid’s website, a further 53mw had been installed up to last August. If that connection rate continues until the end of this month, the years 2007 and 2008 would see connections of renewable generators totalling 140mw. At that rate it will take at least 30 years to reach the capacity of renewable generation needed to reach our reasonably modest targets of 40% of electricity for 2020.

In the period 2007-2010, more than 1,200mw of conventional generation in the form of combined cycle gas turbine technology has been or will be connected. As it happens, 400mw of this is ESB-owned.

While this is needed, according to those involved, to keep the lights on, it is clear from the figures that this added capacity dwarfs the added renewable generation in the same period. We are not even running to stand still — we are running backwards.

Furthermore the type of inflexible generation added is typically not compatible with intermittent resources such as wind, wave and tidal.

So even more natural gas generation of a different design will be needed in the short term to aid renewable penetration. While the additional natural gas generators do improve our security of supply in the short to mid term, how wise or secure is it to increase our dependence on gas for that power? We already generate well over half of our electricity from natural gas and import more than 90% of our primary energy needs.

All that money flowing east to be invested in the gamete of excesses by the few while the gas and oil flows west to be burned by the many. What a waste of the most versatile of resources.

The ESB advert also shows technology such as photo-voltaic panels. The use of these solar panels, which generate electricity rather than heat water, in latitudes as northern and climates as sunless as ours is questionable due to the amount of energy used to create and transport the material and the equipment.

The material is best used in developing countries where the benefits are much greater, grid connections much less of an option and the climate is much more appropriate.

Secondly, some of ESB’s other companies — ESB Customer Supply and ESB Independent Energy — refuse to buy exported electricity from individuals or businesses with such panels installed, so I fail to see how they can use such imagery without being accused of some level of hypocrisy.

This green sheen belies the current performance of the company in all aspects of renewable energy, from connecting wind farms to paying householders for exported electricity.

It takes more than a few yellow vans running on biodiesel for a company of the size and position of ESB to be called ‘green’.

This investment in marketing to keep the selectively ‘green’ consumer happy to continue consuming in the knowledge that the ESB is doing its best to make its energy supply as clean as possible is almost the definition of ‘greenwash’. Major changes are needed if we are to succeed in even reaching Government targets.

This PR campaign is a waste of billpayers’ money.

Aodh C Deasy

Bearna Mhuire

Ballyvolane

Cork