Dáil debates

Thursday, 22 November 2007

Climate Change and Energy Security: Statements

 

1:00 pm

Photo of John DeasyJohn Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)

I wish to contribute to a debate that is possibly more futile than yesterday's debate on young people. This is a debate on whether to have a debate on nuclear energy. We are getting used to hearing markedly gloomy scenarios on energy cost and supply from the Taoiseach and his Ministers in this Chamber. We heard it again yesterday when the Taoiseach stated that we must get cheaper, more effective and efficient energy from electricity companies and that the issue is hugely important for the future competitiveness of the economy. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, stated electricity supply this winter could be tight, whatever that means.

When people attempt to discuss the cleanest and potentially the most cost effective energy source — nuclear energy — as a solution, people around here run for the door like frightened children. There is much footwork in the Chamber today. In the debate on climate change and tackling global warming, if one accepts nuclear energy is the cleanest source, why are we not discussing it?

I have examined the comments of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan. Earlier this year he stated that with a country of our grid size there is a real difficulty with nuclear power because the most cost effective size for reactors today is too large for the Irish system. However, according to EirGrid, the people who manage the national grid, there are several plants on the grid in the 450 MW range and new technology means that 600 MW plants are commonplace. According to industry sources, 600 MW is the most commonly cited size suitable to Ireland's grid. Globally, nine reactors under 700 MW are being constructed.

The ESRI agreed with the Minister at the start of the year, stating that the economically feasible scale of a nuclear power station would exceed the capacity of the Irish market to absorb its output. Last month the ESRI changed its position substantially. It called for a comprehensive economic study to examine the cost of the Republic's ban on nuclear energy and questioned the rationale behind the Government's target to source 33% of power from renewable energy from 2020, which will require a sharp increase in wind penetration.

In the latest debate about having a debate on nuclear energy the Minister stated it was extremely expensive, takes too long to build, and that we have no skills in the area. The Minister has no idea how much this would cost because no one has undertaken a comprehensive study in this country on the cost and cost effectiveness of a nuclear plant. The new reactors are built in 14 months, not an extraordinary period. It is unusual to say that we have no skills in the area. When one has a problem but no expertise, one can bring it in to solve the problem. Our historical experience with nuclear energy is considerable. The person who first split the atom and received a Nobel Prize for physics was Mr. Ernest Walton, from Dungarvan, County Waterford. We have plenty experience in nuclear energy, more so than many countries.

There is no scientific or economic rationale behind the Government's refusal to commission an analysis of the long-term benefits of nuclear energy for the country. It has more to do with electoral politics. If the Green Party cannot make difficult decisions it is an indication that the party is as politically expedient as anyone else. There is an elephant in the room in the debate on energy. We may not need a debate on nuclear energy but we need the Government to analyse the utility of nuclear energy as a component of our energy needs, cost and security in the next 30 years. There is no simple answer but I ask the Government to determine its viability in the interest of the economy.

We are overly dependent on fossil fuels and our sources are drying up. In the next five years we will pay hundreds of millions of euro in fines, or carbon credits as the Government likes to say. Some 90% to 95% of our energy is derived from fossil fuels, we are the third most dependent on oil in the European Union and are more dependent than the United States. The EU average cost for a megawatt hour is €14.16 for domestic and €8.63 for industrial use. Ireland's cost is €16.70 for domestic and €11.32 for industrial use. By comparison France's price is €5.78 for industrial use, less than half Ireland's figure. France generates 75% to 80% of its electricity using nuclear power. Our economy is suffering and this will continue because at least 90% of our energy is being imported and both domestic and industrial users are paying above average for electricity. Not long ago we paid 5% less than the European average.

Besides setting aside €200 million to pay the fines, or carbon credits, the Green Party is considering a petrol tax and penalising gas guzzlers, namely, cars with engine sizes greater than 1.6 litres. These include Ford Escorts and Toyota Corollas. That measure will be really popular. It will not be called a carbon tax, rather it will be called an increase in motor tax or VRT. Meanwhile the Minister for Finance is saying that taxation matters are a matter for him. While politicians jostle to justify their ideologies, our economy will have some tender moments. The people in power are unprepared to engage in the cleanest and most cost effective source of power, nuclear energy. That is a classic profile in political cowardice and prevarication.

During the summer, the ESB indicated that, with more research, nuclear and clean coal will be options for the long-term policy mix. A Forfás report stated that our ability to attract high levels of foreign direct investment will depend on the country's capacity to deliver a secure and uninterrupted energy supply at competitive prices and the building of a nuclear plant could be justified. Forfás has been joined by IBEC, the ESRI and the ICTU. We are very dependent on fossil fuels and will continue to pay a heavy price and fines as a result.

The Minister says that renewables can pick up the slack but I do not believe that. Renewables will not close the gap in energy consumption in the coming years. The Taoiseach referred to hard decisions on energy and climate change. At the very least we must determine the best options. We must analyse the potential benefits of nuclear energy by commissioning a comprehensive financial assessment of the costs involved and the possible benefits to our economy and in preventing global warming. It is not a difficult decision, it is basic government. That is where we need to start.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.