Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 23 October 2013

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications

Nuclear Energy: Discussion

11:05 am

Photo of Brendan GriffinBrendan Griffin (Kerry South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the presentation made here and thank the group for attending today. I estimate there is collectively over 100 years of experience between them in their sectors and I very much appreciate them coming here and sharing their knowledge.

It is good that we are having a discussion about something which is ultimately long-term planning. We do not have enough of that in this country. Too often, it is five-year programmes for Government or budgets that might look 12 or 14 months in advance. We do not have enough of long-term planning. It is encouraging that the group is raising something here that will be an issue, in particular, from 2025, but that relates to much further in the future as well. I understand it is something that we need to address much sooner but it is important.

I welcome an objective debate on this. We need to be looking at every option when we talk about future energy generation and because we do not necessarily agree with something, it does not mean that we should not have a discussion on it. In terms of discussing future energy, we need to consider all of our options, including nuclear energy, and check both the viability and pros and cons of it. My personal view is it is not a suitable option for Ireland. That said, I am open to hearing the arguments and the views.

There are a couple of points I picked up on earlier. There was a list of countries mentioned as expanding in nuclear energy and none of them hopped out at me as being great bastions of democracy. China, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Belarus and the Ukraine were all listed. Maybe at that point there were a few alarm bells ringing.

I hope nobody in those countries is watching the committee meeting on the live stream. France was mentioned. When we discuss this issue we need to focus on the alternatives. There is massive potential in this country in terms of tidal wave energy and one hopes that with improved technology this might be a more realistic option by 2025. There is further potential in hydroelectric energy and micro-generation.

The event at Fukushima was referred to as an accident. It certainly was a disaster. What happened at Chernobyl was an accident in that man-made errors brought it about. At Fukushima, however, although more provisions might have been put in place to prevent what happened, a natural disaster was the main contributing factor. In the overall discussion about nuclear energy, no matter how much safety provision is put in place one cannot allow for such events as massive seismic activity. With regard to Moneypoint, for example, if at some stage in the future there were to be a huge seismic event in the north Atlantic - or near the Canary Islands, an area often cited as requiring only time for such an event to occur - I can imagine the disaster that would ensue if a massive tsunami hit the west coast of the country. Such possibilities must be factored in. Another point is that countries such as France, which has major nuclear power generation, also has considerable military security, which we do not. In the post 9-11 world that is a consideration that must be included.

Could we get some more information on the small modular reactors, SMRs? What is their capacity, the associated costs and the timescale involved, and how do these differ from those of conventional stations we are used to, such as Chernobyl and Sellafield, or from some of the newer stations being built in the UK? I refer to the 1999 Act and the repeal of the section in question. I take on board what was said about the chicken and the egg. If that provision were still in place, how much could the committee do and how might the debate be informed?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.