Energy Communities Tipperary Cooperative Energy Master Plan

Executive Summary

October 2020 This local Energy Plan has four main parts and has been developed to enable the ECTC communities to look at its existing and future energy needs in terms of the flowing: 1. Feasibility study micro-hydro energy system within the ECTC community 2. Potential of Solar -PV on community buildings within four of the ECTC communities 3. Potential of wood biomass for heat and employment within the ECTC community 4. Analysis of the housing stock within the ECTC community

This document is hoped will assist the Energy Community Tipperary Cooperative (ECTC) to determine where it sees priorities and opportunities for action. The development of the plan has been led by a steering group that includes representatives from the ECTC Sustainable Energy Community (SEC), the SEAI county Mentor, Energy Champion (Energy Community Tipperary Cooperative), a registered member of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland’s (SEAI) Sustainable Energy Community (SEC) Network, has entered into a three-year Partnership Agreement with SEAI. The Objectives of the SEC program are to:

 Increase energy efficiency  Use renewable energy  Develop decentralized energy supplies  Develop sustainable local employment & new skills The baseline year for the EMP is 2016 pertaining to potential energy upgrades and retrofits. On the analysis and results herein the ECTC has an opportunity to establish and commit to its energy demand reduction targets and renewable contribution targets to be achieved by 2030. From the analysis detailed in this document, the projected achievable out-turns for these targets by 2030 can be an energy demand reduction of 64% of all the measures (2,070 homes upgraded to BER-B2) from the community-led retrofit scheme are realized are completed by 2030. Since 2012 but formally since 2014 the ECTC has been an active community-first driven Co-op assisting homeowners, communities and businesses make the energy transition to low carbon/energy properties. The main suggested energy demand reduction actions involve:

 a deep retrofit of 72% of dwellings in the study area from a BER D or lower to BER B2  a medium energy retrofit of 21% of dwellings in the study area from a BER C to a BER B2  the above actions have the potential to deliver 59% and 6% energy savings respectively from the residential stock by 2030.

The main suggested renewable energy contribution actions involve:

 deployment of heat pumps in 90% of all dwellings in the study area.  Deployment of PV to the non-residential sector benchmarked to 30% of electricity demand (further scoping required)

Page 2 of 161

 Other areas like renewable biomass, hydropower generation, and community solar PV generation projects should be encouraged to be further investigated using long-term economic appraisal methods along with current and future funding/grant aid opportunities.

Page 3 of 161

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 2 Table of Contents ...... 4 1.0 Introduction ...... 9 1.1 What is an Energy Master Plan? ...... 10 1.2 ECTC Communities and its Local Energy System ...... 10 1.3 Overview of ‘whole system’ approach ...... 12 1.4 Scope of the EMP ...... 13 2.0 Mobilising Community Led-Retrofit in the ECTC Communities ...... 14 2.1 Climate Action Plan 2030 ...... 15 2.2 Building Energy Rating ...... 16 2.2.1 How is My BER Calculated ...... 16 2.2.2 How Might My Home Rate? ...... 17 2.2.3 BER Rating of housing stock within Electoral Divisions of ECTC ...... 18 2.2.4 Domestic Home Heating and Running Costs – Tipperary ...... 21 2.2.5 Home Heating system and Fuel Type within ECTC Communities ...... 23 3.0 Baseline CO2 Data for Study Area ...... 24 3.1 Emission Factors ...... 24 3.2 `Total Greenhouse Gases Produced Within ECTC Study Area ...... 25 3.3 Home Heating Fuel Costs Within the ECTC Communities ED ...... 26 3.4 Home heating and CO₂ Emissions Within the ECTC Community Areas...... 27 3.4.1 Cappamore ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions ...... 27 3.4.2 Ballintober/Kantoher ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions ...... 28 3.4.5 Birdhill ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions ...... 29 3.3.6 Terryglass ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions ...... 30 3.3.7 Lorrha/Rathcabbin ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions ...... 31 3.3.8 Burgesbeg ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions...... 32 3.3.9 Upperchurch ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions ...... 33 3.3.10 Moyaliff ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions ...... 34 3.3.11 Foilnaman ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions ...... 35 3.3.12 Curraheeb ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions ...... 36 3.3.13 Ablington ED Heating Fuel Type and used CO₂ Emissions ...... 37 4.0 Energy Savings within the ECTC Community 2014-2030 ...... 38 4.1 ECTC Energy Reduction Summary infographics ...... 39 5.0 Energy Savings Potential 2021-2030 ...... 40

Page 4 of 161

5.1 Retrofit Scenarios for ECTC communities ...... 41 5.2 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 42 6.0 The Potential for Establishing a Wood Fuel Business...... 43 6.1 Overview ...... 44 6.2 Forestry Statistics – Co. Tipperary (2017) ...... 49 6.3 Forestry Statistics – Co. Limerick (2017) ...... 49 6.4 Public and Private Forestry in Tipperary ...... 50 6.5 Forest Ownership ...... 51 6.6 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 53 7.0 The Potential of Solar PV in the ECTC Community ...... 54 7.1 Overview ...... 55 7.2 Opportunities in Ireland ...... 55 7.3 Estimated Solar Resource ...... 56 7.4 Is Solar PV right for me? ...... 57 7.5 What is a photovoltaic system? ...... 57 7.6 Community Site-Specific Data ...... 58 7.6.1 Birdhill NS solar-PV feasibility study Bill Analysis ...... 60 7.6.2 Solar-PV Simulations Birdhill NS ...... 61 7.6.3 Option A: Maximum Self-Consumption Potential from Solar PV Birdhill NS ...... 61 7.6.4 Option B: Maximum Export to Grid from Solar PV Potential Birdhill NS ...... 64 7.6.5 Summary Infographics Birdhill NS ...... 65 7.7 Burges GAA Solar-PV feasibility and Bill Analysis ...... 66 7.7.1 Solar-PV Simulations Burges GAA ...... 67 7.7.2 Option A: Maximum Self-Consumption Potential from Solar PV Burges GAA club ...... 68 7.7.3 Option B: Maximum Export to Grid from Solar PV Potential Burges GAA ...... 69 7.7.4 Summary Infographics Burgess GAA ...... 70 7.8 Scoil Caitriona Cappamore ...... 71 7.8.1 Solar-PV Simulations Scoil Caitriona NS ...... 72 7.8.2 Option A: Maximum Self-Consumption Potential from Solar PV Scoil Caitriona ...... 73 7.8.3 Option B: Maximum Export to Grid from Solar PV Potential Scoil Caitriona ...... 74 7.8.4 Summary Infographics Scoil Caitriona ...... 75 7.9 Lorrah Community Hall Solar-PV Feasibility Study Bill Analysis ...... 76 7.9.1 Solar-PV Simulations Lorrah Community Hall ...... 77 7.9.2 Option A: Maximum Self-Consumption Potential from Solar PV Lorrha Hall ...... 78 7.9.3 Option B: Maximum Export to Grid from Solar PV Potential Lorrha Hall ...... 79 7.9.4 Summary Infographics Lorrha Hall ...... 80 Page 5 of 161

7.9.2 Solar PV simulation Upperchurch Childcare Centre ...... 81 7.9.5 Summary Infographic Upperchurch Childcare Centre ...... 82 7.10 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 82 7.11 Summary of combined Solar-PV Savings with Infographics ...... 84 8.0 The potential for Knockalough (1400ft) reservoir for micro-hydro generation ...... 86 8.1 Feasibility Study Summary ...... 88 8.2 Next Steps ...... 89 8.3 Background ...... 90 8.4 Site Characteristics ...... 90 8.5 Planning Approval ...... 93 8.6 Available Water Flow ...... 97 8.7 EPA Water Abstraction Registration ...... 100 8.8 Generation Potential ...... 101 8.9 Turbine Selection ...... 102 8.10 Control System ...... 103 8.11 Intake ...... 104 8.12 Turbine House ...... 106 8.13 Grid Connection ...... 106 8.14 Overall Outlay ...... 106 8.15 Cost benchmarking ...... 109 8.16 Estimated Return on Investment ...... 110 8.17 Concluding Recommendations ...... 111 Appendices ...... 112 Appendix A Hydro ...... 112 Appendix B Solar-PV ...... 116 Appendix C Housing ...... 154

Page 6 of 161

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Infographic of climate action plan 9 (Source: Climate action Plan 2019) ...... 15 Figure 2 BER colour coded chart ...... 16 Figure 3 ECTC communities within ED boundaries Co. Tipperary ...... 18 Figure 4 ECTC communities within ED boundaries Co. Limerick ...... 19 Figure 5 Quantity of housing and calculated BER rating (Raw data derived from CSO 2016 & references from SEAI) ...... 20 Figure 6 Quantity, BER rating, and percentage of each BER home rating ...... 21 Figure 7 Home Heating Type Fuel Co. Tipperary Figure 8 household running costs 2011 onwards ...... 22 Figure 9 Breakdown of home heating type ...... 23 Figure 10 Percentage type of home heating fuel ...... 23 Figure 11 Emission Factors for Different Fuel types ...... 24 Figure 12 Breakdown of CO₂ produced from a home heating fuel type ...... 25 Figure 13 Total Home Heating fuel costs with ECTC Communities ED areas ...... 26 Figure 14 Cappamore ED central heating fuel type and quantity ...... 27 Figure 15 Cappamore breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from Central heating ...... 27 Figure 16 Ballintober/Kantoher ED central heating fuel type and quantity ...... 28 Figure 17 Ballintober breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from Central heating ...... 28 Figure 18 Birdhill ED central heating fuel type and quantity ...... 29 Figure 19 Birdhill breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating ...... 29 Figure 20 Terryglass ED central heating fuel type and quantity ...... 30 Figure 21 Terryglass breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating ...... 30 Figure 22 Lorrha/Rathcabbin ED central heating fuel type and quantity ...... 31 Figure 23 Lorrha/Rathcabbin breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating ...... 31 Figure 24 Burgesbeg ED central heating fuel type and quantity ...... 32 Figure 25 Burgesbeg breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating ...... 32 Figure 26 Upperchurch ED central heating fuel type and quantity ...... 33 Figure 27 Upperchurch breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating ...... 33 Figure 28 Moyacliff ED central heating fuel type and quantity ...... 34 Figure 29 Moyaliff breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating ...... 34 Figure 30 Foilnaman breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating ...... 35 Figure 31 Curraheeb ED central heating fuel type and quantity ...... 36 Figure 32 Curraheeb breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating ...... 36 Figure 33 Ablington ED central heating fuel type and quantity ...... 37 Figure 34 Ablington breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from Central heating ...... 37 Figure 35 example best-case scenario for deep retrofit Energy Savings ...... 41 Figure 36 Forest cover by county (source: Dept of Agriculture) ...... 44 Figure 37 Private forestry owners income by county (source: Dept of Agriculture) ...... 45 Figure 38 Potential solid biomass resources in Ireland (Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment Ricardo/ED10952) ...... 45 Figure 39 Estimated price of chips and pellets produced from domestically sourced biomass ...... 47 Figure 40 Forest coverage in Tipperary and Limerick area [1] ...... 50 Figure 41 Public and private forestry in the Tipperary area [2] ...... 51 Figure 42 Public and private forestry in the Tipperary area ...... 52 Figure 43 Public and private forest Limerick area ...... 52 Figure 44 Global Solar Radiation Potential in Ireland and Europe (Solar GIS) ...... 55 Figure 45 Global Solar Radiation Potential in Ireland and Europe (Solar GIS) ...... 55 Figure 46 Estimated annual solar irradiation1 ...... 56 Figure 47 How Solar PV Systems Work (Source: Phoenix Solar Power, 2015) ...... 58 Figure 48 Basic Components of a Photovoltaic System (Incl. Battery Storage) Credit: Mohamed Amer Chaaban ...... 58 Figure 49 Yearly Cost Breakdown Figure 50 Monthly Electricity Cost ...... 60

Page 7 of 161

Figure 51 Electricity Usage ...... 60 Figure 52 Yearly Cost Breakdown Figure 53 Monthly Electricity Cost ...... 66 Figure 54 Yearly Electricity Usage ...... 67 Figure 55 Yearly Cost Breakdown Figure 56 Monthly Electricity Cost ...... 71 Figure 57 Yearly Electricity Usage ...... 71 Figure 58 Yearly Cost Breakdown Figure 59 Monthly Electricity Cost ...... 76 Figure 60 Yearly Electricity Usage ...... 77 Figure 61 Knockalough Water Reservoir and Catchment ...... 90 Figure 62 Reservoir and filter beds layout ...... 91 Figure 63 Map showing pipeline from reservoir to Newtown National School ...... 92 Figure 64 River Water Bodies Risk – not at risk ...... 94 Figure 65 Lower Suir SAC ...... 95 Figure 66 Catchment area of site 1.77 km2 ...... 97 Figure 67 Flow Duration Curve (50% residual worst case) ...... 98 Figure 68 Flow Duration Curve (12.5% residual best case) ...... 99

Table of Tables

Table 1 Indictive Building Energy Rating grades for typical homes ...... 17 Table 2 Estimated additional costs for the provision of domestic biomass as chips ...... 46 Table 3 Estimated additional costs for the provision of domestic biomass as pellets ...... 47 Table 4 Analysis of billing data Upperchurch childcare centre ...... 81 Table 5 Results of solar PV site analysis Upperchurch Childcare Centre ...... 82

Page 8 of 161

1.0 Introduction

As a not-for-profit company, the mission of Energy Communities Tipperary Cooperative (ECTC) is to allow communities in Tipperary and surrounding areas, to create local employment and community benefit through reducing their carbon footprint and generating community-owned energy.

This journey started ten years ago, in 2011 when a group of community volunteers in Drombane Village near Thurles established the Drombane/Upperchurch Energy Team as a way of stimulating economic activity in the area. The Energy Team developed Ireland's first community energy plan, launched by the then CEO of Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI), Professor Owen Lewis. In 2012, the Energy Team oversaw the retrofitting of 22 houses in the parish. Seeking to emulate the success of this initial project, with support from North Tipperary Development Companies, other communities in Tipperary began similar projects. In 2014, Birdhill, Kilcommon/Rearcross, and Lorrha/Rathcabbin communities joined together with Drombane/Upperchurch and Energy Communities Tipperary Cooperative CLG (ECTC) was formed. There are currently 13 member communities of ECTC with further new communities being onboarded.

ECTC and its member communities have upgraded 840 homes and 25 community and commercial buildings, secured over €10.2 million in investment for Tipperary, with funding from SEAI. This has led to energy savings of 8.8GWh. All presided over by a volunteer board of community directors.

A decade later this Energy Master Plan (EMP), funded by SEAI under the Sustainable Energy Communities program, has been carried out by Tipperary Energy Agency to enable member communities of ECTC to assess their current and future energy needs. An analysis of the housing stock of existing communities, at the time of commissioning of the EMP, has been conducted. This will play a major role in ECTCs activities into the future as the Government seeks to retrofit 500,000 houses as part of its Climate Action Plan by 2030.

The potential of Solar PV on community buildings within four communities has been examined. The pending publication of the new Microgeneration Support Scheme will influence the outcome of these proposed projects.

An analysis of the potential of wood biomass for heating and creating employment within ECTC member communities has been carried out and a feasibility study was conducted on a micro-hydro energy scheme on a disused reservoir.

It is envisioned that this Energy Master Plan will provide a roadmap for ECTC as it strives towards its vision of a community-led energy transition which benefits communities, creates warmer, healthier homes while saving homeowners money, helps tackle climate change, and in a post-Covid world helps create new employment.

Page 9 of 161

1.1 What is an Energy Master Plan?

A Energy Master Plan (EMP) enables the local community to look at its existing and future energy needs (in terms of power, heat and transport) and state where it sees priorities for action. It also identifies opportunities that the community determines offer practical action to support its current and future energy system developments.

Energy Master Plans are co-created by local communities rather than being developed for them by other bodies (e.g. local authorities or National Government). They set out key priorities and opportunities identified by the community, assisted by a range of other organisations who have an interest in this community. These include local residents, businesses, community organisations, local authorities, distribution network operators, and local generators. A key aspect of the development process is the ability of the local community to understand its energy and transport systems, but also place them in context within the wider changes taking place across Ireland. It can therefore look for opportunities that offer local benefits consistent with national low carbon targets. These benefits can be: • Direct - such as the generation of electricity or heat for local use displacing more expensive imported grid-supplied electricity or fossil fuel.

• Economic - developing employment opportunities associated with energy supply (e.g. micro-hydro generation) or enhanced efficiency (e.g. insulation and glazing work on homes or deep retrofit projects).

• Social - Production of local energy to supply homes in fuel poverty can reduce stress and enhance health outcomes for residents.

• Strategic – using energy storage mechanisms to maximize outputs from community- owned generators or use of technology to enable better trading of locally produced energy offers the community more effective use of its local resources.

The EMP provides a start in the community’s engagement with its energy needs. It offers a focus for immediate opportunities that can be developed in the short term. It also provides scope for longer- term planning for further changes in the future.

1.2 ECTC Communities and its Local Energy System

From a pilot scheme in the Drombane/Upperchurch community in rural Tipperary in 2012/2013, a nascent ECTC was formed in 2014, as 4 communities came together to carry out energy efficiency works on older houses and community buildings, leveraging grants from the SEAI under the Better Energy Communities scheme. 111 houses and 2 community buildings were upgraded, receiving a grant of €643k and generating 1GWh (Gigawatt/hour) in energy savings.

Page 10 of 161

With this success, ECTC was formally founded in 2015 and grew to include 8 communities, and encompasses 11 electoral divisions. The board of ECTC is made up of unpaid, volunteer directors from the participating communities as well as one each from North Tipperary LEADER Partnership (NTLP) and the Tipperary Energy Agency (TEA). In 2015 and 2016, there were 261 houses and 8 community buildings upgraded, receiving a grant of €2m and generating 2.1GWh in energy savings. In 2017 & 2018 .304 houses and 10 community buildings upgraded, a grant of €2.8 and 3 GWh in energy savings. 2018 – Deep Retrofit pilot- 11 houses. In 2019/20 we retrofitted 10 houses through the Deep retrofit Pilot scheme throughout the 8 communities. By 2021 ECTC will progress to assist the Community in Retrofits that include Technical Surveys, Contractors Quotations, Project management, Quality Assurance, and partnership with local financial institutions offering Green Loans. Governance: The board of directors is made up entirely of unpaid volunteers, who come from a wide geographical area and various backgrounds. Each participating community is entitled to have 2 directors appointed to the board. For any specific piece of work that needs to be carried out by the board, a sub-committee of the directors would be formed, and these meet virtually by use of online collaboration tools and audio conference service. The sub-committee will carry out its appointed task and then report back to the full board with a recommendation which will either be accepted or sent back to the sub- committee for further deliberation. These directors report back to the local community energy teams and they also filter back any thoughts or recommendations from the local communities to the board. We also encourage and regularly have members from the local community energy teams attend the board meetings.

Our dedicated Project Manager coordinates the work, paperwork & liaises with all the relevant parties to ensure SEAI standards and deadlines are met.

The volunteer time given annually for free by the people involved demonstrates year on year to the communities participating that they believe in the scheme.

The supply of power and heat to homes and businesses is viewed strategically at a national level. However, the local communities also play a pivotal role in shaping their energy needs. From a demand perspective, householders and businesses can look to reduce their energy needs through, for example, better insulation of buildings and using more efficient lighting and appliances. The roll-out of smart meters will also enable a better understanding of actual energy consumption, rather than relying on periodic meter readings (and estimated Bills). From a supply perspective, the ECTC community can look to develop local renewable energy generation to support their energy needs. This can be, for example, at an individual consumer level (e.g. solar panels on the roof) or community scale such as investment in a wind farm, hydro scheme, Biomass supply chain, or a 100% community-owned solar electricity farm. Understanding the use of power, heat, and transport energy in the community is the first step to being able to develop local energy systems. This has several benefits:

• End users can better understand the amount of energy they use (and the mix of requirements for power, heat, and transport) • The community as a whole can understand the size of energy demand and how this is proportioned between homes and businesses

Page 11 of 161

• How much of this aggregate demand is met by the existing local generation can be more easily understood • Future energy requirements (e.g. new housing or business development) can be considered and compared with the size of the existing energy demand • Affordability and reliability of energy supply can be examined • All these details can be collated in a single information source shared by everyone This EMP provides a summary of deliverables collated from studies already undertaken by the ECTC and also by the Tipperary Energy Agency (TEA).

1.3 Overview of ‘whole system’ approach

Our energy needs, and how these are met reliably, cost-effectively, and without long-term environmental consequences are some of the key considerations for every community. The Irish government has committed to global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and this commitment will mean significant changes to how we supply., store and use energy. For this reason, the present and future energy needs of a community are most usefully considered in a ‘whole system’ approach. In this way, the overlapping impacts of how we use power, heat, and transport can be considered at the same time, rather than being seen in isolation. To apply a ‘whole system’ approach there needs to be a study boundary drawn to provide a primary area of focus. This does not exclude the linkages with neighbouring areas or opportunities that may be available within proximity of the study area (e.g. land available for energy generation). The study boundary selected for use in the present plan for the ECTC consists of 11 Electoral Divisions (ED) 9 of which are in Co. Tipperary and 2 are in Co. Limerick. “The ECTC energy action policy is motivated by a Local Community and Economic Development perspective FIRST, and national and international objectives, secondary.” The main object of ECTC is:

“The long term social transformation of member communities in Tipperary and beyond, by carrying out energy conservation and generation projects, both large scale and micro, using community development processes, to build member capacity, create local investment and employment, and achieve regional energy self-sufficiency”

Page 12 of 161

Aims and Objectives The wider consultation with the community on the potential of electricity generation using both rooftop and ground-mounted Solar Photovoltaic (Solar-PV) systems and the potential of micro renewable energy projects for micro-generation, also utilizing biomass as energy/ business within the ECTC and to encourage all stakeholders to look deeply into the deep retrofitting of dwellings in combination with the views of the Steering Group, to develop an initial set of priorities that should be addressed within the EMP

1.4 Scope of the EMP

To complete a high-level review of the Renewable Energy Opportunities/GHG emission reduction in the area of the study, to take into account the following, as outlined in the ECTC Energy Charter some research in each of these areas has already been undertaken by ECTC: - The generation of baseline energy, GHG emissions, costs of the housing stock - The potential of Knockalough (1400ft) reservoir for micro-hydro generation - The potential for establishing a wood fuel business, using forestry as the energy source - The potential of Solar PV on houses, schools, or other community structures.

Building on this, issues relating to home energy use that were prioritized within the consultation are:

• Upgrade of heating systems to remove the use of solid & liquid fossil fuel • Increase the average BER within the ECTC community from a D2 to a B2 • Deep retrofit of community’s homes • End of fuel poverty within the ECTC communities As for community-scale energy projects, the areas of priority were: • Renewable energy supplying homes and businesses • Bulk Fuel purchase • Micro-scale renewables

Page 13 of 161

2.0 Mobilising Community Led-Retrofit in the ECTC Communities

Community Led-Retrofit Summary 2021-2030

Qty of BER D to BER B2: 1,604 Homes (73%) Qty of BER C to B2: 470 (21%)

Total Energy Saved: 36,452 MWh (59%) Total Energy Saved: 3,731 MWh (6%)

Total CO₂ reduced: 10,873 tCO₂ (64.5%) Total CO₂ reduced: 1,113 tCO₂ (7%)

Total Euro’s saved: 3.38 € Million (71%) Total Euro’s saved: €346,710 (7.2%)

Introduction

The entire housing stock within 11 of the Electoral Divisions that the ECTC have communities (2,198 homes) was evaluated to estimate the Energy, CO₂ emissions, and financial savings potential if all the BER D and below rated homes and all the BER C homes were upgraded to a BER of B2. The data used to quantify the results have been taken from the 2016 CSO census, and the SEAI BER register for the study areas. Significant investment will be required by each household and from the SEAI to make the entirety of the study realised. The results obtained have been benchmarked against the 2016 baseline data that what estimated with professional engineering diligence incorporating SEAI conversion factors where necessary.

This section begins with an overview of what is a BER, maps of the communities ED within both Co. Tipperary and Co. Limerick and leads to the discussion using a graphical representation of generated data where possible to diffuse the information to a wide audience.

The results and the potentialities of a community-led-retrofit scheme are summarised in the summary section above and also at the end of this section. The investment cost required was not included herein but based on the pilot deep retrofit program previously ran the average cost of a deep retrofit for a house of from an average BER F to a BER of A3 is €58,722. Section 7 discussed this more in-depth.

Page 14 of 161

2.1 Climate Action Plan 2030

The Irish Government recently published its Climate Action Plan. The objective of the Plan is to enable Ireland to meet its EU targets between 2021 and 2030 to reduce its carbon emissions by 30 % and lay the foundations for achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The Plan has 180 actions that cover all sectors that need to be implemented to achieve these targets. Under this plan, the government in the Climate Action Plan has set a target of improving home energy efficiency through the retrofitting of 500,000 buildings to a BER B2 or cost-optimal carbon equivalent and moving buildings to more renewable heat sources with a target to install 600,000 heat pumps (400,000 into existing buildings)

Figure 1 Infographic of the climate action plan 9 (Source: Climate action Plan 2019)

Page 15 of 161

2.2 Building Energy Rating

A Building Energy Rating or BER is an energy label like the energy label on your fridge. The rating is a simple A to G scale. A-rated homes are the most energy-efficient and will tend to have the lowest energy bills. From 1st January 2009, a BER certificate became compulsory for all homes being sold or offered for rent. The BER is an indication of the energy use in your home and covers energy use for space heating, ventilation, lighting, and associated pumps and fans. The energy performance is expressed as primary energy use per unit floor area per year (kWh/m2/yr).

Looking at the overall BER ratings for Co. Tipperary for example the average BER rating is 286.9 kWh/m2/yr which is equivalent to a BER rating of a D2. According to SEAI the cost to heat this type of house to a comfortable level is approximately €4,100 based on a detached 200m2 house.

Figure 2 BER colour coded chart

2.2.1 How is My BER Calculated

A BER is based on the calculated energy performance and associated carbon dioxide emissions for the provision of space heating, ventilation, water heating, and lighting under standardized operating conditions. The characteristics of the major components of the home including dimensions, orientations, insulation, and space and hot water systems efficiencies are used in the calculation. The BER is not dependent on current occupant behaviour. The energy performance is expressed as: (a) Primary energy use per unit floor area per year (kWh/m²) presented on an A to G scale (b) Associated Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) emissions in kgCO₂/m²/yr A BER is only an indication of the energy performance of a home, similar to the concept of a fuel economy (miles per gallon or liters per 100km) rating of a car. A BER does not include electricity used for purposes other than heating, lighting, pumps, and fans. Therefore the energy used for electrical appliances such as cookers, fridges, washing machines, and TVs is excluded.

Page 16 of 161

2.2.2 How Might My Home Rate?

Table 1 Indictive Building Energy Rating grades for typical homes

These tables indicate the typical BER Rating for houses by age for various fuel types. The data reflects typical building regulations and practices at the time of construction. (Source: SEAI)

The average Building Energy Rating (BER) in Tipperary in 2016 is 289.7 (D2) kWh/m²/yr, which is approximately 11% or 30kWh/m2/yr above the national average. As residential-related emissions in 2005 constituted 25% of Tipperary’s total carbon footprint, the importance of this type of analysis is clear. Under the Covenant of Mayors: Tipperary Sustainable Energy Action plan of 2017-2020 The following were actioned to address the society and housing in Tipperary. Action 9: Utilise Better Energy Communities (BEC) funding to generate investment in energy infrastructure in Tipperary. Description: Secure BEC funding from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) and implement energy projects Cost: €5,000,000 Energy Savings: 1800 MWh/year Carbon Savings: 940 tonnes CO₂

Action 11: Energy Retrofit for Public Health Description: Provide elderly individuals at risk of health complications resulting from poor heating systems, with an energy upgrade. Cost: To be decided Energy savings: 2,500MWh/yr Carbon Savings: 750 tonnes CO₂/year

Page 17 of 161

2.2.3 BER Rating of housing stock within Electoral Divisions of ECTC

Figure 3 ECTC communities within ED boundaries Co. Tipperary

The purple areas in figure 33 and figure 34 denote community areas that are electoral divisions (ED) within ECTC with the exceptions of Kantoher, kilcommon towns, which have been included in the overall data analysis of their ED as no individual statical data is available. The data for this section has been derived from the CSO 2016 and Tipp BER register. The BER data derived in the following sections have been calculated using the housing stock profile of age, area, and fuel type and using best practice conversion factors available from the SEAI.

Page 18 of 161

Figure 4 ECTC communities within ED boundaries Co. Limerick

ECTC Communities

11 communities form part of the ECTC (see Appendix C page 139 for townlands)

• Lorrha area: 67.3 km²/16,636.3 acres/26.0 square miles and consists of 24 townlands and two ED areas ➢ Lorrha East ED ➢ Lorrha West ED • Rathcabbin ED: area 18.8 km²/4,647.2 acres/7.3 square miles and consist of 10 townlands • Terryglass ED: area 39.7 km²/9,814.1/15.3 square miles and consist of 28 townlands • Burgesbeg ED: area 20.1km²/4,976.6 acres/7.8 square miles and consists of 21 townlands • Birdhill ED: area 23.2 km²/5,727.5/8.9 square miles and consists of 14 townlands • Abington (inc. Rear cross) ED: area 49.5 km²/12,226,5/19.1 square miles and consists of 14 townlands • Foilnaman (inc. kilcommon) ED: area 24.2 km²/5,908.2/9.3 square miles and consists of 15 townlands • Curraheen (inc. hollyford) ED: area 23.6 km²/5,837.0 acres/9.1 square miles and consists of 15 townlands • Upperchurch ED: area 52.2 km²/20.2 square miles and consists of 38 townlands • Moyaliff ED: area 23.7 km²/5,846.3/9.1 square miles and consists of 16 townlands • Cappamore ED: area 18.6 km²/4,600.1 acres/7.2 square miles and consists of 10 townlands • Ballintober (inc. Kantoher) ED: area 16.2 km²/4,0007.9/6.3 square miles and consists of 13 townlands

Page 19 of 161

Figure 5 Quantity of housing and calculated BER rating (Raw data derived from CSO 2016 & references from SEAI)

The above bar chart shows the number of houses and their estimated BER ratings for the housing stock age, size and based on available CSO 2016 data. Unfortunately, there are still more homes estimated to be BER Rated G (RED) homes in existence than BER rated B (dark green) homes for example in each ED area. The most common BER rated home within the study area is a BER of D (average. 261kWh/m2/yr) which could correspond to houses typically built between the years of 1971 to 2000.

Page 20 of 161

Breakdown of BER Rating of Housing Stock ED's ECTC

BER-B or better, 46, Not Stated, 79, 4% 2%

BER-G, 354, 16%

BER-C, 469, 21%

BER-F, 342, 16%

BER-D, 786, 36%

BER-E, 122, 5%

BER-G BER-F BER-E BER-D BER-C BER-B or better Not Stated

Figure 6 Quantity, BER rating, and percentage of each BER home rating

The above pie-chart is produced from further analysis of CS0 and BER data. The colour coding is representative of each specific BER rating energy performance. The largest percentage of housing stock has a BER rating of D and accounts for 786 homes and 36% of total housing stock in the study area. The second-largest BER rating within the study area is BER C which accounts for 469 homes and 21% of housing within the study area, only 2% of homes within the study area have a BER of B or Better and not stated accounts for 4%. 2.2.4 Domestic Home Heating and Running Costs – Tipperary

Data collated from the Tipperary BER county register shows in figure 23 and figure 24 the fuel source and annual running costs for domestic dwellings built in 2011 and onwards. Oil or LPG is the largest source of fuel with heat pumps having gained a lot of traction in the market from 2011 onwards. While direct electric heating has a relatively small share from total housing stock it has the highest running costs, with oil next in line. What is interesting is the very low running costs of heat pumps, due to their very high efficiency (300-400% efficient) coupled with good airtightness in properly build homes the numbers speak for themselves. Also, this technology will become greener as more homeowners produce a share of their electricity from solar PV for example, and also the national electricity grid will have more green electricity supplied to it.

Page 21 of 161

Home Heating Fuel Source Co. Annual Running Costs from 2011 (€) Tipperary €1,400 Fossil Fuel Biomass (Solid Fuel) €1,200 0% €1,033 Heat Pump 10% 2% €1,000 Mains Gas 14% €800 Direct €628 Electric €513 11% €600 €478

€400 €295

€200 Oil or LPG €194 €194 €194 €194 €194 63% €- Oil Biomass Heat Pump Direct Elec Mains Gas

Pump & Light Heating

Figure 7 Home Heating Type Fuel Co. Tipperary Figure 8 household running costs 2011 onwards

Figure 7 shows the average home heating fuel type in Co. Tipperary, the largest share of home heating fuel is using oil/LPG at 63%, Mains Gas 14% in urban areas, direct electric heating accounts for 11%, fossil Fuel (Peat & Tuft) 10%. Heat Pumps account for only 2% and overall biomass accounts for between 0% to 1%. In Figure 8 the average cost to heat a family home on a national scale is shown since 2011 (BER of B or better). The cheapest home heating system to run is using a heat pump. With Mains Gas the next cheapest option although this is set to change within the next 10 years with the inclusion of the Carbon Tax up to 80€ per ton of CO₂ Produced. Direct electric is having the highest running costs and oil heating is the second highest (Carbon taxes) Taxes are not included.

Carbon taxes have not been included in account in figure 8

Page 22 of 161

2.2.5 Home Heating system and Fuel Type within ECTC Communities

Home Heating Fuel Type ECTC Community 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

% Fuel % type 30% 20% 10% 0%

No Central Heating Oil Natural Gas Electricity Coal (incl. Anthracite) Peat (incl. turf) Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) Wood (incl. wood pellets) Other Not stated

Figure 9 Breakdown of home heating type

Household Fuel Type of ECTC Wood (incl. wood Liquid Petroleum Not stated, 2.0% No central pellets), 6.2% Gas (LPG), 0.5% heating, 2.3%

Peat (incl. turf), 12.5%

Coal (incl. Other, 1.1% Anthracite), 8.2%

Natural Gas, 0.8% Oil, 64.8%

Electricity, 1.8%

Figure 10 Percentage type of home heating fuel

Page 23 of 161

The total number of households within the eight electoral divisions is 2,227 (CSO 2016). As can be seen from the figure10 oil heating accounts for 64.8% (1443 homes) of the total heating type and is the dominant heating fuel within the study boundary areas. The next largest share of heating fuel is peat/turf which accounts for 12.5% of fuel used (278 homes) and the burning coal/anthracite is 8.2% (182) of total homes. The communities of Lorrha/Rathcabbin and Terryglass have a higher than average percentage of heating fuel being derived from burning turf as central heating fuel, while the Cappamore in limerick has a higher than average percentage of using coal/Anthracite as their central heating fuel type.

3.0 Baseline CO2 Data for Study Area

3.1 Emission Factors 2016 was chosen as the year for the baseline, mainly due to the 2016 national Census, which is the basis of the methodologies used by the Tipperary Energy Agency. Emission factors are used to convert energy use to CO2 emissions. The emission factors are dependent on the type of fuel, which means that different fuels have different emission factors. Therefore, emissions depend on the type of fuel used, for example, renewable energy like photovoltaics would have an emissions factor of zero; this means that the total energy from renewables, when converted to CO2 emissions, would yield no emissions. This means that if energy use in a sector remains the same, but more energy is supplied by renewable energy, then the emissions in that sector will be lower than if the energy was sourced from fossil fuels or non-renewable.

Figure11 below illustrates the emission factors for different fuel types. It may be noted that solid fuel derived from peat harvesting has the highest emission factor, which means that it has the highest emissions, in kgCO₂ for every 1kWh of energy used.

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000

Figure 11 Emission Factors for Different Fuel types

Page 24 of 161

3.2 `Total Greenhouse Gases Produced Within ECTC Study Area

Total Carbon Dioxide Produced by Home Heating Fuel Type LPG tCO2, 0.46% Electricity tCO2, Nat Gas tCO2, 1.83% 0.66% Coal/anthracite tCO2, 11.16%

Turf tCO2, Oil tCO2, 66.54% 18.70%

Figure 12 Breakdown of CO₂ produced from a home heating fuel type

The total Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) produced by households heating their homes during the heating season can be seen in figure 12. Carbon dioxide emissions from oil heating account for an estimated 66.5% of total CO₂ produced within the ECTC communities and study areas. The next fuel type that has the second-highest CO₂ emissions (18.7%) is the burning of turf as central heating fuel. using coal/anthracite the third-highest source of CO₂ with 11.16% of total emissions. As can be seen in figure 11 burning peat-derived products has the highest carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (KWh) of heat produced. The communities of Terryglass and Lorrha/Rathcabbin are the highest users of this type of fossil fuel

Page 25 of 161

3.3 Home Heating Fuel Costs Within the ECTC Communities ED

Home Heating Fuel Costs Within ECTC Community ED's €1,200,000

€1,000,000

€800,000

€/Year €600,000

€400,000

€200,000

€0

Oil Turf inc. peat Coal/Anthracite Wood/pellets Electricity LPG Other Nat Gas

Figure 13 Total Home Heating fuel costs with ECTC Communities ED areas

The estimated total annual cost of heating the homes within the 11 ED’s of the ECTC communities is approximately €4.78M per year. Data modelled and based on the CSO 2016 data and the BER register the average household pays an average of €2,195 per year to pay for fuel to heat their homes. The range of estimated annual costs to heat homes within each of the ECTC’s communities is from the lowest of €1,510 house/year in Ablington ED to the highest of €2,813 house/year, that is a difference of €1,303 per year. The average home currently produces an estimated 7.85 tCO₂ per year and in a ‘Do nothing Scenario’ by 2030 will see an average of 23% (€628/yr) increase in heating bills from carbon taxes if the householders continue to use fossil-based heating fuel in inefficient homes. (See appendix C)

Page 26 of 161

3.4 Home heating and CO₂ Emissions Within the ECTC Community Areas.

3.4.1 Cappamore ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions

Cappamore ED Home Heating Fuel Type

400 334 350 300 250 200 150 94 100 No. Homes of 50 11 2 12 11 4 17 2 3 0

Figure 14 Cappamore ED central heating fuel type and quantity

The majority of central heating within the Cappamore ED uses oil (68.6%), next is Coal/Anthracite (19.3%), Tuft accounts for 2.33%, and wood fuel used is 3.5%. The average BER rating is 298 kWh/m²/yr which is 14.7 % (33.3 kWh/m²/yr) above the national average of 259.7 kWh/m²/yr which would make the average home in the Cappamore ED a BER of D2. The combined carbon footprint of emissions from the central heating of homes in Cappamore ED is 3,592 tCO₂/yr with oil, coal/Anthracite, and turf responsible for an estimated 96% of carbon dioxide emissions within this community for home heating. The average home in Cappamore ED produces an average of 8.1 tCO₂/yr. The total energy used per year to heat the Cappamore ED homes (490) is approximately 177 MWh/yr and total primary energy equivalent to 16 ktoe. The total estimated annual spend on energy to heat homes is approximately €973,653/yr or €1,987/house.

Cappamore GHG Emissions Electricity 2% Natural Gas Wood/pellets LPG 0% Other 0% 1% 1%

Coal/Anthracite 27% Oil 66%

Turf inc. peat 3%

Figure 15 Cappamore breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from Central heating

Page 27 of 161

3.4.2 Ballintober/Kantoher ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions

Ballintober ED Home Heating Fuel Type 90 82 80 70 60 50 40 30

No. Homes of 20 10 10 9 10 2 3 1 2 4 0 0

Figure 16 Ballintober/Kantoher ED central heating fuel type and quantity

The majority of central heating within the Ballintober ED uses oil (67%), The next highest is coal inc. Anthracite (8.1%) and Peat (inc. turf) is the third-largest type of fuel used to heat homes (8.1%). The average BER rating is 305 kWh/m²/yr which is 17.4 % (45.3 kWh/m²/yr) above the national average of 259.7 kWh/m²/yr which would make the average home in the Ballintober ED a BER of E1. The combined carbon footprint of emissions from the central heating of homes in Ballintober ED is 877 tCO₂/yr with oil, Coal/Anthracite and also burning Peat/turf responsible for 92% of emissions in this community for home heating. The average home in Ballintober ED produces an average of 7.9 tCO₂/yr. The total energy used per year to heat the Ballintober ED homes (123 homes) is approximately 45 MWh/yr and the total primary energy equivalent to 4 ktoe. The total estimated annual spend on energy to heat homes is approximately €265,511/yr or €2,159/house.

Wood/pellets Ballintober/Kantoher GHG Emissions

0% LPG Natural Gas Other 1% Electricity 4% 2% 1%

Co…

Tur…

Oil 69%

Figure 17 Ballintober breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from Central heating

Page 28 of 161

3.4.5 Birdhill ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions

BirdHill ED Home Heating Fuel Type 200 178 180 160 140 120 100 80 60

No. Homes of 40 8 10 8 17 10 20 5 3 2 3 0

Figure 18 Birdhill ED central heating fuel type and quantity

The majority of central heating within the Birdhill ED uses oil (73%), next is wood/pellets (7%), coal/anthracite (4.1%), turf is (3.3%), and natural gas (3.3%). The average BER rating is 290 kWh/m²/yr which is the same as the Tipperary county average but 10.4 % (30.3 kWh/m²/yr) above the national average of 259.7 kWh/m²/yr which would make the average home in the Birdhill ED a BER of D2. The combined carbon footprint of emissions from the central heating of homes in Birdhill ED is estimated to be 1,959 tCO₂/yr with oil and Coal/Anthracite and burning turf/peat responsible for an estimated 93% of carbon dioxide emissions within this community for home heating. The average home in the Birdhill ED produces an average of 8.0 tCO₂/yr. The total energy used per year to heat the Birdhill ED homes (244) is approximately 89 MWh/yr and total primary energy equivalent to 7.7 ktoe. The total estimated annual spend on energy to heat homes is approximately €480,875/yr or €1,971/house.

BirdHill GHG Emissions Wood/pellets Electricity 0% 1% Nat Gas Other 3% Peat inc. Turf LPG 2% 6% 1%

Coal/Anthracite 5%

Oil 82%

Figure 19 Birdhill breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating

Page 29 of 161

3.3.6 Terryglass ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions

Terryglass ED Home Heating Fuel Type 140 128 120 100 80 60 40 28

No. Homes of 12 20 5 0 4 1 1 2 8 0

Figure 20 Terryglass ED central heating fuel type and quantity

The majority of central heating within the Terryglass ED uses oil (60%), next is Peat/Turf (19%) and coal/anthracite is the third-largest type of fuel (17%). The average BER rating is 291 kWh/m²/yr which is 0.45% higher than the Tipperary county average but 11 % (33.1 kWh/m²/yr) above the national average of 259.7 kWh/m²/yr which would make the average home in the Terryglass ED a BER of D2. The combined carbon footprint of emissions from the central heating of homes in Terryglass ED is 1,223 tCO₂/yr with oil, turf/peat, and Coal/Anthracite responsible for an estimated 95% of carbon dioxide emissions within this community for home heating. The average home the Terryglass ED produces an average of 7.8 tCO₂/yr. The total energy used per year to heat the Terryglass ED homes (189) is approximately 67MWh/yr and the total primary energy equivalent to 5.8 ktoe. The total estimated annual spend on energy to heat homes is approximately €380,753/yr or €2,015/house.

Terryglass GHG Emissions Other Coal/Anthracit LPG other Electricity 1% e 1% 1% 2% Wood/pellets 1% 0% Turf inc. Peat 23%

Oil 71%

Figure 21 Terryglass breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating

Page 30 of 161

3.3.7 Lorrha/Rathcabbin ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions

Lorrha/Rathcabbin ED Home Heating Fuel Type

180 153 160 145 140 120 100 80 60 40 18 No. Homes of 20 2 1 6 7 0 4 3 0

Figure 22 Lorrha/Rathcabbin ED central heating fuel type and quantity

The majority of central heating within the Lorrha/Rathcabbin ED is split between oil (45%), and Turf (43%) wood/pellets (7%) and coal/anthracite is the third-largest type of fuel (3%). The average BER rating is 310 kWh/m²/yr which is 7% higher than the county average of 289.7kWh/m²/yr. and 19.4% (50.3 kWh/m²/yr) above the national average of 259.7 kWh/m²/yr which would make the average home in the Lorrha/Rathcabbin ED a BER of E1. The combined carbon footprint of emissions from the central heating of homes in Lorrha/Rathcabbin ED is 2,721 tCO₂/yr with oil, burning turf/peat, and coal/anthracite responsible for an estimated 97% of carbon dioxide emissions within this community for central heating. The average home in the Lorrha/Rathmore ED produces an average of 7.2 tCO₂/yr. The total energy used per year to heat the Lorrha/Rathcabbin ED homes (339) is approximately 111 MWh/yr and total primary energy equivalent to 9.5 ktoe. The total estimated annual spend on energy to heat homes is approximately €876,715/yr or €2,586/house.

Lorrha/Rathcabbin GHG Emissions

Electricity LPG other Nat Gas Coal Wood/pellets 2% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0%

Oil

42%

Turf 52%

Figure 23 Lorrha/Rathcabbin breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating

Page 31 of 161

3.3.8 Burgesbeg ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions

Burgesbeg ED Home Heating Fuel Type 110 120 100 80 60 40 15

20 3 3 1 2 0 4 2 8 No. Homes of 0

Figure 24 Burgesbeg ED central heating fuel type and quantity

The majority of central heating within the Burgesbeg ED is from oil (74%), and turf (10%) coal/anthracite is the third-largest type of fuel (2%), and wood fuel accounts for 2.7%. The average BER rating is 290 kWh/m²/yr which is approximately the same as the Tipperary county average and 11.7% (30.3 kWh/m²/yr) above the national average of 259.7 kWh/m²/yr which would make the average home in the Burgesbeg ED a BER of D2. The combined carbon footprint of emissions from the central heating of homes in Burgesbeg ED is 986 tCO₂/yr with oil heating and burning turf and coal and responsible for an estimated 95% of carbon dioxide emissions within this community for home heating. The average home in Burgesbeg ED produces an average of 8 tCO₂/yr. The total energy used per year to heat the Burgesbeg ED homes is approximately 54 MWh/yr and total primary energy equivalent to 4.6 ktoe. The total estimated annual spend on energy to heat homes is approximately €284,544/yr or €1,923/house.

Nat Burgesbeg ED GHG Emissions Gas Wood/pellets other 2% 0% Electricity LPG 1% 0% 2% Coal 2% Turf 15%

Oil 78%

Figure 25 Burgesbeg breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating

Page 32 of 161

3.3.9 Upperchurch ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions

Figure 26 Upperchurch ED central heating fuel type and quantity

The majority of central heating within the Upperchurch ED is from oil (67%), with turf accounting for 5.5%, coal accounting for 5.5%, and wood fuel accounting for 14% of central heating fuel. The average BER rating is 331 kWh/m²/yr which is 12.5% above the Tipperary county average of 289.7kWh/m²/yr and 21.5% (71.3 kWh/m²/yr) above the national average of 259.7 kWh/m²/yr which would make the average home in the Upperchurch ED a BER of E1. The combined carbon footprint of emissions from the central heating of homes in Upperchurch ED is 749 tCO₂/yr with oil heating, burning tuft, and coal accounting for an estimated 97% of carbon dioxide emissions within this community for home heating. The average home in The Upperchurch ED produces an average of 7.6 tCO₂/yr. The total energy used per year to heat the Upperchurch ED homes (108) is approximately 38 MWh/yr and total primary energy equivalent to 3.2 ktoe. The total estimated annual spend on energy to heat homes is approximately €248,165/yr or €2,298/house.

Nat Electricity Upperchurh ED GHG Emissions LPG other Gas 1% 1% 1% 0% Wood/pellet s Coal Turf 0% 9% 10%

Oil 78%

Figure 27 Upperchurch breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating

Page 33 of 161

3.3.10 Moyaliff ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions

Moyacliff ED Home Heating Fuel Type 120 104 100 80 60 40 13 14 7 3 3 Noof Homes 20 0 0 2 1 0

Figure 28 Moyacliff ED central heating fuel type and quantity

The majority of central heating within the Moyaliff ED is from oil (71%), with tuft accounting for (9%) coal accounting for 2%, and wood fuel 9.5% of central heating fuel. The average BER rating is 311 kWh/m²/yr which is 12.5% above the Tipperary county average of 289.7kWh/m²/yr. and 21.5% (71.3 kWh/m²/yr) above the national average of 259.7 kWh/m²/yr which would make the average home in the Moyaliff ED a BER of E1. The combined carbon footprint of emissions from the central heating of homes in Moyaliff ED is 1,027 tCO₂/yr with oil heating, burning tuft, and coal accounting for an estimated 92% of carbon dioxide emissions within this community for home heating. The average home in Moyaliff ED produces an average of 8.2 tCO₂/yr. The total energy used per year to heat the Moyaliff ED homes is approximately 55 MWh/yr and total primary energy equivalent to 4.7 ktoe. The total estimated annual spend on energy to heat homes is approximately €332,159/yr or €2,260/house.

Moyaliff ED GHG Emissions Electricity 2% LPG other

Wood/pellets 0% 2% Nat Gas 1% Coal 0% 3% Turf 14%

Oil 78%

Figure 29 Moyaliff breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating

Page 34 of 161

3.3.11 Foilnaman ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions

Foilnaman ED Home Heating Fuel Type 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

No.Homes Of 10 0

Figure 29 Foilnaman ED central heating fuel type and quantity

The majority of central heating within the Foilnaman ED is from oil (64%), with coal/Anthracite accounting for (10%), turf accounting for 9%, and wood fuel 7% of central heating fuel. The average BER rating is 311 kWh/m²/yr which is 12.5% above the Tipperary county average of 289.7kWh/m²/yr. and 21.5% (71.3 kWh/m²/yr) above the national average of 259.7 kWh/m²/yr which would make the average home in the Foilnaman ED a BER of E1. The combined carbon footprint of emissions from the central heating of homes in Foilnaman ED is 1,075 tCO₂/yr with oil heating, burning tuft, and coal accounting for an estimated 95% of carbon dioxide emissions within this community for home heating. The average home in Foilnaman ED produces an average of 7.8 tCO₂/yr. The total energy used per year to heat the Foilnaman ED homes is approximately 42 MWh/yr and total primary energy equivalent to 3.62 ktoe. The total estimated annual spend on energy to heat homes is approximately €310,310/yr or €2,630/house.

Foilnaman ED GHG Emissions Nat Gas Electricity LPGother Wood/pellets 0% 3% 1% 1% 0%

Coal 14% Turf 14% Oil 67%

Figure 30 Foilnaman breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating

Page 35 of 161

3.3.12 Curraheeb ED Heating Fuel Type and CO₂ Emissions

Curraheeb ED Home heating Fuel Type 76 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 12 11 8 Noof Homes 10 3 0 3 1 1 3 0

Figure 31 Curraheeb ED central heating fuel type and quantity

The majority of central heating within the Curraheeb ED is from oil (57%), with tuft accounting for 9% and coal accounting for 10%, and wood fuel accounting for approximately 8% of central heating fuel. The average BER rating is 324 kWh/m²/yr which is 12% above the Tipperary county average of 289.7kWh/m²/yr. and 20% (64.3 kWh/m²/yr) above the national average of 259.7 kWh/m²/yr which would make the average home in the Curraheeb ED a BER of E1. The combined carbon footprint of emissions from the central heating of homes in Curraheeb ED is 962 tCO₂/yr with oil heating and burning tuft and coal accounting for an estimated 96% of carbon dioxide emissions within this community for home heating. The average home in Curraheeb ED produces an average of 7.8 tCO₂/yr. The total energy used per year to heat the Curraheeb ED homes is approximately 40 MWh/yr and total primary energy equivalent to 3.43 ktoe. The total estimated annual spend on energy to heat homes is approximately €315,034/yr or €2,813/house.

Curraheeb ED GHG Emissions Electricity LPG Nat Gas other 3% 0% 1% 0% Wood/pellet

s 0% Coal 15% Turf 15% Oil 66%

Figure 32 Curraheeb breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from central heating

Page 36 of 161

3.3.13 Ablington ED Heating Fuel Type and used CO₂ Emissions

Ablington ED Home Heating Fuel Type

160 141 140 120 100 80 60 40 26 21 Noof Homes 10 20 3 0 2 1 2 3 0

Figure 33 Ablington ED central heating fuel type and quantity

The majority of central heating within the Ablington ED is from oil (67.5%), with coal accounting for 12.4% and turf accounting for 10%, and wood fuel accounting for approximately 4.8% of central heating fuel. The average BER rating is 303 kWh/m²/yr which is 4.4% above the Tipperary county average of 289.7kWh/m²/yr. and 14.2% (43.3 kWh/m²/yr) above the national average of 259.7 kWh/m²/yr which would make the average home in the Ablington ED a BER of E1. The combined carbon footprint of emissions from the central heating of homes in Ablington ED is 1,107 tCO₂/yr with oil heating and burning tuft and coal accounting for an estimated 97% of carbon dioxide emissions within this community for home heating. The average home in Ablington ED produces an average of 7.9 tCO₂/yr. The total energy used per year to heat the Ablington ED homes is approximately 76 MWh/yr and total primary energy equivalent to 6.52 ktoe. The total estimated annual spend on energy to heat homes is approximately €315,497/yr or €1,510/house.

Ablington ED GHG Emissions

Electricity other Wood/pellets 1% LPG 0% 1% 1% Nat Gas 0% Coal 16%

Turf 14% Oil 67%

Figure 34 Ablington breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions from Central heating

Page 37 of 161

4.0 Energy Savings within the ECTC Community 2014-2030

Since 2014 the ECTC has delivered 793 homes from a BER D1 (or worse) to a BER C1 and 31 homes to a BER of A3 and also assisted 19 communities and 3 commercial buildings to reduce their energy footprint with combined energy (Elec and Thermal) savings of 7,866 MWh/yr and 2,672 tCO₂ and financial savings within the community of approximately €918,292/yr.

Savings 2014-2020

No. of Thermal Energy savings Carbon savings Financial savings buildings [MWh/yr] [tCO₂/yr] [€/yr] Since 2014 846 9,887 2,672 €918,292

Page 38 of 161

4.1 ECTC Energy Reduction Summary infographics

To benchmark the savings against the CS0 2016 census BER register data and best practice SEAI conversion factors the various savings are as follows,

Total savings 2016-2019/2020 (benchmarked against 2016 CSO housing data for each ED)

No. of homes Thermal Energy savings Carbon savings Financial savings Since 2016 [MWH/yr] [tCO₂/yr] [€/yr] 497 6,840 1830.4 €635,678

Page 39 of 161

5.0 Energy Savings Potential 2021-2030

The top-down analysis of the 2016 CSO census data suggests that there are 786 homes with an average BER of D within the ECTC community. Under the Government Climate Action plan, the new deep retrofit program proposes to bring 500,000 homes across the state over the next decade to a BER of B2. The average cost for deep retrofit of houses from a BER of F to a BER of A3 was approximately €58,722 (SEAI). It is tricky to answer the question as to how much does it cost to deep retrofit one's home as the answer depends on man factors like size, type, age of the house the starting BER, and any work done since it was built. All these factors will influence the type of work required to bring a dwelling to BER-A rating for example. In the very broadest terms, the wider the gap to target, the higher the costs are likely to be.

The following are excerpts from the SEAI findings:

Airtightness

• Improving airtightness is an important element of delivering a high-performance home. Where airtightness is poor, heat may be lost through gaps in the house that are not visible. Poor airtightness is equivalent to having a large hole in your wall, even if the wall is well insulated. • Improving airtightness may significantly reduce the size of that hole. This will help reduce heat loss and draughts in the home, increase comfort, and will also improve the performance of your heating system. • The average pre-works airtightness for the 461 pilot homes was 10.2 m3/hr/m2. The average post-work airtightness across the entire 461 homes is now 3.8 m3/hr/m2, a 63% improvement. • After the initial phase of the Pilot, we brought in a requirement that all homes must achieve an airtightness of ≤ 5 m3/hr/m2 and we provided a financial incentive for achieving ≤ 3 m3/hr/m2. Since that requirement was put in place, the average airtightness improved by 67% with 38% achieving ≤ 3 m3/hr/m2 • This greater level of understanding of how to improve airtightness has resulted in the delivery of more energy-efficient homes that are more comfortable to live in. • With increased airtightness, appropriate ventilation is necessary to ensure good indoor air quality. This is why SEAI requires mechanical ventilation on all deep retrofit projects.

Mechanical Ventilation

• 85% of the mechanical ventilation systems installed have been Demand Control Ventilation (DCV) • 15% of the systems installed have been Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR) • The average post-work airtightness of the homes with DCV is 4.08 m3/hr/m2 (pre-works airtightness: 10.07 m3/hr/m2) Page 40 of 161

• The average post-work airtightness of the homes with MVHR is 3.04 m3/hr/m2 (pre-works airtightness: 10.24 m3/hr/m2)

Solar Photovoltaic (PV)

• 71% of homes completed have had solar PV installed • 6% of the homes with solar PV installed have had a battery installed also. • The average solar PV approved where a battery was not included is 1.63kWp • The average solar PV approved where a battery was included is 3.14kWp

(Source: https://www.seai.ie/grants/home-energy-grants/deep-retrofit-grant/key-findings/)

5.1 Retrofit Scenarios for ECTC communities

Figure 35 example best-case scenario for deep retrofit Energy Savings

Taking the 2016 CSO census data as the baseline, and working with statistical data (house age, floor area, and heating type) there are 1,604 homes with an estimated BER D or below and 470 houses with an average BER C. Given the scenario of a community-led retrofit scheme in line with the 2030 climate action plan by the year 2030 approximately 40,000 MWh of energy (64% of total energy), 12,000 tons of CO₂ (75.6% of total CO₂) and approximately 3.73 € Million (78% of total home energy spend) would potentially be saved within the ECTC communities to warm and power the various community citizen’s upgraded/retrofitted low energy homes. This would equate to 160 homes per year for 10 years with a BER D or lower getting a deep retrofit to a B2 and 47 homes per year for ten years with a BER C getting upgraded to a B2. (Appendix C).

Page 41 of 161

5.2 Conclusions and Recommendations

The task of moving the ECTC communities in line with the climate action plan is a large one, to say the least. The ECTC has been successfully driving community Led-retrofits year after year since 2012 and have the expertise to scale-up to meet the meets of its citizens in making homes more warm and comfortable, more energy-efficient, reducing greenhouse gases, and also reducing the cost to heat each home over the heating season each year. The analysis performed here outlined the scenario of retrofitting all of the homes within the ECTC who have a BER C or lower to a BER of B2. The ECTC would need to retrofit 160 homes per year with a BER D or lower and 47 homes per year with a BER C to a BER B2 a total of 207 homes per year this equated to 2,070 homes in total or 93% of the entire housing stock.

➢ It would be recommended to focus on the largest BER gap to a BER B2, this is where the highest savings can be made as can be seen in figure 68. This would equate to 1,604 homes (77.5%) of home needing improvements with a BER D or lower. The ECTC will need to win the hearts and minds of the community and offer assistance/knowledge to households that could not afford the retrofit/upgrades, convince homeowners still depending on peat products to heat their homes that alternatives like wood pellet kitchen range ‘wet’ heating systems that are now a mature, proven and reliable heating system through a pilot scheme for homes that could not be suitable for a heat pump for example.

➢ Awareness of the carbon tax that each household will be paying per year by 2030 (approximately €600 per household) in a ‘Do Nothing Scenario’ need to be conveyed to all homeowners within the ECTC communities either by meetings, emails by using infographics that now is the time for action. The pro-active action of investing in warm, energy-efficient homes is better than the re-active scenario of ‘do nothing’ and be burdened with carbon taxes of €80 by 2030.

➢ Community/school buildings need also to be made aware supports, funding, and technical expertise are available to them to make informed decisions on upgrades.

Bulk and community purchasing of heating fuel could be a short-term option to create a savings scheme for household/schools etc to save the difference of direct purchase of heating fuel versus a bulk purchase when would be cheaper.

Page 42 of 161

6.0 The Potential for Establishing a Wood Fuel Business

Introduction

Wood pellets are made from wood that has been dried, chopped, milled, and then moulded into pellets that are uniform in size and shape in a pellet mill. If produced overseas, pellets must then be transported to a port, shipped to Ireland, unloaded into transfer hoppers or storage silos at the dock, and then loaded onto trucks for delivery to depots or storage yards from where they may be distributed onwards to customers. Feedstocks for pellets can also include waste products from sawmills, such as sawdust and wood shavings, which have the advantage that they are already relatively dry. Pellets are much drier than wood chips, and this and their compressed form means that they take up less storage space than wood chips and are easier to transport.

Page 43 of 161

6.1 Overview

12% of the county of Co. Tipperary is covered by forestry and 10% of Co. Limerick is covered by forest. The county averages can be viewed in figure 9 and the private forestry income by county can be viewed in figure 10. One of the goals of the ECTC EMP was to look at the potential for establishing a Wood Fuel Business(es), using forestry as the energy source, to be generated, distributed, and used locally, with the cost of infrastructure through local finance – such as community shares and landowner input. Wood fuel from Irish forest biomass, such as firewood, is estimated by SEAI to have a carbon emission levels of 3.2gCO₂eq/MJ (11.52gCO₂/kWh), which compares very favourably with kerosene at 73.3gCO₂eq/MJ (257gCO₂/kWh) Natural gas at 56.9gCO₂eq/MJ (206gCO₂/kWh) and heat pumps at 40.4gCO₂eq/MJ (145gCO₂/kWh) when assuming a COP of 3.0 using electricity from the Irish grid.

Figure 36 Forest cover by county (source: Dept of Agriculture)

Page 44 of 161

Figure 37 Private forestry owners income by county (source: Dept of Agriculture)

The use of wood fuels from Irish forests has a significant role in reducing Ireland’s overall GHG emissions. Different grades of pellets are available. Pellets for smaller-scale boilers generally need to be of a higher quality to ensure that they do not create too much ash in the boilers. Larger industrial scale boilers, where there is more operational oversight, and other types of end-users (e.g. cofiring in power stations) can generally accept lower quality industrial pellets. Quality standards for wood pellets, such as the widely used ENplus quality certification scheme1, set criteria for the quality of pellets, including a minimum energy content per tonne, although particular brands may have higher energy contents. Pellets may be supplied bagged (typically in bags of about 15kg) for smaller-scale boilers, e.g. in the domestic market, with users typically able to order about a 1t of pellets in bags on pallets. For the larger-scale boilers, it is more typical to have bulk delivery of pellets to a storage facility or hopper, with pellets often blown from the lorry to the storage hopper. The minimum tonnage delivered in this way is typically 3 tonnes. Typical deliveries for medium size installations could be around 10 tonnes, but the maximum delivery size can be up to 32 tonnes if there is enough storage on site. Wood chips are cheaper than wood pellets (as they require less processing) but require more storage and are bulkier to transport, meaning that delivery is often restricted to a smaller area from the source of supply than for pellets. For example, in the UK most chips transported in the UK are transported over short distances (e.g. 16 km)2, and in the price analysis in tables 1,&2, the transport costs for delivery of chips are based on a maximum journey distance of 50km.

Figure 38 Potential solid biomass resources in Ireland (Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment Ricardo/ED10952)

It is estimated, based on data from the 2016 energy balance for Ireland, and information from Energy in Ireland 2015, that 2,747 GWh of wood from domestic sources are currently being used for heat and power within Ireland. This accounts for about 90% of the estimated resource that could be available in 2020. (SEAI 2016) This is set to grow with the SSRH scheme.

1 https://enplus-pellets.eu/en-in/about-us-en-in/a-quality-scheme.html

2 Evidence from Angela Duignan of the Forestry Commission quoted in E4Tech, 2010.Biomass prices in the heat and electricity sectors in the UK. Report for Department of Energy and Climate Change. Page 45 of 161

Price of Biomass

All prices have been converted from price per tonne on a lower heating value basis, using an energy content of 4,600 kWh/tonne, which is the minimum required by the ENplus standard. All prices quoted in c/kWh are exclusive of VAT. Most schemes developed under the SSRH are likely to include storage facilities due to the lower cost of bulk delivery. For large bulk deliveries (of the order of 10 tonnes or above) current prices reported in Ireland were about 4.6 c/kWh. Small ‘blown’ bulk deliveries of 3 t generally in the range of 5 to 5.3 c/kWh, with bulk bags (of about 1 tonne) slightly higher than this again, apart from Laois sawmill, which has its pelleting plant and advertises pellets at a price of under 4 c/kWh. This range of 5 to 5.3 c/kWh is consistent with SEAI’s most recent analysis of commercial fuel prices in July 2017, which gives a price for bulk delivery of pellets of 5.2 c/kWh and indicates that discounts may be available for larger quantities. Within the mainland of the UK prices for large bulk, deliveries range from about 4.6 to 5.2 c/kWh depending on the exact size of the load and the delivery distance from the depot. Some market intelligence from Northern Ireland suggests that prices there have shown a decline over the last couple of years to 4c/kWh or even lower currently. A recent survey for the UK Government reported an average price for deliveries for commercial customers of 5.1c/kWh, although there was a wider range (4.2 to 6.2 c/kWh)17. Bagged pellets are more expensive. Prices for a pallet worth of pellets (which will be about a tonne) in Ireland currently range from 5.4 to 6.7 c/kWh, with SEAI’s most recent analysis of commercial fuel prices in July 2017, giving a price of 6.2 c/kWh. Likely, only a few small boilers (perhaps in the 50kW size range) would use bagged pellets. Wood chips are generally available at a lower price than pellets, and market data suggests are currently available at between 2.9 to 3.1 c/kWh in Ireland, with SEAI fuel price data giving an average price in July 2017 of 3 c/kWh. Not all potential users would however be able to utilize wood chips rather than pellets.

Table 2 Estimated additional costs for the provision of domestic biomass as chips3

Table1&2 Costs converted at 2010 exchange rate and then inflated to 2017 prices using GDP deflators for Ireland

3 E4Tech, 2010 Biomass prices in the heat and electricity sectors in the UK. Report for Department of Energy and climate change. Page 46 of 161

Table 3 Estimated additional costs for the provision of domestic biomass as pellets4

While it was estimated that forest thinnings might be available at the roadside for about 1.2 c/kWh; it is estimated that the price of delivered woodchips from this resource would be approximately 2.8 to 3.1 c/kWh24 and for delivered pellets about 4.3c/kWh. Energy crops show similar on-costs for supply as chips (additional costs of 1.5 to 2.1 c/kWh comprising of the costs shown in Table1 and a chip supplier margin of 10% applied to the total final cost) and as pellets (additional costs of 3.0 to 3.5c/kWh comprising of the costs shown in Table2 and a pellet supplier margin of 20%). This means that energy crops and additional forest thinnings and waste wood could be available for between 3.3 and 5.5 c/kWh as chips and 4.5 to 7.1 c/kWh as pellets.

Figure 39 Estimated price of chips and pellets produced from domestically sourced biomass

The results are shown in Figure 39 for the quantities of biomass resource which could be available in 2020 (excluding straw). As discussed, it is estimated that 2,747 GWh of wood from domestic sources are currently being used for heat and power within Ireland (SEAI 2016). This accounts for almost all (98%) of the low-cost waste wood, sawmill residue resource, and lower cost forest thinnings, shown in Figure 39. These resources are already being utilized in boilers or combined heat and power plants,

4 E4Tech, 2010 Biomass prices in the heat and electricity sectors in the UK. Report for Department of Energy and climate change Page 47 of 161

often in the wood processing industry, or being used to produce pellets for other end users. This means if the extra demand generated by the proposed SSRH were to be met from domestic sources, then it would need to come from energy crops as willow and Miscanthus and additional forest thinning and waste wood, all of which have a higher resource cost than resources meeting current biomass demand.

Page 48 of 161

6.2 Forestry Statistics – Co. Tipperary (2017)

50,241 hectares of County Tipperary is under forest cover. This is 11.8% of all land in the County.

855 farmers in County Tipperary received a total of €5,194,458 in forest premium payments in 2017.

In 2017 the total volume of timber harvested in the County is estimated at 235,000 m3 overbark of which 58,000 m3 was harvested by private forest owners. The value of timber sold by private owners in the County that year is estimated to be in the region of €1,636,000. 161 hectares were planted in County Tipperary in 2017.

17% of all species planted during that year were broadleaves.

Total employment in the forestry sector in County Tipperary is estimated at 740 people.

6.3 Forestry Statistics – Co. Limerick (2017)

27,933 hectares of County Limerick is under forest cover. This is 10.4% of all land in the County.

710 farmers in County Limerick received a total of €3,822,233 in forest premium payments in 2017.

In 2017 the total volume of timber harvested in the County is estimated at 65,000 m3 overbark of which 11,000 m3 was harvested by private

forest owners. The value of timber sold by private owners in the County that year is estimated to be in the region of €132,000.

99 hectares were planted in County Limerick in 2017.

11% of all species planted during that year were broadleaves.

Total employment in the forestry sector in County Limerick is estimated at 355 people.

Page 49 of 161

6.4 Public and Private Forestry in Tipperary

The maps below summarise forestry cover and forest ownership in Tipperary, and neighbouring areas. The forested areas in green. “Special Areas of Conservation” are marked in Red. This is important to know when there is a project in progress. Felling licenses are also required in these and in the “Special Protection Areas” (marked in yellow).

Figure 40 Forest coverage in Tipperary and Limerick area [1]

Page 50 of 161

6.5 Forest Ownership

This map is taken from “Ireland's National Forest Inventory” which shows the extent and nature of Ireland’s forests, both public and private, to enable the sustainable development of Ireland’s forest resources. Privately owned forests are marked in red, public forests are marked in green.

Figure 41 Public and private forestry in the Tipperary area [2]

Page 51 of 161

Figure 42 Public and private forestry in the Tipperary area

Figure 43 Public and private forest Limerick area Page 52 of 161

6.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

The conclusion of the preliminary research carried out was that ECTC, as an organization with no paid staff, and directed by community volunteers, did not have the resources to take the study further and that the promotion and development of the wood fuel industry in Tipperary would require the time and financial commitment of a development agency staff to drive this forward.

Under the SSRH scheme the demand for wood pellets/wood chip will increase and if the increasing demand cannot be met locally, imports will increase and/or local plantations of Willow and Miscanthus will pop-up, additional forest thinning and waste wood would occur and could potentially fill the yap of supply shortages but inevitably result in a more expensive low-carbon renewable fuel as the c/kWh will increase. New jobs could be created and a new industry flourishes to give a renewed legacy to suitable bogs for the growing of willow and miscanthus type of biomass to supply homes with quality wood pellets/wood chip. It would be recommended to continue to investigate the potential of this industry, both from the production viewpoint but also the sale and supply of wood pellets to homes and small businesses within the various communities coupled with the supply of biomass, consultation with the Irish Bioenergy association about the next steps to take could be worthwhile. To replace the traditional burning of solid fossil fuel (which has the highest carbon dioxide of all the available heating fuels) high- quality wood pellet ranges could replace the peat or kerosene used in kitchen ranges and back boiler stoves and central heating system across the communities. www.Klover.it is one company offering superior wood pellet heating systems that could be a viable option for homes that would not be suitable for a heat pump for example but who wish to switch from fossil-based solid fuel to renewable biomass to get away from carbon-intensive heating systems.

Page 53 of 161

7.0 The Potential of Solar PV in the ECTC Community

Solar PV Summary

Option A Maximum Self- Consumption Option B Maximum Export to Grid

Energy Produced: 42,515 kWh/yr Energy Produced: 157,558 kWh/yr

CO₂ Reduction: 14tCO₂/yr CO₂ Reduction: 52tCO₂/yr

€ Saved: €4,073/yr € Saved: €6,810/yr

Capital Cost: €43,398 Capital Cost: €175,320

Introduction

In this section of the energy, master plan the potential for solar PV within the ECTC community to generate electricity on several community buildings was investigated. Green electricity from Solar PV systems has a huge part to play in the de-carbonization of homes, communities, and businesses across communities in Ireland. The Climate Action Plan 2019 Action Number 28 addressed the need to design and implement the first Renewable Energy Support Scheme known as RESS 1. This action has called on the need to increase both the volume and Frequency of RESS auctions to deliver on the 70% renewable electricity target by 2030. The RESS scheme has opened the door for a community to operate and own up to 100% of a renewable electricity project and receive €104.15 MWh in revenue Also, in 2021 it is expected that a Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) for export to the national electricity grid from micro-generation i.e. from rooftop PV of homes, community and small business of any electricity surplus to the requirement will be delivered. This should result in an unprecedented uptake in micro- renewables across the Irish landscape, further de-carbonization of our communities, create new jobs and skills in the workforce, and play a big part in the ‘Green Economic Recovery’ in the next decade.

Page 54 of 161

7.1 Overview The sun is an average star that has been burning for 4 billion years and is responsible for nearly all the energy available on earth. Our present demand could be met by covering 0.1% of the Earth’s Surface with solar panels using a conversion efficiency of 10%. (Crabtree and Lewis, 2007). The International Energy Agency (IEA) projected that more than 25% of the global electricity demand will be met from solar PV and concentrated solar power. This would make solar the world’s largest source of electricity. (McIntosh et al., 2017). Figure 44 illustrates the annual global solar irradiation received by Ireland and its neighboring European countries.

Figure 44 Global Solar Radiation Potential in Ireland and Europe (Solar GIS)

7.2 Opportunities in Ireland Figure 45 provides an illustrated map of the various levels of solar irradiation received by different parts of Ireland. The southern coast of Ireland receives the highest level of solar irradiance, otherwise known as global solar irradiation, receiving approximately 900 - 1300 kWh per square meter on an annual basis. In general, coastal areas receive the most solar irradiation compared to inland areas and therefore, will produce more electricity per panel. Even though some areas are better for solar irradiation in Ireland, in general, there is only around a 10% difference in energy production between the best southerly locations and worst northerly locations in Ireland.

Figure 45 Global Solar Radiation Potential in Ireland and Europe (Solar GIS)

Page 55 of 161

7.3 Estimated Solar Resource The analysis was taken from Upperchurch which is in the middle of Tipperary. Based on this analysis and used as a generalization, Tipperary can have a solar irradiance of up to 4.77kWh/m²/day during peak daylight hours. This can fall away significantly during the winter months as seen in figure 46 below.

Figure 46 Estimated annual solar irradiation1

Commercial viability will depend on the purchase cost of equipment. Over the last few years, the system costs have dropped dramatically enabling their installation in areas where previously they were prohibitively costly.

1https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/ - MR

Page 56 of 161

7.4 Is Solar PV right for me? Before considering solar panels, it is best practice to firstly reduce the energy requirement of the building. Using the fabric first approach and upgrading lighting, heating systems and equipment will significantly reduce the building energy needs. Fabric refers to the roof, walls, floors, windows, and doors in your building. This entails upgrading the insulation of your entire building and upgrading windows and doors where necessary. Upgrading existing lights to LEDs and installing new energy- efficient equipment such as heat pumps to heat water where appropriate can drastically cut electricity consumption and therefore the size of the required PV array. Solar Photovoltaics (PV) could be a viable technical solution to reduce your electricity demand from your supplier and produce green energy on your site.

Do you have a steady electricity demand during the summer?

Do you have available roof space?

Is your roof South-facing or East/West facing?

Can you use the majority of the electricity on-site?

Is your building energy efficient?

If you have answered “Yes” to the questions above, you may have a basis for a viable project. 7.5 What is a photovoltaic system? A solar photovoltaic (PV) system generates electricity from sunlight, as opposed to solar thermal panels which use solar energy to heat water. There are two types of PV systems, grid-connected, and off-grid. Grid-connected systems are connected to the mains electricity grid through a distribution panel. An off-grid system is not connected to the electricity grid and is normally only used in remote areas or for leisure activities such as caravanning and boating.

Page 57 of 161

Figure 47 How Solar PV Systems Work (Source: Phoenix Solar Power, 2015)

The PV system is made up of two main components, PV modules, and an inverter. The standard rooftop PV module is 1000mm x 1600mm and produces approximately 300 Watts at peak output. The PV modules generate electricity in the form of direct current (DC). Most appliances are powered with alternating current (AC). In Ireland, this AC electricity is 230V, with a frequency of 50Hz. Hence, the electricity from a solar PV system needs to be converted to this form of electricity. This function is performed by an inverter. A battery and a controller can also be added to the system so that excess power from the solar PV system can be stored and used when it is required later. Figure 48 below shows the main components of a PV system.

Figure 48 Basic Components of a Photovoltaic System (Incl. Battery Storage) Credit: Mohamed Amer Chaaban

7.6 Community Site-Specific Data

The five-building locations chosen for solar-PV feasibility with the ECTC boundary are: • Birdhill NS • Burges GAA • Scoil Caitriona Cappamore • St Ruadhans Hall Lorrah • Upperchurch Crèche These were selected from a long list of buildings supplied by the member communities of ECTC. The Consultant (Tipperary Energy Agency) then carried out a scoping exercise, reviewed by the ECTC Generation Sub-Committee, and recommended the first four buildings listed above. A 5th building was also included by the ECTC, in Upperchurch, on which a separate feasibility study had already previously been carried out by a different consultant. 2 sets of simulations were performed on each building to:

Page 58 of 161

1 Maximize the amount of solar-PV that would fit on the roof-space (maximum export spill to the grid) 2 Optimized sizing of solar-PV on roof space for maximum usage in school (minimum export spill onto the grid)

Page 59 of 161

7.6.1 Birdhill NS solar-PV feasibility study Bill Analysis

High-level electrical consumption analysis An initial bill analysis was carried out of Birdhill National School which is based in Birdhill Co. Tipperary. The electricity usage in May was correlated as the bill was not available. The total electricity bill for the year was approximately €5,498.61 including all charges and VAT. The annual usage by the facility was 36,125 kWh which is 8.5 times the usage of an average domestic house. The number of the months have been estimated by the electricity supplier and therefore caution, and further investigation will be required to get a more accurate electricity usage during the summer months. Currently, Birdhill National school is paying €15.47c/kWh for electricity Ex VAT and a considerable saving is possible by changing electricity supplier. Panda Power’s current price was used as a comparison and if this facility changed supplier it could save up to €989 per year.

Monthly Electricity Cost

1500

1000

EURO 500

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MONTH

Figure 49 Yearly Cost Breakdown Figure 50 Monthly Electricity Cost

Electricity Usage (kWh)

8000

6000

4000 KWH

2000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MONTH

Figure 51 Electricity Usage

Page 60 of 161

7.6.2 Solar-PV Simulations Birdhill NS

Two potential solar-PV system simulations were performed for the Birdhill national school to establish which option could be viable for the community. Option A would be to size the solar PV system so that most of the electrical energy production from the solar electric system on the roof of the school would be used by the school and only the minimum of green energy produced would be exported/purchased onto the electricity grid. The advantage of this scenario is that it is financially better to use one’s own generated energy than to export it to the grid as the export unit price will typically be a lot less than the worth of the locally generated electrical unit. Option B looks at the scenario of installing the maximum amount of Solar-PV panels on the roof space while also exporting the surplus energy to the rest thereby generating yearly revenue for the school.

7.6.3 Option A: Maximum Self-Consumption Potential from Solar PV Birdhill NS

Page 61 of 161

Page 62 of 161

The results of installing a sizeable solar-PV electrical system on a suitable facing roof of Birdhill national school would suggest that if a 13.2kWp solar-PV system was installed it would require 67.3m² of roof space provide 24% of the school electrical requirement and the estimated cost to fully install would be €11,700. The school would save an average of €1,203 per annum, and this solar system would also generate approximately €190/year income (28% exported) from electricity sales to the grid and with a 50% BEC grant have a payback in 4.2 years.

Page 63 of 161

7.6.4 Option B: Maximum Export to Grid from Solar PV Potential Birdhill NS

The results would suggest that if a 76kWp solar-PV system was installed it would require 387m² of roof space provide 45% of the school electrical requirement would be met but up to 74% of total energy generated on-site would be exported to the electricity grid with the estimated cost to fully install would be approximately €68,310. The school would save an average of €2,221 per annum in producing its electricity locally and this solar system would also generate approximately €2,496/year income(total annual savings of €4,717) from electricity sales to the grid(74% exported) and with a 50% BEC grant have a payback in 7.2 years.

Page 64 of 161

7.6.5 Summary Infographics Birdhill NS

Page 65 of 161

7.7 Burges GAA Solar-PV feasibility and Bill Analysis

High-level electrical consumption analysis A bill analysis was carried out of Burgess GAA and the total electricity bill for the year was €3,799 and the total usage was 18,859kWh. The average cost per unit is €15.45c/kWh ex VAT which is being supplied by Panda Power.

As can be seen from the graphs below the majority of the usage is during the summer months which would make this facility ideal for installing PV. The number of the electricity bills was estimated so before installing any PV a more in-depth analysis using local knowledge would be required to size the system correctly. Ideally, the electricity should be logged for a few weeks during the summer. An electricity logger will record the electricity every 15 minutes and this data can then be used to size the PV array appropriately.

The majority of electricity usage on this site over the summer months is used for heating water for showers and to provide power to the community building and the kitchen facilities. When investigating the potential for PV it is important to investigate if the appliance used for heating the hot water will be changed in the future to a heat pump which will cut the electricity usage of heating the water considerably. Also, a night rate tariff could be investigated as a further potential to cut costs.

As can be seen from Figures 52 and 53 below the electricity usage and electricity costs are negative for November and December. This is because the previous 4 months of bills were overestimated by the supplier. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain the actual usage and further investigation would be required to investigate the actual load during these periods.

Currently, Burgess GAA is costing €15.45c/kWh, totalling €3,800 per year. Panda Power’s latest rate is €13.65 c/kWh and switching to the latest plan will save the club €449 per year. If the club is already signed into a contract there may be a penalty to switch but it should be investigated further.

€452 Yearly Cost Breakdown (Total Cost €3,799) Monthly Electricity Cost €137 800 €341 600 400 €2,869 200

Electricity Cost EURO 0 -200 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Standing Charge -400 PSO Levy -600 VAT MONTH

Figure 52 Yearly Cost Breakdown Figure 53 Monthly Electricity Cost

Page 66 of 161

Electricity Usage (kWh)

4000 3000 2000

1000

MWH 0 -1000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -2000 -3000 MONTH

Figure 54 Yearly Electricity Usage

7.7.1 Solar-PV Simulations Burges GAA

Two potential solar-PV system simulations were run for the Burges GAA club to establish which option could be viable for the community. Option A would be to size the solar PV system so that most of the electrical energy production from the solar electric system on the roof of the clubhouse would be used by the GAA club and only the minimum of green energy produced would be exported/purchased onto the electricity grid. The advantage of this scenario is that it is financially better to use energy generated on-site than to export it to the grid as the export unit price will typically be a lot less than the worth of the locally generated electrical unit. Option B looks at the scenario of installing the maximum amount of Solar-PV panels on the roof space while also exporting the surplus energy to the rest thereby generating yearly revenue for the GAA club.

Page 67 of 161

7.7.2 Option A: Maximum Self-Consumption Potential from Solar PV Burges GAA club

The results of installing a sizeable solar-PV electrical system on a suitable facing roof of Burges-GAA club would suggest that if a 23kWp solar-PV system was installed it would require 120m² of roof space provide 37% of the GAA clubs annual electrical requirement and the estimated cost to fully install would be €21,006. The GAA club would save an average of €1,977 per annum, and this solar system would also generate approximately €317/year income (total annual savings of €2,294) from electricity sales to the grid and with a 50% BEC grant have a payback in 4.2 years.

Page 68 of 161

7.7.3 Option B: Maximum Export to Grid from Solar PV Potential Burges GAA

The results would suggest that if a 55kWp solar-PV system was installed it would require 280m² of roof space and provide 53% of the GAA clubs electrical requirement would be met by on-site generation. 47% of total energy generated on-site would be exported to the electricity grid with the estimated cost to fully install would be approximately €49,320. The GAA club would save an average of €2,865 per annum in producing its electricity locally and this solar system would also generate approximately €1,173/year income (total annual savings of €4,038/yr) from electricity sales to the grid and with a 50% BEC grant have a payback in 6.1 years.

Page 69 of 161

7.7.4 Summary Infographics Burgess GAA

Page 70 of 161

7.8 Scoil Caitriona Cappamore

High-level electrical consumption analysis A bill analysis was carried out on Scoil Caitriona which is based in Cappamore. The total electricity bill for the year was €4,051 including all charges and VAT and the yearly usage was 18,310 kWh. As can be seen from the graphs below the electricity consumption is uniform throughout the year. Currently, Scoil Caitriona is paying over €0.16c/kWh for electricity Ex VAT. If this facility changed over to Panda Power saving of €740 could be made.

As can be seen from the graphs below the electricity usage drops over the summer months. August shows negative usage. This is because the previous bill was overestimated by the supplier. As with most schools, electricity usage drops over the summer months when generation from PV is at its optimum therefore careful consideration will be required when deciding the size of a PV array.

Yearly Cost Breakdown €482 Monthly Electricity Cost €272 600 €334 Electricity 400 Cost €2,963 Standing EURO 200 Charges PSO Levy 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec VAT MONTH

Figure 55 Yearly Cost Breakdown Figure 56 Monthly Electricity Cost

Electricity Usage (kWh) 3000 2000

1000 KWH 0 -1000 MONTH

Figure 57 Yearly Electricity Usage Scoil Caitriona Cappamore

Page 71 of 161

7.8.1 Solar-PV Simulations Scoil Caitriona NS

Two potential solar-PV system simulations were produced for Scoil Caitriona to establish which option could be viable for the school and greater community. Option A would be to size the solar PV system so that most of the electrical energy production from the solar electric system on the roof of the school would be used by the school and only the minimum of green energy produced would be exported/purchased onto the electricity grid. The advantage of this scenario is that it is financially better to use as much solar energy that is generated on-site than to export it to the grid as the export unit electricity (€/kWh) price will be typically a lot less than the worth of the local (self-generated) generated electrical unit. Option B looks at the scenario of installing the maximum amount of Solar-PV panels on the roof space while also exporting the surplus energy to the rest thereby generating yearly revenue for the school.

Page 72 of 161

7.8.2 Option A: Maximum Self-Consumption Potential from Solar PV Scoil Caitriona

The results of installing a sizeable solar-PV electrical system on a suitable facing roof of Birdhill national school would suggest that if a 6kWp solar-PV system was installed it would require 30m² of roof space provide 20% of the school electrical requirement and the estimated cost to fully install would be €5,346. The school would save an average of €498 per annum, and this solar system would also generate approximately €87/year income(30% exported) from electricity sales to the grid and with a 50% BEC grant have a payback in 4.6 years.

Page 73 of 161

7.8.3 Option B: Maximum Export to Grid from Solar PV Potential Scoil Caitriona

The results would suggest that if a 37kWp solar-PV system was installed it would require 188m² of roof space provide 46% of the school electrical requirement would be met but up to 74% of total energy generated on-site would be exported to the electricity grid with the estimated cost to fully install would be approximately €33,300. The school would save an average of €1,141 per annum in producing its electricity locally and this solar system would also generate approximately €1,334/year income (total annual savings of €2,476) from electricity sales to the grid(74% exported) and with a 50% BEC grant have a payback in 6.7 years.

Page 74 of 161

7.8.4 Summary Infographics Scoil Caitriona

Page 75 of 161

7.9 Lorrah Community Hall Solar-PV Feasibility Study Bill Analysis

High-level electrical consumption analysis

A bill analysis was carried out of St Ruadhans Hall which is based in Lorrah, Co Tipperary. The total electricity bill for the year was €2,037 including all charges and VAT. As can be seen from the graphs below the electricity consumption is uniform throughout the year. Currently, St Ruadhans are paying €21.48c/kWh for electricity Ex VAT.

There is an extension planned at this facility which may increase electricity consumption. The majority of the electricity is consumed by a shop. The electricity demand is mainly coming from fridges, freezers, lights, and heating. The total usage is 6,316 kWh for the year which is approximately 1.5 times the average use of a domestic house.

Currently, St Ruadhans are paying a very high unit rate for electricity. If this facility changed over to Panda Power saving of €585 could be made which is approximately a 30% savings.

Yearly Cost Breakdown Monthly Electricity Cost 200 €242 €142 Electricity Cost 150 €296

€1,357 Standing Charge 100 EURO PSO Levy 50 VAT 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MONTH

Figure 58 Yearly Cost Breakdown Figure 59 Monthly Electricity Cost

Electricity Usage (kWh)

1000 500 KWH 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MONTH

Page 76 of 161

Figure 60 Yearly Electricity Usage

7.9.1 Solar-PV Simulations Lorrah Community Hall

Two potential solar-PV system simulations were run for the Birdhill national school to establish which option could be viable for the community. Option A would be to size the solar PV system so that most of the electrical energy production from the solar electric system on the roof of the hall would be used by the hall and only the minimum of green energy produced would be exported/purchased onto the electricity grid. The advantage of this scenario is that it is financially better to use on-site-generated energy than to export it to the grid as the export unit price will typically be a lot less than the worth of the locally self-generated electrical unit. Option B looks at the scenario of installing the maximum number of Solar-PV panels on the roof space while also exporting the surplus energy to the rest thereby generating yearly revenue for the school.

Page 77 of 161

7.9.2 Option A: Maximum Self-Consumption Potential from Solar PV Lorrha Hall

The results of installing a sizeable solar-PV electrical system on a suitable facing roof of Lorrha Community Hall would suggest that if a 6kWp solar-PV system was installed it would require 30m² of roof space, provide 20% of the community hall’s electrical requirement, and the estimated cost to fully install would be €5,346. The school would save an average of €396 per annum, and this solar system would also generate approximately €102/year income (total annual savings €498) from electricity sales to the grid and with a 50% BEC grant have a payback in 5.4 years

Page 78 of 161

7.9.3 Option B: Maximum Export to Grid from Solar PV Potential Lorrha Hall

The results would suggest that if a 27kWp solar-PV system was installed it would require 138m² of roof space provide 67% of the community hall’s electrical requirement would be met with up to 80% of total energy generated on-site would be exported to the electricity grid with the estimated cost to fully install would be approximately €24,390. Lorrah community hall would save an average of €582 per annum in producing its electricity locally and this solar system would also generate approximately €918/year income(total annual savings of €1,500) from electricity sales to the grid and with a 50% BEC grant have a payback in 8.1 years.

Page 79 of 161

7.9.4 Summary Infographics Lorrha Hall

Page 80 of 161

7.9.2 Solar PV simulation Upperchurch Childcare Centre The solar PV analysis for Upperchurch Childcare centre was performed by Caldor Energy Solutions. A single analysis scenario is summarised, and further details of the report can be found in Appendix B. The annual electrical consumption between January 2019 to December 2019 is 22,429 kWh/yr, It is proposed to install a 7.44 kWp solar PV system on the east/west facing roof with a pitch of 35°. This 7.44kWp installation would provide 7,099kWh or 32% of the facility's green electricity per year and produce annual savings of approximately €958/yr. the solar PV installation has the potential to save 3.32 tCO₂/yr.

Table 4 Analysis of billing data Upperchurch childcare centre

Page 81 of 161

Table 5 Results of solar PV site analysis Upperchurch Childcare Centre

7.9.5 Summary Infographic Upperchurch Childcare Centre

7.10 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the assumptions (appendix B) for calculating the simple paybacks option A which is maximum on-site usage and minimum grid export for all 5 sites offers the best return, this is because most/all the electricity produced is used on-site, as the net value of every unit produced locally is comparable to the unit cost of imported electricity from the grid, compared to an assumed export tariff of €0.055/kWh. It's financially better to consume as much electricity from a rooftop solar installation that to export ‘spill’ it to the grid. Currently, there is no export tariff for rooftop solar PV electricity, but this is expected to change in 2021 with the introduction of an export tariff.

It is also recommended to perform a Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) financial analysis for any project with a simple payback over 5 years. The reason for this is that both the NPV & IRR can show a clearer picture of the value of a renewable energy investment over 20 years for example. The NPV accounts for the time value of money and can assist in the decision-making of projects while the IRR can calculate the % rate of return of a project where applicable.

Page 82 of 161

Also, it is to be encouraged to place a display screen in public areas. These displays are invaluable for use in public areas to show visitors and employees the yields, power, and the amount of avoided greenhouse gas emission, from a renewable energy system i.e. Solar PV in large, illuminated symbols.

This makes the benefits of the systems visible to anyone at a glance. In many respects, they can be considered the most valuable component of a renewable energy system since they are the most visible. The typical cost of a display is approximate €500-€600 an example can be seen in Appendix B.

Page 83 of 161

7.11 Summary of combined Solar-PV Savings with Infographics

Option A Maximum site usage and Minimum export to grid potential- cumulative savings

Option B Maximum site usage and Maximum export to grid potential- cumulative savings

Page 84 of 161

Page 85 of 161

8.0 The potential for Knockalough (1400ft) reservoir for micro- hydro generation

Micro Hydro Feasibility Summary

17kW Project 9.5KW Project

Capital cost €192,235 Capital Cost €156,358

Income per year €6,254 Income per year €3,965

Simple Payback 30 years Simple Payback 39.4 years kWh Per Year 63,301 kWh Per Year 38,129 tCO2 Saved/year 15.5 tCO2 Saved/year 9.3

Introduction In this section of the local energy plan, the ECTC has identified a potential site for a micro-hydro energy generation project at the knockalough reservoir. The potential green energy produced (kWh/yr), GHG emissions (tCO₂/yr) saved, and financial returns (€/yr) and simple payback are shown in the summary box above. The financial projections are based on an assumed sale price of the renewable energy produced to be €104.15/MWh (€0.10415 €/kWh).

Page 86 of 161

Hydro Electric

Feasibility Study

Energy Communities Tipperary Cooperative

Knockalough Water Reservoir

By

February 2019

Page 87 of 161

8.1 Feasibility Study Summary

● This is an existing Irish Water site and there are no major technical hurdles to this development as the site lends itself to this.

● The life expectancy of new pipelines and turbines is 50 years or greater.

● Three flow options to the turbine have been evaluated for the site

7 10 L /second using the existing pipe

8 27 L/sec based on Fisheries requirements for a class 2 or 3 streams, but requiring a new larger diameter pipe

9 49 L/sec based on Fisheries requirements for a class 1 stream, but requiring a new larger diameter pipe

● The feasibility study indicates that a system of between 9.5kW to 17kW would be technically viable for this site.

● A 17 kW scheme could cost an estimated €97,000 after grant funding, generate electricity with an average net worth of €6583.3 per year giving a simple payback of 18 years and a return on investment of 5.5%

● A 9.5 kW scheme could cost an estimated €79,000 after grant funding, generate electricity with an average net worth of €3,965 per year giving a simple payback of 22 years and a return on investment of 4.5%

● Grant funding would be required to make either of these schemes financially viable. Grant funding of 50% has been included in the cost estimates to indicate the level of funding necessary to make either scheme viable.

● Flow monitoring has been undertaken for approximately a year and this should be continued if possible as more data improves the final design.

Page 88 of 161

8.2 Next Steps

• Continue flow monitoring onsite if possible

• Determine if project funding is available

• Decide whether to move into planning

• Design turbine house

• Prepare planning and construction method statements

• Commission all relevant site surveys

• Submit Planning application

• Assess options for grid connection – initiate ESB feasibility study

• Equipment sourcing (turbine, controls, intake, etc.)

• Project construction

• Commissioning

Page 89 of 161

8.3 Background

Energy Communities Tipperary Cooperative CLG (ECTC) has identified a potential hydroelectric site at the location of the existing Knockalough Water Reservoir, operated by Irish Water but soon to be decommissioned.

HydroNI has been appointed to perform a feasibility study to evaluate the site potential.

This report is the completion of that feasibility study.

The primary objective of this hydro scheme is to produce electricity for export to the grid to generate revenue. This report will outline the financial benefits below

1) Revenue generated from the sale of electricity to the grid. 2) Savings made by not having to purchase electricity from the grid.

8.4 Site Characteristics

The Knockalough Water Reservoir was constructed around 1903 ago to store water flowing down the slopes of Knockalough mountain and to provide a water supply to the town of Thurles, approximately 11km due East of the reservoir. The reservoir is currently operated by Irish Water but this use will shortly be discontinued when a new reservoir servicing Thurles is commissioned.

Figure 61 Knockalough Water Reservoir and Catchment

The site includes a reservoir with an approximate water surface area of 0.5 ha (Nov 2017). The reservoir is owned by Irish Water and is being maintained by them. Consequently, the structures appear to be in a good state of repair.

On-site discussions with Irish Water personnel indicate that the reservoir can be drawn down by between 4 and 5 meters. This gives potential storage capacity in excess of 20,000m3 which is beneficial for any proposed hydro turbine development and is an unusual additional resource to have available. Page 90 of 161

Water is conveyed from the reservoir to an open inspection point approximately 150m downstream of the reservoir and then onto the adjacent filter beds. The water is conveyed from the filter beds to Newtown National School in a 6” ductile iron pipe which the Irish Water personnel believes to be in good condition.

Photo 1: Open inspection chamber

Figure 62 Reservoir and filter beds layout Page 91 of 161

Figure 63 Map showing pipeline from reservoir to Newtown National School

Photo 2: Newtown National School

Page 92 of 161

It is proposed to use the existing 6” pipe from the reservoir to supply water to a new turbine to be located at or adjacent to Newtown National School. Several modifications are required at the filter bed area to achieve this:

1. Install a length of ductile pipe to seal the open section at the inspection point.

2. Bypass the filter beds by installing a short length of pipe (estimate 25 meters) between the last valve at the side of the filter beds and the pipe exiting the filter beds.

Note that the existing 6” pipe restricts the flow to the turbine to 10 liters per second. Above this flow rate, the head loss in the pipe is excessive.

A site-level study has previously been carried out; this indicated that a gross head of 50m is available from the original crest of the reservoir at the intake point to the proposed return point in the stream at Newtown National School. This is consistent with OS mapping for the area and is used as the basis of the calculations in this report.

A single-phase grid connection is available at Newtown National School. Consultation with the ESB should be undertaken to verify actual costs at an appropriate time in the development of this project. An estimate for this has been included in the cost breakdown section of this report.

8.5 Planning Approval

This development will require planning approval. The planning approval will be carried out through the normal planning process with the County Council. As proposed this hydro scheme will produce electricity for export to the grid with little prospect for use onsite.

A search of the EPA database for this site was carried out to identify any built heritage, archaeological or historic interest, none were found.

A further search of the EPA database was carried out to identify any environmental protection designations.

The map extract below indicates that the stream is currently designated “not at risk”.

Page 93 of 161

Figure 64 River Water Bodies Risk – not at risk

Page 94 of 161

Glashahulla -- Knockalock Reservoir is one of the National Water Monitoring Stations (Stationed RS16G090100). The construction and operation of a hydro turbine at Newtown National School would not be expected to cause any impact on water quality.

The following map shows that the stream is a tributary of the Lower Suir SAC (special area of conservation), but it lies approximately 2,600 meters outside the SAC. (The SAC boundary is shown in light brown)

Figure 65 Lower Suir SAC

The Lower River Suir SAC (site code: 002137) is selected for the following Annex I habitats: salt meadows, floating river vegetation, eutrophic tall herb communities, alluvial forests, old oak woodlands, and yew woodlands.

The following Annex II species are listed for Lower River Suir SAC: freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera), white-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes), sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri), river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis), twaite shad (Alosa fallax fallax), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and otter (Lutra lutra).

The Annex II species would be of interest in any application to develop most new hydro turbine projects. However, this hydro turbine proposal will utilize existing structures that have been in place since 1903 and therefore any environmental impact will be non-existent/minimal as the proposal is to reuse an existing pipeline and then return the water to the stream. Inland Fisheries Ireland may request a fish pass at the location where the stream enters the reservoir.

Page 95 of 161

Consultation with the appropriate departments within the EPA and/or County Council should be undertaken early in the planning process. This would ensure that any proposed development could be designed appropriately to protect the environment. A bat survey of Newtown National School may be requested by the EPA

Planning legislation may mean that a formal Environmental Impact Assessment would be required. This may also need to include flora & fauna and fisheries studies. Consultation with Fisheries Ireland would be recommended to ensure all aspects of fisheries protection if required are also covered within the EIA. An inquiry should be made to Tipperary Council Planners asking if an EIA is required.

Schedule 5, Section 3 (Energy Industry) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 specifies those planning applications that require an Environmental Impact Assessment to be submitted with the planning application as follows:

Installations for hydroelectric energy production with an output of 20 megawatts or more, or where the new or extended superficial area of water impounded would be 30 hectares or more, or where there would be a 30 percent change in the maximum, minimum, or mean flows in the main river channel. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/si/600/made/en/print#part10

Page 96 of 161

8.6 Available Water Flow

The amount of water available for generating hydropower has been measured at 6-hour intervals from 9th November 2017 to 12th December 2018 by a level sensor located upstream of a V notch weir. There is evidence along the bank that floods overtop the bank with the result that the recording of flood flows will be inaccurate. However, turbines are not designed for flood flows so this inaccuracy is not considered crucially relevant. This data has been used to determine the site's flow duration curve.

Photo 3: level sensor positioned upstream of V notch weir

Figure 66 Catchment area of site 1.77 km2

Page 97 of 161

There is a requirement to maintain a residual flow in the natural watercourse at all times. The level of this flow will be set by IFI & EPA. Our initial impression is that the stream could be considered either:

Category 1 where a base flow provision of 12.5% of the long-term mean flow (Qm) is recommended.

Or

Category 2/3 where

• A base flow provision of 12.5% of the long-term mean flow (Qm) is recommended.

• Abstraction should not exceed 50% of the available flow upstream of the intake point, provided the minimum base flow provision above is satisfied.

(The full description is included in Appendix 1)

We will evaluate the site under both requirements.

Figure 67 Flow Duration Curve (50% residual worst case)

The flow duration curve shown above in Figure 7 assumes that the residual flow is as required for a Category 2 or 3 river and is a worst-case scenario.

The blue portion of the graph represents the amount of flow that can be used for the generation of electricity. The section at the base of the graph below the blue area indicates the residual or “hands- off” flow which must remain in the river at all times. The section Page 98 of 161

above the blue area represents flood flow. This flood flow is difficult to economically use for hydropower and so is not included in the calculations.

Figure 68 Flow Duration Curve (12.5% residual best case)

The flow duration curve shown above in Figure 8 assumes that the residual flow is required for a Category 1 river and is a best-case scenario.

As per the previous illustration, the blue portion of the graph represents the amount of flow that can be used for the generation of electricity. The section at the base of the graph below the blue area indicates the residual or “hands-off” flow which must remain in the river at all times. The section above the blue area represents flood flow. This flood flow is difficult to economically use for hydropower and so is not included in the calculations.

Note that the maximum flow to the turbine is limited by the carrying capacity of the existing pipeline to 10 liters / second and restricts the power output to a maximum of 2.4 kW.

Page 99 of 161

8.7 EPA Water Abstraction Registration

This is a recently introduced requirement (please see appendix) and other than a need to register, we do not have information on how the EPA will regulate non-consumptive water abstraction or if there will be any fees for using the water.

Page 100 of 161

8.8 Generation Potential ECTC would like to identify the maximum generation potential for the site. HydroNI standard sizing criteria to determine the most economic size would indicate that a system of either 17kW or 9kW capacity could be viable at this site.

However, consideration must be given to the carrying capacity of the existing 6” pipeline. This is a relatively small diameter pipe, and this limits the design flow for hydro to around 10 Litres/second. The head loss in the pipe becomes unacceptable at flows in excess of this. For example, at a flow of 15 L / second, the head loss is 10m or 20% of the available head.

Turbine rated flow (l/s) 10 27.5 49

Gross Head (m) 50 50 50

Existing Pipe Diameter 6” N/A N/A

Replacement Pipe Diameter OD N/A 280mm 315mm

Pipe Head Loss (m) 4.5 1.7 2.9

Maximum Turbine Power kW 2.4 9.5 17.0

Projected load factor 61% 44% 41%

Estimated annual output (kWh) 12,900 36,210 61,374

Value of electricity €/kWh €0.07 €0.07 €0.07

Annual Value €903 €2,500 €4,300

Note that assuming that each occasion that the reservoir storage capacity of 20,000m3 is fully drawn down will generate an additional amount of energy as follows:

Turbine rated flow (l/s) 10 27.5 49

Hours to draw down 20,000m3 556 202 113

Estimated additional output (kWh) 1,333 1,919 1,927

Value of electricity €/kWh €0.07 €0.07 €0.07

Additional Value €93 €134 €135

Assuming that the reservoir will be drawn down ten times p.a. Page 101 of 161

Total Annual Value €1,000 €3,800 €5,650

8.9 Turbine Selection

A Crossflow turbine would be best suited to this site. HydroNI is very familiar with this type of turbine with almost 30 crossflow turbines installed ranging in size from 16 to 1500 Litres per second and heads ranging from 5 to 90 meters.

One company specializing in these is Ossberger. Ossberger is probably the largest manufacturer of turbines in Europe. The company was founded in 1873 and has been manufacturing turbines since 1906, with almost 10,000 installations to their credit worldwide. The photo below shows an Ossberger cross-flow turbine for a similar site.

The Ossberger crossflow turbine is internally divided, enabling maximum efficiency to be achieved, even at low flows. This is demonstrated in the graph shown above.

A budget quote of €40,000 has been provided by Ossberger for a suitable 49 L/sec ~ 17kW turbine plus a further €13,500 for a belt-drive, generator, and control system. This price includes the turbine, generator, control system, and transportation to the site. The installation costs are estimated at €7,0 Page 102 of 161

Ossberger declined to quote for the 10 L/sec and 27 L/sec turbines.

Quotations for these were requested from an alternative cross flow manufacturer (Cink) who also declined to quote for the 10 L /sec option but provided a budget price of “about €18,700” but go on to state that it would be at the very limit of their manufacturing scope, it would turn at about 1500 rpm and generate some 9 kW, considering 45 m of the net head. Budget a further €10,500 for a belt- drive, generator, and control system. The installation costs for this option are estimated at €7,000.

8.10 Control System

The control system will fully regulate the turbine, automatically ramping the turbine up / down based on the available water as determined by the level sensors located at the dam.

The control system will be fully compliant with ESB requirements, e.g. in the event of a power failure on the ESB lines the control panel will perform a controlled shutdown of the turbine and will automatically restart the turbine once the ESB power is available again and has been stable for 3 constant minutes.

The control system has the capability of remote access using either Broadband or the 4G network. This would be an extra cost of approximately €2,000

Page 103 of 161

8.11 Intake

The intake will involve the use of the existing intake at the dam at the reservoir. This will be used to divert a portion of the flow from the river via the dam and ideally into a new larger diameter pipeline between the dam and the turbine.

As a compromise, it may be possible to use the existing pipe from the dam to the inspection chamber after which it will be converted to the larger diameter pipe from this point to the turbine.

It will be necessary to install a control system capable of ensuring the residual flow is always protected in the natural stream. This would normally be in the form of a notch in the weir sized to allow the residual flow to pass through. The level sensor would then be used to ensure that when the water level drops below the crest of the notch in the weir no abstraction takes place, and all flow is directed down the natural stream.

For this site, a level sensor will be installed at the V notch in the stream and in the dam itself. This will serve two purposes:

1) It will be linked to the turbine to regulate the amount of water taken by the turbine.

2) It will maintain a supply of water in the natural channel to preserve a residual flow at all times.

This mechanism will ensure that the continuity of the turbine is maintained while also protecting the equipment and the habitat.

Photo 4: existing V notch in stream

Page 104 of 161

Photo 5. Location of existing pipe at the dam

Page 105 of 161

8.12 Turbine House

The turbine house will be located adjacent to the old National School currently used by Irish Water. The building would be approximately 4m x 5m and would contain the turbine, generator, import/export meter & control panels. This will require a small variation of the pipe route through the neighboring field.

Photo 6. National School

To minimize cost, a basic turbine house with a block-built sump chamber, reinforced concrete floor, metal clad walls, and the roof is envisaged.

Having passed through the turbine the flow will be returned to the stream immediately adjacent to the School. A 25mm bar screen will be installed at the return point to prevent entry back into the turbine from fish, animals, or humans.

8.13 Grid Connection

A connection to the nearby ESB grid will be required. Due to the relatively small size of the generator, obtaining a grid connection should not present difficulty. ESB will not accept applications until Planning Approval has been obtained.

Recent experience of ESB processing time is 12 months following application. A budget of €10,000 has been provided in the cost projections.

8.14 Overall Outlay

The overall cost estimates for this project are outlined below. Funding will be required to make this project financially viable, a grant rate of 50% has been included to demonstrate the level of funding required to achieve this. Page 106 of 161

Project Cost Estimate 49 L/second ~ 17kW (excluding VAT)

Stage Item Fees Labour Total Cost Feasibility Study 1450 €1,450 Feasibility

Hydrological measurement and flow model 0 0 €0 Abstraction Licence application 0 0 €0 Site Topographical survey 0 500 €500

Create plans for development, Preparation of statement Planning outlining the planning proposal, construction method a statement, Abstraction application documents 7000 €7,000 Submit planning application 150 €150 Planning and license application support 2500 €2,500 Subtotal €10,150

Flora and Fauna survey 1000 € 1,000 Planning Fishery Impact statement 2000 € 2,000 Contingency Flood risk Assessment 1000 € 1,000 Subtotal € 4,000

Planning Subtotal € 14,150

ESB network connection and capacity study 1360 €1,360 Pre-Construction EIA Documents (Contingency) 1000 € 1,000 Preliminary technical works and tender development 5000 € 5,000 Subtotal € 7,360

Material Labour Total Cost Construction detailed drawings 5,000 € 5,000 Intake: build Weir, Intake screen, sluice, sensor 7,500 € 7,500

Pipe installation 52,803 € 52,803 Construction Civil Engineering works at turbine house 10,000 € 10,000 Turbine, Generator, Control system, and sluice 53,500 7,000 € 60,500 Grid connection & metering estimate 10,000 € 10,000 Project Management € 9,856 Contingency - 10% € 15,066 Construction phase subtotal € 170,725

Grant Planning Stage @ 50% -€ 10,755 Construction Stage @ 50% -€ 85,362 -€ 96,117

Total Costs after Grant € 97,567

Return on Investment

Total Costs € 97,567

Project Annual value € 6,583 Less 5% for annual operating & maintenance costs € 329 Net Annual value € 6,254

Simple payback period (years) 15.6

Return on Investment 5.50% Page 107 of 161

Project Cost Estimate 27 L/second ~ 9.5kW (excluding VAT)

Stage Item Fees Labour Total Cost Feasibility Study 1450 €1,450 Feasibility

Hydrological measurement and flow model 0 0 €0 Abstraction Licence application 0 0 €0 Site Topographical survey 0 500 €500

Create plans for development, Preparation of statement Planning outlining the planning proposal, construction method a statement, Abstraction application documents 7000 €7,000 Submit planning application 150 €150 Planning and license application support 2500 €2,500 Subtotal €10,150

Flora and Fauna survey 1000 € 1,000 Planning Fishery Impact statement 2000 € 2,000 Contingency Flood risk Assessment 1000 € 1,000 Subtotal € 4,000

Planning Subtotal € 14,150

ESB network connection and capacity study 1360 €1,360 Pre-Construction EIA Documents (Contingency) 1000 € 1,000 Preliminary technical works and tender development 5000 € 5,000 Subtotal € 7,360

Material Labour Total Cost Construction detailed drawings 5,000 € 5,000 Intake: build Weir, Intake screen, sluice, sensor 7,500 € 7,500

Pipe installation 46,621 € 46,621 Construction Civil Engineering works at turbine house 10,000 € 10,000 Turbine, Generator, Control system, and sluice 29,200 7,000 € 36,200 Grid connection & metering estimate 10,000 € 10,000 Project Management € 7,722 Contingency - 10% € 11,804 Construction phase subtotal € 134,848

Grant Planning Stage @ 50% -€ 10,755 Construction Stage @ 50% -€ 67,424 -€ 78,179

Total Costs after Grant € 79,629

Return on Investment

Total Costs € 79,629

Project Annual value € 3,965 Less 5% for annual operating & maintenance costs € 198 Net Annual value € 3,767

Simple payback period (years) 22.1

Return on Investment 4.53% Page 108 of 161

8.15 Cost benchmarking

As a cost benchmarking exercise, we have included a copy of a chart showing the costs of a similar run of river hydro schemes in the UK. This chart has been produced in October 2009 by the British Hydropower Association (BHA) in response to a government consultation on the proposed feed-in tariff. Unfortunately, the data is quite old, but it is the most recently available data.

The green line represents the BHA’s best fit of actual costs. The blue line is the cost model for these schemes developed by the government’s independent consultants, Element energy.

Our cost estimates for the 17kW project indicate a cost/kW of approximately €10,875/kW (excluding grant funding) to complete this project. This is an indication that this project costing is consistent with industry standards, is relatively straightforward, and that the costs included are reasonable and competitive.

Project cost

Page 109 of 161

8.16 Estimated Return on Investment

The estimated costs for this project are detailed in the table on pages 33 & 34. These can be summarised as:

17kW Project

Total Capital Cost € 192,235

Less Potential funding at 75% €144,176

Net Capital Cost € 48,059

Annual electrical value € 6,583

Less 5% maintenance € 329

Net Annual Income € 6,254

Simple payback 8.9 years

Return on Investment 11.2%

9.5 kW Project

Total Capital Cost € 156,358

Less Potential funding at 75% €117,268

Net Capital Cost € 39,090

Annual value € 3,965

Less 5% maintenance € 198

Net Annual Income € 3,767

Simple payback 10.8 years

Return on Investment 9.2%

Page 110 of 161

8.17 Concluding Recommendations

Without any grant funding there currently exists a long payback with either the 17kW Hydro project of 30 years or the 9.5kW Hydro option at 9.3 years. With 50% SEAI funding the paybacks would reduce to approximately 15 years and 4.65 years respectively based on the RESS 1 auction price as an example. (RESS criteria is >500kW projects) If the green electrical energy could be produced and used locally by a small community-owned business venture either on or near the site it could potentially add a green label to the community business brand with the delivery of goods or services all the while reducing the financial overheads of the cost of energy in the years ahead. Solar PV could also be installed at the site to maximize the renewable potential of this green energy local business park’ potentially in synergy with a community biomass project for example that could come out of the awareness of biomass within the ECTC community in section 3 of this document. It would be recommended to further explore this potential and undertake a more in-depth financial appraisal of any potential projects proposed. The ECTC is further exploring the potential of this hydro project and some examples of ideas being generated within the ECTC are: ' The primary objective of the Hydro scheme is to generate green electricity, to bring in revenue, and help to give rise to new community venture(s). Desk investigations have begun into the following possibilities -

1. VERTICAL Farming - using a hydroponic indoor system for growing a microgreen range of plants. Water and power are key components of the process. It would be an import substitution venture. See website - https://farmony.ie/

2. Biomass - a process of converting field vegetation such as grass, rushes, wood, and certain wastes - to 'harvest' electricity and make charcoal biochar products. The 'Premier green Energy' company - based at Sugar Factory site Thurles are an engineering Co who are into the electro-mechanical / energy aspect of setting up. https://www.pge.ie/

3. Biomass – Development of a small-scale wood pellet manufacturing facility that could be automated to use 100% of the Hydroelectricity for the various stages of small-scale wood pellet production. This heating fuel could then be distributed to homes/businesses at an affordable price that has been upgraded to wood pellet stoves/boilers and wood pellet ranges replacing their fossil fuel counterpart under the BEC scheme.

Page 111 of 161

Appendices

Appendix A Hydro

The current IFI Guidelines on the Construction & Operation of Small-Scale Hydro-Electric Schemes and Fisheries are as follows:

Category 1 Rivers:

Where there is no upstream migration in the river channel in the depleted stretch due to an impassable natural barrier. Normally a steep fall is present between the intake and outlet locations. The impacted stretch is short with no substantial trout population or no spawning potential and rock pools are present and sufficient to maintain any resident stocks.

• A base flow provision of 12.5% of the long-term mean flow (Qm) is recommended.

Category 2 Rivers:

River channel sections that include an impassable barrier but within which fish movement is possible.

• A base flow provision of 12.5% of the long-term mean flow (Qm) is recommended.

• Abstraction should not exceed 50% of the available flow upstream of the intake point, provided the minimum base flow provision above is satisfied.

Category 3 Rivers:

River channel sections where there is an internal movement within the depleted stretch, where there are spawning and nursery potential, and where there is also fish movement through the stretch.

• A base flow provision of 12.5% of the long-term mean flow (Qm) is recommended.

• Abstraction should not exceed 50% of the available flow upstream of the intake point, provided the minimum base flow provision above is satisfied.

• Further fisheries impact mitigation measures to be recommended if deemed necessary on a site-specific basis. This could include a recommendation on increased base flow provision above 12.5%.

• To enable fish passage, an adequate number of freshets, short-term simulated floods to allow upstream movement, should be stipulated as part of the operating conditions at the appropriate time required.

• In situations where the compensation flow is through a long channel, fish may be enticed up and then become stranded in shallow water when the ‘freshet’ has passed. Allowance must therefore be made for site-specific recommendations. Page 112 of 161

Category 4 Rivers:

River channel sections of high fisheries value where the impacts of the proposed hydro scheme development would be unacceptable from a fisheries perspective.

• Where it can be demonstrated that an important angling stretch is located in the area of the proposed scheme or where the proposed scheme is located in a very important spawning or nursery area for salmonids, coarse fish, or lamprey in the context of the specific catchment, these locations are deemed to be particularly sensitive to any alteration in the flow regime in the natural channel.

It is recommended in these circumstances that the development does not proceed.

The above criteria should apply for all new small-scale hydroelectric proposals and compensation flow criteria currently in place at existing schemes should be reviewed in light of these recommendations. It may be possible to develop site-specific flow management strategies at some time after the commencement of a scheme if the developer can monitor flow and fish movement and satisfy the Fishery authority that a change from the above recommendations is warranted

Page 113 of 161

EPA Water Abstraction Registration

The EPA has recently introduced a requirement to register water abstractions. The following information has been copied from their web site http://www.epa.ie/licensing/watwaste/watabs/

The EPA has launched a register of water abstractions in accordance with the European Union (Water Policy) (Abstractions Registration) Regulations 2018 (S.I. No. 261 of

2018). People who abstract 25 cubic meters (25,000 litres) of water or more per day are required to register their water abstraction. Development of a register of water abstractions is a requirement of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and has been signalled in the River Basin Management Plan 2018-2021.

Aim of Water Abstraction Register

Responsible management of water resources involves ensuring that river flows, lake and groundwater levels can sustain aquatic environments, while also allowing the use of water for drinking water supply and other agricultural, commercial, industrial, and recreational purposes. To assess if our water resources are being managed sustainably, it is important to know what volume of water is being abstracted and from which rivers, lakes, and groundwater.

This water abstraction register aims to capture this information and the data will be used in conjunction with information on discharges, flow and water level data, and water status to identify if there are any rivers, lakes, or groundwater bodies that have unsustainable abstractions that require active management.

Requirement to Register

The requirement to register relates only to abstractions with a daily maximum volume of 25 cubic meters (25,000 litres) or more. Existing abstractions greater than this volume must be registered through the EPA EDEN portal within four months of the commencement of the regulations, i.e. by 16th November 2018. Thereafter, for new abstractions, there is a requirement to register within one month of the commencement of the abstraction.

There is no requirement to register abstractions with a daily maximum volume of less than 25 cubic meters (25,000 litres). It will not be possible to complete a registration if the daily maximum volume is less than 25 cubic meters (25,000 litres). Small private supplies, e.g. using domestic wells (which typically abstract between 0.5 - 1.0 cubic meter of water per day) do not require registration.

Steps in Registering

The following are the steps to register an abstraction. More detailed support information for the registration process is here.

Page 114 of 161

Check if your abstraction has a daily maximum volume of 25 cubic meters (25,000 litres) or more. If the abstraction volume is not directly measured these support materials may help to estimate the abstraction volume. Document the measurement or estimation of the volume and retain it for future reference. Domestic wells typically abstract less than one cubic meter of water per day and do not require registration.

o If the daily maximum volume is less than 25 cubic meters (25,000 litres) per day you cannot register so need no go any further.

o If the daily maximum volume is greater than or equal to 25 cubic meters (25,000 litres) per day proceed to the next step.

2. Sign up for access to the EDEN website and request access to the Water Abstractions Module. 3. Review the privacy policy and the registration support materials.

4. Submit your abstraction details in the Water Abstractions Module. A registration code will be issued and should be retained as proof of registration.

Page 115 of 161

Appendix B Solar-PV

Assumptions made in Calculations

Export payment (€/kWh) €0.055 Day Rate electricity (€/kWh) €0.137 PV Cost (€/kWh) €900 Grant (%) 50% gCO₂/kWh 0.331

Page 116 of 161

Birdhill NS Min Spill

Page 117 of 161

Page 118 of 161

Page 119 of 161

Page 120 of 161

Page 121 of 161

Birdhill NS max spill

Page 122 of 161

Page 123 of 161

Page 124 of 161

Page 125 of 161

Page 126 of 161

Page 127 of 161

Burges GAA min spill

Page 128 of 161

Page 129 of 161

Page 130 of 161

Page 131 of 161

Page 132 of 161

Burges GAA max spill

Page 133 of 161

Page 134 of 161

Page 135 of 161

Page 136 of 161

Page 137 of 161

Scoil Caitriona Min Spill

Page 138 of 161

Page 139 of 161

Page 140 of 161

Page 141 of 161

Page 142 of 161

Scoil Caitriona max spill

Page 143 of 161

Page 144 of 161

Page 145 of 161

Page 146 of 161

Lorrha Hall min spill

Page 147 of 161

Page 148 of 161

Page 149 of 161

Page 150 of 161

Page 151 of 161

Summary table of Results

Page 152 of 161

Examples of Renewable Energy Displays

Page 153 of 161

Appendix C Housing

Main Fuel Fossil Fuel (Solid Mains Gas Oil or LPG Direct Electric Heat Pump Biomass TOTAL Fuel) 179 1597 602 19 4 297 2401 226 1503 340 14 3 311 2086 299 1205 172 26 1 178 1703 217 1067 64 8 0 156 1356 416 2389 106 26 6 511 2943 321 2024 145 38 4 407 2532 576 2682 510 143 2 349 3913 1525 4552 1119 104 22 449 7322 35 140 18 80 10 0 283

Bands (kWh/m2/year) Average BER Average Floor BER Scales Lower Limit Upper Limit Age Bands Count BER Score (kWh/m2/yr) Area (m2) A1 25 0 Pre 1919 2,710 458 G 115 A2 25 50 1919 - 1945 2,405 415 F 95 A3 50 75 1946 - 1960 1,883 382 F 96 B1 75 100 1961 - 1970 1,513 316 E1 102 B2 100 125 1971 - 1980 3,455 283 D2 106 B3 125 150 1981 - 1990 2,940 263 D2 113 C1 150 175 1991 - 2000 4,269 238 D1 124 C2 175 200 2001 - 2010 7,802 205 C3 127 C3 200 225 2011 or Later 316 90 B1 179 D1 225 260 D2 260 300 27,293 287 D2 7,830,864 E1 300 340 27,293 113 B2 3,070,463 E2 340 360 224 Uplift (D2 to A3) F 360 450 21,212 63 A3 4,760,402 G 450

Average Average Door Wall U- Weighted House- Average Roof U- Average Floor U- Average Window U-Value Value wide U-Value Value (W/m2K) Value (W/m2K) U-Value (W/m2K) (W/m2K) (W/m2K) (W/m2K) Pre 1919 1.10 0.72 3.33 2.70 1.53 1.33 1919 - 1945 0.81 0.69 3.17 2.72 1.29 1.14 1946 - 1960 0.63 0.69 3.12 2.69 1.25 1.06 1961 - 1970 0.43 0.69 3.05 2.66 0.79 0.84 1971 - 1980 0.28 0.65 2.95 2.65 0.59 0.71 1981 - 1990 0.22 0.57 2.91 2.67 0.43 0.61 1991 - 2000 0.23 0.42 2.84 2.76 0.42 0.58 2001 - 2010 0.23 0.36 2.46 2.78 0.39 0.52 2011 or Later 0.16 0.18 1.46 2.01 0.20 0.30

Page 154 of 161

Page 155 of 161

Emission Factors & Unit Cost

Liquid Fuels Solid Fuels and Derivatives Emission Factors Gas Renewable Energies Electricity (2019) Petroleum Solar Natural Gas Gasoline (Petrol) Diesel Kerosene Gas/Diesel OIL LPG Coal Milled Peat Sod Peat Peat Briquettes Onsite Generation Biogas Biodiesel Bioethanol Other Ave Coke Thermal kgCO₂/kWh 0.254 0.206 0.252 0.264 0.257 0.264 0.229 0.363 0.341 0.420 0.374 0.356 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 €/kWh 0.2 0.0685 0.0714 0.0732 0.1153 0.0602 0.110 0.045 0.0929

The national emission factors produced by the SEAI were used throughout this study and may be found in the above table. Calorific Values https://www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/conversion-factors/ Domestic Fuels comparison of energy costs https://www.seai.ie/publications/Domestic-Fuel-Cost-Comparison.pdf The CO₂ equivalents were used from international approximations (Climate Change Connection, 2017)

https://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equivalents/

Page 156 of 161

Cappamore ED Limerick Period Built Households Persons Central heating Households % BER Rating kWh/m2/yr Tonnes CO₂ Average floor Area [m2] Total MWh/yr Total tonnes CO2 kToe Pre 1919 55 126 No central heating 11 2.26% G 458 11 115 5038 124 0.433190026 1919 - 1945 40 85 Oil 334 68.58% F 415 9 95 138610 3039 11.9183147 1946 - 1960 46 100 Natural Gas 2 0.41% F 382 9 96 764 18 0.065692175 1961 - 1970 24 58 Electricity 12 2.46% E1 316 7 102 3792 80 0.32605331 1971 - 1980 73 184 Coal (incl. Anthracite) 94 19.30% D2 283 6 106 26602 545 2.287360275 1981 - 1990 66 207 Peat (incl. turf) 11 2.26% D2 263 6 113 2893 64 0.248753224 1991 - 2000 66 233 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) 4 0.82% D1 238 5 124 952 20 0.081857266 2001 - 2010 101 333 Wood (incl. wood pellets) 17 3.49% C3 205 4 127 3485 71 0.299656062 2011 or later 4 15 Other 2 0.41% B1 90 2 179 180 3 0.015477214 Not stated 15 41 Not stated 3 0.62% A3 >50<75 1.4 182 3,966 16 Total 490 1,382 Total 487 A2 >25<50 1.1 A1 <25 0.5

Kantoher/Ballintober ED Limerick Greater Than C3 3.90% Period Built Households Persons Central heating Households % BER Rating kWh/m2/yr Tonnes CO₂ Average floor Area [m2] Total MWh/yr Total tonnes CO2 kToe Pre 1919 19 40 No central heating 2 0.41% G 458 11 115 916 23 0.078761823 1919 - 1945 10 20 Oil 82 16.84% F 415 9 95 34030 746 2.92605331 1946 - 1960 9 22 Natural Gas 3 0.62% F 382 9 96 1146 27 0.098538263 1961 - 1970 9 29 Electricity 1 0.21% E1 316 7 102 316 7 0.027171109 1971 - 1980 15 37 Coal (incl. Anthracite) 10 2.05% D2 283 6 106 2830 58 0.243336199 1981 - 1990 21 62 Peat (incl. turf) 10 2.05% D2 263 6 113 2630 58 0.226139295 1991 - 2000 17 58 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) 2 0.41% D1 238 5 124 476 10 0.040928633 2001 - 2010 16 67 Wood (incl. wood pellets) 9 1.85% C3 205 4 127 1845 38 0.158641445 2011 or later 4 13 Other 4 0.82% B1 90 2 179 360 7 0.030954428 Not stated 3 9 Not stated 0 0.00% A3 >50<75 1.4 45 973 4 Total 123 357 Total 123 A2 >25<50 1.1 Assumed HeatPump 9% A1 <25 0.5

Birdhill ED Tipperary Period Built Households Persons Central heating Households % BER Rating kWh/m2/yr Tonnes CO₂ Average floor Area [m2] Total MWh/yr Total tonnes CO2 Ktoe Pre 1919 32 75 No central heating 5 1.03% G 458 11 115 2290 57 0.196904557 1919 - 1945 13 30 Oil 178 36.55% F 415 9 95 73870 1620 6.351676698 1946 - 1960 14 33 Natural Gas 8 1.64% F 382 9 96 3056 72 0.262768702 1961 - 1970 13 30 Electricity 3 0.62% E1 316 7 102 948 20 0.081513328 1971 - 1980 24 58 Coal (incl. Anthracite) 10 2.05% D2 283 6 106 2830 58 0.243336199 1981 - 1990 28 77 Peat (incl. turf) 8 1.64% D2 263 6 113 2104 46 0.180911436 1991 - 2000 45 172 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) 2 0.41% D1 238 5 124 476 10 0.040928633 2001 - 2010 61 219 Wood (incl. wood pellets) 17 3.49% C3 205 4 127 3485 71 0.299656062 2011 or later 3 10 Other 3 0.62% B1 90 2 179 270 5 0.023215821 Not stated 11 34 Not stated 10 2.05% A3 >50<75 1.4 89 1,959 7.7 Total 244 738 Total 244 A2 >25<50 1.1 A1 <25 0.5

Terryglass ED Tipperary Period Built Households Persons Central heating Households % BER Rating kWh/m2/yr Tonnes CO₂ Average floor Area [m2] Total MWh/yr Total tonnes CO2 Ktoe Pre 1919 28 64 No central heating 5 1.03% G 458 11 115 2290 57 0.196904557 1919 - 1945 11 26 Oil 128 26.28% F 415 9 95 53120 1165 4.56749785 1946 - 1960 9 24 Natural Gas 0 0.00% F 382 9 96 0 0 0 1961 - 1970 14 24 Electricity 4 0.82% E1 316 7 102 1264 27 0.108684437 1971 - 1980 18 37 Coal (incl. Anthracite) 1 0.21% D2 283 6 106 283 6 0.02433362 1981 - 1990 26 62 Peat (incl. turf) 28 5.75% D2 263 6 113 7364 162 0.633190026 1991 - 2000 21 58 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) 1 0.21% D1 238 5 124 238 5 0.020464316 2001 - 2010 43 133 Wood (incl. wood pellets) 12 2.46% C3 205 4 127 2460 50 0.211521926 2011 or later 8 17 Other 2 0.41% B1 90 2 179 180 3 0.015477214 Not stated 11 25 Not stated 8 1.64% A3 >50<75 1.4 67 1,475 Total 189 470 Total 189 A2 >25<50 1.1 5.8 A1 <25 0.5

Lorrha/Rathcabbin Tipperary ED Period Built Households Persons Central heating Households % BER Rating kWh/m2/yr Tonnes CO₂ Average floor Area [m2] Total MWh/yr Total tonnes CO2 Ktoe Pre 1919 50 121 No central heating 2 0.41% G 458 11 115 916 23 0.078761823 1919 - 1945 39 89 Oil 153 31.42% F 415 9 95 63495 1392 5.459587274 1946 - 1960 21 50 Natural Gas 1 0.21% F 382 9 96 382 9 0.032846088 1961 - 1970 23 58 Electricity 6 1.23% E1 316 7 102 1896 40 0.163026655 1971 - 1980 50 116 Coal (incl. Anthracite) 7 1.44% D2 283 6 106 1981 41 0.17033534 1981 - 1990 26 72 Peat (incl. turf) 145 29.77% D2 263 6 113 38135 841 3.279019776 1991 - 2000 38 103 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) 0 0.00% D1 238 5 124 0 0 0 2001 - 2010 76 263 Wood (incl. wood pellets) 18 3.70% C3 205 4 127 3690 76 0.317282889 2011 or later 5 17 Other 4 0.82% B1 90 2 179 360 7 0.030954428 Not stated 11 26 Not stated 3 0.62% A3 >50<75 1.4 111 2,428 9.5 Total 339 915 Total 339 A2 >25<50 1.1 A1 <25 0.5

Burgesbeg ED Period Built Households Persons Central heating Households % BER Rating kWh/m2/yr Tonnes CO₂ Average floor Area [m2] Total MWh/yr Total tonnes CO2 ktoe Pre 1919 19 52 No central heating 3 0.62% G 458 11 115 1374 34 0.118142734 1919 - 1945 10 22 Oil 110 22.59% F 415 9 95 45650 1001 3.925193465 1946 - 1960 6 17 Natural Gas 3 0.62% F 382 9 96 1146 27 0.098538263 1961 - 1970 9 21 Electricity 1 0.21% E1 316 7 102 316 7 0.027171109 1971 - 1980 19 47 Coal (incl. Anthracite) 2 0.41% D2 283 6 106 566 12 0.04866724 1981 - 1990 25 74 Peat (incl. turf) 15 3.08% D2 263 6 113 3945 87 0.339208942 1991 - 2000 19 70 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) 0 0.00% D1 238 5 124 0 0 0 2001 - 2010 23 76 Wood (incl. wood pellets) 4 0.82% C3 205 4 127 820 17 0.070507309 2011 or later 7 26 Other 2 0.41% B1 90 2 179 180 3 0.015477214 Not stated 11 43 Not stated 8 1.64% A3 >50<75 1.4 54 1,187 4.6 Total 148 448 Total 148 A2 >25<50 1.1 A1Page 157<25 of 161 0.5

UpperChurch ED Period Built Households Persons Central heating Households % BER Rating kWh/m2/yr Tonnes CO₂ Average floor Area [m2] Total MWh/yr Total tonnes CO2 Ktoe Pre 1919 31 85 No central heating 2 0.41% G 458 11 115 916 23 0.078761823 1919 - 1945 11 18 Oil 72 14.78% F 415 9 95 29880 655 2.569217541 1946 - 1960 4 11 Natural Gas 0 0.00% F 382 9 96 0 0 0 1961 - 1970 3 3 Electricity 1 0.21% E1 316 7 102 316 7 0.027171109 1971 - 1980 9 20 Coal (incl. Anthracite) 6 1.23% D2 283 6 106 1698 35 0.14600172 1981 - 1990 12 47 Peat (incl. turf) 6 1.23% D2 263 6 113 1578 35 0.135683577 1991 - 2000 14 45 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) 1 0.21% D1 238 5 124 238 5 0.020464316 2001 - 2010 16 60 Wood (incl. wood pellets) 15 3.08% C3 205 4 127 3075 63 0.264402408 2011 or later 2 5 Other 1 0.21% B1 90 2 179 90 2 0.007738607 Not stated 6 18 Not stated 4 0.82% A3 >50<75 1.4 37,791 824 3.2 Total 108 312 Total 108 A2 >25<50 1.1 A1 <25 0.5

Moyacliff ED inc drumbane Period Built Households Persons Central heating Households % BER Rating kWh/m2/yr Tonnes CO₂ Average floor Area [m2] Total MWh/yr Total tonnes CO2 Ktoe Pre 1919 29 73 No central heating 7 1.44% G 458 11 115 3206 79 0.27566638 1919 - 1945 15 33 Oil 104 21.36% F 415 9 95 43160 946 3.711092003 1946 - 1960 7 15 Natural Gas 0 0.00% F 382 9 96 0 0 0 1961 - 1970 10 17 Electricity 3 0.62% E1 316 7 102 948 20 0.081513328 1971 - 1980 16 32 Coal (incl. Anthracite) 3 0.62% D2 283 6 106 849 17 0.07300086 1981 - 1990 19 54 Peat (incl. turf) 13 2.67% D2 263 6 113 3419 75 0.293981083 1991 - 2000 16 53 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) 0 0.00% D1 238 5 124 0 0 0 2001 - 2010 31 118 Wood (incl. wood pellets) 14 2.87% C3 205 4 127 2870 59 0.24677558 2011 or later 2 3 Other 2 0.41% B1 90 2 179 180 3 0.015477214 Not stated 2 4 Not stated 1 0.21% A3 >50<75 1.4 55 1,201 4.7 Total 147 402 Total 147 A2 >25<50 1.1 A1 <25 0.5

Foilnaman ED inc Kilcommon Period Built Households Persons Central heating Households % BER Rating kWh/m2/yr Tonnes CO₂ Average floor Area [m2] Total MWh/yr Total tonnes CO2 ktoe Pre 1919 24 57 No central heating 3 0.62% G 458 11 115 1374 34 0.118142734 1919 - 1945 16 41 Oil 76 15.61% F 415 9 95 31540 692 2.711951849 1946 - 1960 9 21 Natural Gas 0 0.00% F 382 9 96 0 0 0 1961 - 1970 1 4 Electricity 3 0.62% E1 316 7 102 948 20 0.081513328 1971 - 1980 9 18 Coal (incl. Anthracite) 12 2.46% D2 283 6 106 3396 70 0.292003439 1981 - 1990 9 21 Peat (incl. turf) 11 2.26% D2 263 6 113 2893 64 0.248753224 1991 - 2000 10 28 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) 1 0.21% D1 238 5 124 238 5 0.020464316 2001 - 2010 33 123 Wood (incl. wood pellets) 8 1.64% C3 205 4 127 1640 34 0.141014617 2011 or later 3 8 Other 1 0.21% B1 90 2 179 90 2 0.007738607 Not stated 4 12 Not stated 3 0.62% A3 >50<75 1.4 42 919 3.62 Total 118 333 Total 118 A2 >25<50 1.1 A1 <25 0.5

Curraheeb ED inc Hollyford Period Built Households Persons Central heating Households % BER Rating kWh/m2/yr Tonnes CO₂ Average floor Area [m2] Total MWh/yr Total tonnes CO2 kToe Pre 1919 26 46 No central heating 8 1.64% G 458 11 115 3664 90 0.315047291 1919 - 1945 11 19 Oil 64 13.14% F 415 9 95 26560 582 2.283748925 1946 - 1960 11 23 Natural Gas 0 0.00% F 382 9 96 0 0 0 1961 - 1970 5 9 Electricity 3 0.62% E1 316 7 102 948 20 0.081513328 1971 - 1980 12 36 Coal (incl. Anthracite) 11 2.26% D2 283 6 106 3113 64 0.267669819 1981 - 1990 10 30 Peat (incl. turf) 10 2.05% D2 263 6 113 2630 58 0.226139295 1991 - 2000 19 48 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) 0 0.00% D1 238 5 124 0 0 0 2001 - 2010 13 58 Wood (incl. wood pellets) 14 2.87% C3 205 4 127 2870 59 0.24677558 2011 or later 4 16 Other 1 0.21% B1 90 2 179 90 2 0.007738607 Not stated 1 2 Not stated 1 0.21% A3 >50<75 1.4 40 875 3.43 Total 112 287 Total 112 A2 >25<50 1.1 A1 <25 0.5

Ablington ED inc Rearcross Period Built Households Persons Central heating Households % BER Rating kWh/m2/yr Tonnes CO₂ Average floor Area [m2] Total MWh/yr Total tonnes CO2 ktoe Pre 1919 41 90 No central heating 3 0.62% G 458 11 115 1374 34 0.118142734 1919 - 1945 20 60 Oil 141 28.95% F 415 9 95 58515 1283 5.031384351 1946 - 1960 10 30 Natural Gas 0 0.00% F 382 9 96 0 0 0 1961 - 1970 2 3 Electricity 2 0.41% E1 316 7 102 632 13 0.054342218 1971 - 1980 14 26 Coal (incl. Anthracite) 26 5.34% D2 283 6 106 7358 151 0.632674119 1981 - 1990 28 83 Peat (incl. turf) 21 4.31% D2 263 6 113 5523 122 0.474892519 1991 - 2000 30 102 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) 1 0.21% D1 238 5 124 238 5 0.020464316 2001 - 2010 56 158 Wood (incl. wood pellets) 10 2.05% C3 205 4 127 2050 42 0.176268272 2011 or later 4 11 Other 2 0.41% B1 90 2 179 180 3 0.015477214 Not stated 4 12 Not stated 3 0.62% A3 >50<75 1.4 76 1,653 6.52 Total 209 575 Total 209 A2 >25<50 1.1 A1 <25 0.5

Page 158 of 161

Summary of ECTC Communities Home Heating Costs €80 ton CO2 Ave BER Ave BER Community No. of housing MWh/yr tCO2/yr Ave tco2/house/yr ktoe Total €/yr ave €/yr/house Carbon Tax 2030 Cost % Difference kWh/m2/yr Rating

Cappamore ED Limerick 490 298 D2 177 3,966 8.1 16 €973,653 €1,987 647.5 €2,634.54 24.58% Kantoher/Ballintober ED Limerick 123 305 E1 45 973 7.9 4 €265,511 €2,159 632.9 €2,791.54 22.67%

Birdhill ED Tipperary 244 290 D2 89 1,959 8.0 7.7 €480,875 €1,971 642.4 €2,613.19 24.58% Terryglass ED Tipperary 189 291 D2 67 1,475 7.8 5.8 €380,753 €2,015 624.4 €2,638.95 23.66% Lorrha/Rathcabbin Tipperary ED 339 310 E1 111 2,428 7.2 9.5 €876,715 €2,586 573.0 €3,159.18 18.14% Burgesbeg ED 148 290 D2 54 1,187 8.0 4.6 €284,544 €1,923 641.8 €2,564.43 25.03% UpperChurch ED 108 331 E1 38 824 7.6 3.2 €248,165 €2,298 610.2 €2,908.05 20.98% Moyacliff ED inc drumbane 147 311 E1 55 1,201 8.2 4.7 €332,159 €2,260 653.4 €2,912.97 22.43%

Foilnaman ED inc Kilcommon 118 313 E1 42 919 7.8 3.62 €310,310 €2,630 623.3 €3,253.00 19.16% Curraheeb ED inc Hollyford 112 324 E1 40 875 7.8 3.43 €315,034 €2,813 625.1 €3,437.94 18.18% Ablington ED inc Rearcross 209 303 E1 76 1,653 7.9 6.52 €315,497 €1,510 632.9 €2,142.43 29.54% Totals 2227 306 E1 793 17,461 7.85 69 €4,783,216 €2,195 627.9 €2,823.29 22.63%

Communities/parishes & townlands within the ECTC https://www.townlands.ie/tipperary/lorrha/ https://www.townlands.ie/tipperary/rathcabban/ https://www.townlands.ie/tipperary/terryglass2/ https://www.townlands.ie/tipperary/birdhill/ https://www.townlands.ie/tipperary/abington2/ https://www.townlands.ie/tipperary/foilnaman/ https://www.townlands.ie/tipperary/curraheen/ https://www.townlands.ie/tipperary/upperchurch2/ https://www.townlands.ie/tipperary/moyaliff1/ https://www.townlands.ie/limerick/cappamore/ https://www.townlands.ie/limerick/ballintober/

Page 159 of 161

Scenarios for retrofit of ECTC housing stock

% Energy saving Scenario2: BERD and lower get to B2 Ave floor area m2 m2/yr do nothing B2 Ave Energy Savings Ave Energy Savings cumulative Ave tCO2 Saved Ave € saved Year Year Qty of houses Cum houes/yr kWh/yr New kWh/yr kWh/yr Mwh/yr Year_1 2021 160 117 160 18838 5,764,455 2,119,285 3,645,170 3,645 5.85% 1,087 €338,768 Year_2 2022 160 117 321 18838 5,764,455 2,119,285 7,290,340.4 7,290 11.71% 2,175 €677,537 Year_3 2023 160 117 481 18838 5,764,455 2,119,285 10,935,510.6 10,936 17.56% 3,262 €1,016,305 Year_4 2024 160 117 642 18838 5,764,455 2,119,285 14,580,680.8 14,581 23.42% 4,349 €1,355,074 Year_5 2025 160 117 802 18838 5,764,455 2,119,285 18,225,851.0 18,226 29.27% 5,436 €1,693,842 Year_6 2026 160 117 962 18838 5,764,455 2,119,285 21,871,021.2 21,871 35.12% 6,524 €2,032,611 Year_7 2027 160 117 1123 18838 5,764,455 2,119,285 25,516,191.4 25,516 40.98% 7,611 €2,371,379 Year_8 2028 160 117 1283 18838 5,764,455 2,119,285 29,161,361.6 29,161 46.83% 8,698 €2,710,148 Year_9 2029 160 117 1444 18838 5,764,455 2,119,285 32,806,531.8 32,807 52.68% 9,786 €3,048,916 Year_10 2030 160 117 1604 18838 5,764,455 2,119,285 36,451,702.0 36,452 58.54% 10,873 €3,387,685 1604 % Energy saving Scenario: BER C get to B2 Ave floor area m2 m2/yr do nothing B2 Ave Savings ave Savings cumulative Year Year Qty of houses Cum houses kWh/yr New kWh/yr kWh/yr MWh/yr Cum houses total Ave tCO2 saved/yrAve € saved/yr 1 2021 47 127 47 5969 1,044,575 671,513 373,063 373 0.60% 207 111 €34,671 2 2022 47 127 94 5969 1,044,575 671,513 746,125 746 1.20% 415 223 €69,342 3 2023 47 127 141 5969 1,044,575 671,513 1,119,188 1,119 1.80% 622 334 €104,013 4 2024 47 127 188 5969 1,044,575 671,513 1,492,250 1,492 2.40% 830 445 €138,684 5 2025 47 127 235 5969 1,044,575 671,513 1,865,313 1,865 3.00% 1037 556 €173,355 6 2026 47 127 282 5969 1,044,575 671,513 2,238,375 2,238 3.59% 1244 668 €208,026 7 2027 47 127 329 5969 1,044,575 671,513 2,611,438 2,611 4.19% 1452 779 €242,697 8 2028 47 127 376 5969 1,044,575 671,513 2,984,500 2,985 4.79% 1659 890 €277,368 9 2029 47 127 423 5969 1,044,575 671,513 3,357,563 3,358 5.39% 1867 1,002 €312,039 10 2030 47 127 470 5969 1,044,575 671,513 3,730,625 3,731 5.99% 2074 1,113 €346,710

Carbon Dioxide Savings within ECTC Community with 100% Retrofit Scenario

Page 160 of 161

Project CO2 Saved D to B C to B Baseline Co2 Delta 2020 15,877 15,877 2021 1,087 111 15,877 14,789 2022 2,175 223 15,877 13,702 2023 3,262 334 15,877 12,615 2024 4,349 445 15,877 11,527 2025 5,436 556 15,877 10,440 2026 6,524 668 15,877 9,353 2027 7,611 779 15,877 8,266 2028 8,698 890 15,877 7,178 2029 9,786 1,002 15,877 6,091 2030 10,873 1,113 15,877 5,004

Project Euro Savings D to B C to B Baseline Energy Cost Delta 2020 €4,783,216 4,783,216 2021 €338,768 €34,671 €4,783,216 4,444,447 2022 €677,537 €69,342 €4,783,216 4,105,679 2023 €1,016,305 €104,013 €4,783,216 3,766,910 2024 €1,355,074 €138,684 €4,783,216 3,428,142 2025 €1,693,842 €173,355 €4,783,216 3,089,373 2026 €2,032,611 €208,026 €4,783,216 2,750,605 2027 €2,371,379 €242,697 €4,783,216 2,411,836 2028 €2,710,148 €277,368 €4,783,216 2,073,068 2029 €3,048,916 €312,039 €4,783,216 1,734,299 2030 €3,387,685 €346,710 €4,783,216 1,395,531 Page 161 of 161