asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that proposals setting out the main principles of a scheme designed to increase the potential annual power output of the Liffey hydro-electric scheme from 30,000 kw. to 120,000 kw. were submitted by Senor Manuel de Uribe Echebarria in May, 1941; November, 1941, and March, 1942, to different members of the Electricity Supply Board; whether the proposals were examined by the technical staff of the Electricity Supply Board in conjunction with his Department; whether independent technical advice was secured by the board or his Department; and, if an adverse report on the proposals was given, whether such adverse report indicated a lack of necessary technical data or technical weakness in the planning and drafting of the scheme.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Liffey Hydro-Electric Scheme.
Very complete investigations in connection with the Liffey hydro-electric development were carried out over a number of years by the staff of the Electricity Supply Board in consultation with foreign experts and reports were submitted to the Government and legislation authorising the work was passed by the Dáil and actual work was commenced in 1937. These investigations and reports covered various types of development, both for high head and medium head schemes, and the decision to proceed with the particular development of Poulaphouca and Golden Falls was taken after full examination of all the factors involved.
In 1941, a memorandum was submitted on behalf of the Spanish engineer mentioned in the question. This memorandum outlined the scheme for a high head development, which, in the opinion of the board's technical staff, was less favourable than the other high head development schemes examined and already rejected and, in the circumstances, independent technical advice was not considered necessary.
I take it from the Minister's answer that the technical draft proposals were good, at least in so far as technical ability was concerned. My purpose in putting that question was to follow it by asking whether, if the Minister received a further scheme indicating means whereby the Shannon scheme could be so improved as to permit the output of an additional 100,000 kilowatts with only labour power, he would have representations considered.
I certainly would consider it, but I think the Deputy is misinformed in that regard. There is, in fact, very little which can be done to improve the output of the Shannon, even assuming that the work could be done in time and the materials suitable were available. A very small addition could be made to the Shannon storage, but on an entirely uneconomic basis. It certainly could not be done in time to affect the supply of electricity during the emergency, nor would it alter to a substantial extent the potential output of the Shannon station. There were many other schemes, somewhat similar to that submitted by the Spanish engineer, submitted by various Continental contractors and technical experts but the type of development which these schemes represented was rejected in favour of another type of development which was considered more feasible.