I move that the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1940, be now read a Second Time. The principal provisions of this Bill are contained in Sections 2, 3 and 4. These sections, respectively, provide additional advances to the Electricity Supply Board to cover its estimated capital requirements to the 31st March, 1942, confirm that the board has power to erect electric generating stations, using peat as fuel, and make provision for the investment of the board's reserves.
Section 2 amends Section 5 (1) of the Liffey Reservoir Act of 1936, so as to raise the limit of advances to the board, as authorised by Section 3 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act of 1931, from £6,259,000 to £10,259,000. The purposes for which the additional £4,000,000 are required have been detailed in the memorandum which I have circulated. It will be noted that among these is the erection of a peat-fuelled generating station near Portarlington and adjacent to the Clonsast Bog, against which a sum of £800,000 is provided. Some doubts have been expressed as to the board's powers under existing statutes to erect such a station. Section 3 of the Bill clarifies the position in that regard.
Reverting again to Section 2, the additional advances proposed include a sum of £280,000 in respect of the estimated increased cost of the Liffey hydro-electric scheme, making the cost of that scheme £784,690, as against £503,350 originally intended. This increase is due mainly to the enlargement of the generating plant, which is now to be 34 M.W. instead of 23 M.W. as originally budgeted for. Owing to the accelerating rate of increase in the load development as compared with the assumptions upon which the experts' report of 1935 was based, it was decided to instal two sets of 15 M.W. each at Poulaphouca Falls in addition to the 4 M.W. set at Golden Falls. This increase in the size of the generating plant, it is expected, will eventually result in some saving in the total steam plant capacity requirements. It is understood also that it renders the Liffey installation more valuable as a peak load station. Apart from the increase in the capacity of the plant, however, the cost of materials and other electrical equipment has risen, and there has also been a rise in labour costs. According to the information supplied by the Board, the increases are applicable, broadly, to the following sections of work. First of all, the cost of the dam at Poulaphouca, for which the original estimate was £232,050, has gone up to £320,450, an increase of £88,400. The cost of the bridges, which are to replace those which have been submerged or otherwise destroyed, has gone up from £79,600 to £110,190, an increase of £30,590. The mechanical equipment on Poulaphouca Dam, which was to cost £19,650, is, in fact, expected to cost £38,190, or £18,540 more than was originally provided for. The cost of roads in the reservoir area has increased from £12,300 to £18,360, and the provision for the mechanical and electrical equipment of stations and for transmission lines and other plant has had to be increased from £159,750 to £297,500, an increase of £137,750, making a total increase of £281,000, which has been rounded off to £280,000.
The remaining capital items of importance included in the financial provision which the Bill proposes include an additional 20 M.W. set at the Pigeon House, an increase in transformer capacity at Ardnacrusha, new 110 K.V. lines between Dublin and Cork, via Waterford, and Carrick-on-Shannon to Dundalk, together with new 110 K.V. stations at Waterford and Dundalk. The bulk of this work has already been completed. Expenditure has also been incurred on the 38 K.V. and the 10 K.V. system, strengthening mains and extending stations to handle the increase in load and on new high tension substations and mains. Owing to the continued growth in the number of consumers, provision is also being made for a substantial sum for extensions to consumers and for the development of new areas. The sum of £4,000,000 includes, in addition, provision for the increased actual cost of works which were provided for in previous legislation, in those cases in which, owing to rises in cost of materials and labour, the original estimates have been exceeded.
In justification of the considerable increase in capital expenditure by the board, I may point out that the number of units sold has risen from 187,015,590 in 1935-36 to 318,551,656 in 1939-40, and the revenue from the sales of energy has likewise risen from £1,429,888 in 1935-36 to £1,946,310 in 1939-40. Over this period the board has been able to make adequate provision for depreciation, and last year commenced to repay to the Minister for Finance the advances which it secured from the Exchequer. The expansion in the number of consumers and their demands are being well maintained, even in the present difficult period.
Section 4 of the Bill, as I have already mentioned, is designed to give the board power to invest its reserve funds in such securities as the Minister for Finance may approve from time to time. As matters stand, the board has no powers in this regard, and it is desirable that permanent statutory provision should be made for the reserve investment.
Section 5 proposes to amend sub-section (1) of Section 98 of the Electricity Supply Act of 1927. The sub-section in question empowers the board to lop or cut trees, as may be necessary for the proper maintenance of a supply line already erected. The board has made representations that it should have the power to lop or cut trees during the survey, erection or laying of lines. The proposed amendment will give this power, accordingly, and, it is hoped, will enable the board to carry out its overhead transmission and distribution programme more efficiently.
We may now turn to Section 3 of the Bill. This section provides for the erection of electric generating stations designed for using peat as fuel. The idea of using peat fuel to generate electrical energy is not by any means a new one. The late Sir John Griffith planned to use his bog at Turraun as a source of electric power for distribution in the Offaly district. The coming of the Shannon scheme ended this project; but, nevertheless, a small power station was erected in Turraun about 20 years ago, and to-day it is still giving efficient service and supplying sufficient power to operate the machinery and plant at the Turraun bog.
In 1918 the Irish Peat Inquiry Committee, set up by the British Government under the auspices of the Fuel Research Board, carried out very extensive investigations into the turf resources of this country. The committee came to the conclusion "that peat may be won in Ireland on a scale which would warrant the establishment of electrical power stations at one or more of the most favourably situated bogs." They recommended inter alia:
(1) "That the State purchase a large bog so that full control may be obtained over the whole area for drainage, transport and transmission purposes, the aim being to allow of the winning of at least 100,000 tons of air-dried peat per season.
(2) That an authority, endowed with necessary powers, be set up to take charge of and administer the scheme, together with the experimental investigations involved.
(3) That systematic drainage of the bog be carried out, so as to render it fit for peat winning and agriculture.
(4) That different types of electrically driven peat-winning machines and labour-aiding appliances, for loading and conveying, be obtained and employed under working conditions to determine which is the best for work on a large scale in Ireland."
To-day these recommendations are being put into effect. In 1919 a Commission of Inquiry into the Resources and Industries of Ireland was established by Dáil Éireann. This commission set up a committee under the chairmanship of the late Professor Hugh Ryan, to inquire into the power resources of Ireland. The committee confirmed the recommendation of the earlier British committee, and proposed that at least one station of about 20,000 k.w. fired with turf should be erected in a suitable locality. The powers now sought in this Bill will enable the Electricity Supply Board to give practical effect to that proposal.
It might be well to refer to some further recommendations of the 1918 committee. The committee was satisfied that the economic winning of peat for the purposes of large scale electrical power development is dependent on the use of machinery. The committee recommended that such a scheme for peat-winning should be associated with the reclamation of the bog for agricultural purposes. The aim of the development scheme at Clonsast and in other places is to leave the bog fit for agricultural purposes.
The committee also recommended that hamlets or small villages of labourers houses be erected on suitable sites in the vicinity of the bogs under development. This recommendation has been carried into effect at Clonsast. The proposal to erect a peat-fuelling generating station is attractive from many points of view. Turf is one of the few basic industrial raw materials we have in large quantities in this country. It has the great disadvantage, however, in common with all low grade industrial materials, that in its production the costs of handling and transport are very high in proportion to its value. How to reduce these costs is a major problem in the development of our bogs. Even on the bog itself, it costs nearly twice as much to take a ton of dry turf from a rick to the loading yard as it does to cut the raw material for it. The enormous advantage, therefore, of burning the turf on the bog instead of burdening it with the further cost of carrying it ten, twenty or thirty miles is apparent.
As regards the actual combustion of the turf in power-house boilers, there is, of course, no problem. In other countries turf is used extensively in power stations. In north west Germany there are two such stations, each using 100,000 tons of turf per annum. At one station alone in Russia there are more than 2,000,000 tons of peat produced and burned each year in a power station. In fact, the industrial regions of Moscow and Leningrad are, in a large measure, dependent on turf for their industrial power requirements. There is no reason why in this country where, for generations, 3,500,000 tons of turf have been produced and used annually even in the area under our jurisdiction, an attempt should not be made to supply our expanding power requirements from turf.
The economy of large scale winning of turf by machinery depends on getting two crops of turf each year on the bog. Ability to secure two crops depends on (a), weather and length of season, and (b), machines. It has been contended that the weather conditions here are not as favourable as the weather conditions in Russia or Germany for the economic winning of turf by machinery. As regards Russia, the climatic conditions are really not comparable, and while there may be a closer resemblance between conditions here and those in north west Germany, where the power stations are situated, it is difficult, nevertheless, to make real comparisons because conditions are not sufficiently similar to make such comparisons of more than merely, academic interest. The length of the season is as important a, factor as the weather in getting output, and here we would seem to have a definite advantage over Germany. In Germany the maximum length of the season for cutting is from April to the end of July, whereas we can cut here from late February until the end of July.
The real significance of both weather and season in relation to the economics of peat production must, however, be learned from experience. This much we do know, however: Since the Turf Board started winning turf commercially in 1935 it has always been able to win two crops on its bogs each year. I think the weather from 1935 to 1940 may be taken as fairly representative of the Irish climate. For instance, in the year 1939 the season was below average—indeed because of the high rainfall in 1938-39 the Electricity Supply Board was able to secure the record-breaking output of no less than 284,000,000 units from its Ardnacrusha station—but the fact that that was a very wet year did not prevent turf cut at the end of July being saved at Clonsast. In contrast with 1938, 1939 was good, possibly indeed better than average and the turf was actually saved at Clonsast by the middle of August, which is unusually early.
As far as expert advice and reasonable anticipation, coupled with a degree of experience, can estimate, turf of a suitable moisture content for a generating station will be available at Clonsast to the full extent required. In a very bad year admittedly it is possible that difficulty will be experienced in saving the second crop of turf, but it is most improbable that a situation will arise when a serious shortage of turf will occur. In any event, to provide against such a contingency or against the more likely contingency of a temporary interruption in deliveries from the bog, due to bad weather or other causes outside the board's control, it is intended that a stock pile of suitable size will be provided at the power station site.
I have mentioned already that the second factor, which affects output is the efficiency of the turf-winning plant. On the whole the machines in use at Clonsast bog have proved themselves satisfactory. They were first tried out on an experimental routine last year. In the present year three of them, the maximum combined capacity of which is 60,000 tons a year, have given an output estimated at between 45,000 and 50,000 tons of turf. When it is considered that they were operating under most unfavourable conditions, inasmuch as the bog was largely being cut for the first time, that staffs were being trained, and that many of the more prolonged stoppages on the machines were due to delays in getting deliveries of spares because of war conditions, I think that this output must be considered as highly satisfactory.
A further factor which might here be mentioned, in connection with the economy of turf development, and the use of peat as a fuel in electricity works, is the life of a bog. It is estimated that the Clonsast Bog has a production life of at least 25 years. As latter-day progress in design has tended to render modern steam-driven generating plant economically obsolete within the first 15 years of its useful life, it is reasonable to assume that the bog, as a source of fuel, will outlive by a considerable margin the first generating plant put down in the new generating station.
