asked the Minister for Transport and Power if, in view of (a) the recommendations of the Committee on Science and Irish Economic Development that electricity production is a suitable method of using coal produced in the Arigna coalfield, (b) the fact that reserves of coal in the field are estimated to be twice the figure stated by the geological survey and (c) that the Committee accepted a target annual output of 170,000 tons, he will take steps to either increase the intake of the present station at Arigna or to construct a second power station in the area.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Arigna Coalfield.
4.
As I indicated in my reply to a question by Deputy Reynolds on 21st October, 1965, on the subject of extending the Arigna station, a full investigation was carried out by my Department into the technical and economic possibilities of utilising the reserves of coal in the Arigna area for the generation of electricity. While the project is technically feasible the economics of using these reserves of coal which have a very high ash content were found as a result of this investigation to be highly unfavourable. The extra cost arising for the Electricity Supply Board from the construction and normal operation of the extension would be prohibitively high. The situation remains substantially unchanged.
I understand that the Board accepts the maximum quantity of coal which it is possible to utilise at the existing station.
The Committee on Science and Irish Economic Development reported that there was twice the amount of coal in the Arigna coalfields than stated in the survey and that the output should be increased to something like 170,000 tons per year, which would reduce the cost. Has the Minister's Department done anything about that?
It has been decided that the extra cost arising for the ESB would still be too high to justify going ahead with the project.
The Committee's report says it will lower the cost if the output is increased.
If the output is increased, it may lower the cost, but that does not necessarily mean lowering costs sufficiently to make the project economic.
I do not agree.