Dan Boyle (Green Party)

The motion tabled by the Independent Members of the House is very valuable. It gives an opportunity for a very broad-ranging debate. Much of its content is supportive of work that is already being done. It is necessary to appreciate the work that needs to be done from this point onwards to realise the potential which I believe everyone in this House recognises exists. I note that from Senator Coffey's contribution. There are aspects to the motion I could quibble over, but that said I will not deny the need for an ongoing debate, especially regarding the last clause of the motion. I cannot see myself ever being in a position to agree with what is being proposed in that element, but the Minister has gone on record in stating that there is a need for such a debate. He would welcome such a discussion and energetically engage in it.

Ireland is in a very unusual situation as we deal with difficult economic times. However, given the state of technology and the very real needs we have in terms of energy and our commitments towards the planet in terms of being environmentally responsible citizens, we also have enormous opportunities. This is something I believe many Members of the House already recognise. I recall one of our first lessons in tíreolaíocht in secondary school, in the standard textbook of the time, that the first paragraph said Ireland was a country without natural resources. Natural resources were always taken to be oil, gas or coal. It is particularly ironic that at this stage of our economic history in particular, we are seen to be a country awash with natural resources which we have chosen for a number of policy reasons not to exploit fully.

Now, however, we must give active consideration to putting the means and the infrastructure in place towards utilising these natural resources. Ireland is one of the most energy-dependent countries in the world in terms of fossil fuels. Because we lack what was referred to in the past as natural resources, we import much of the energy we need. We have the capacity through wind alone to produce enough energy to meet our current and even our future needs 30 times over. This could be an energy exporting country. The moves that have been made in terms of connecting Ireland into the development of a nascent European super-grid, with the current interconnector between Northern Ireland and Scotland and the approval of the interconnector between the east coast of Ireland and Wales, and even the possible development in the near future of an interconnector between the south of Ireland and France, give us the means to secure our energy needs into the future and to develop our capacity to become an exporter of energy.

I am confident we can do this. Already there is enthusiasm among many industry practitioners about what is possible and what needs to be done to make real that possibility. I have cited the example of a number of companies operating in this area and it is fair that the House, through its record, should record what is being done in that regard. Take, for example, the work being done by Ocean Energy, a Cork-based company which is doing research into wave energy in Galway involving the development of large metal turbines which would bob up and down in the sea. It has a three quarter-size model already and the idea is to develop a nest of perhaps up to 70 full-sized models producing the requirement in one such wave farm alone equivalent to what we have as the current target for wave energy.

Then there is the work of OpenHydro, a company based in County Louth, which is now a world leader in the development of wave energy in terms of attaching turbines on the seabed with reversing rotating blades changing every six hours and a potential source of 24 hours of energy. The prototype for its research is being done off the coast of Scotland, yet it is employing 30 people here, engaging in engineering work and providing a potential that could realise a great deal of economic hope and opportunity for Ireland in the future.

I wish to speak briefly on the final part of the motion because I believe it is the intent of the Independent Senators to have a more open and honest debate on such an issue. On the one hand, we have the question of cold fusion. I am glad to state that I am not a nuclear physicist but I am led to believe that, according to the scientific debate, this is a distant and perhaps unattainable dream. However, it if proves to be possible, we can examine how it would provide an alternative to current nuclear energy technology.

We had a farce some years ago when two scientists claimed to have come up with an answer, but it was shown to be one of the biggest shams in scientific history. Since some people are seeking such an alternative, others are open to seeing that happen. However, the difficulty with current nuclear technology is that it is very expensive. The lead-in time for any nuclear installation can take up to 20 years and the economic cost of that is phenomenal. It would be far better to invest that capital in renewable energy which gives a better return for one's buck.

The other aspect is that, even 50 or 60 years after its initial development as an energy source, nuclear technology is still very dangerous. We recently celebrated - if that is the right word - the 23rd anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. The world is fortunate not to have had a full-blown nuclear accident at many of the plants around the place. For instance, nuclear installations in eastern Europe, including those in Bulgaria and Romania - the old Magnox installations - are accidents waiting to happen. Many of them are still in use. Ireland's involvement in EURATOM, which I am not happy about at the best of times, should be working towards decommissioning many of these plants rather than developing nuclear technology.

The ultimate problem of nuclear power is that the waste that comes about as a result of the process remains radioactive for thousands of years. Therefore, in terms of meeting our immediate energy needs, we are asking future generations to live with an unacceptable and hazardous risk that will outlive us and them as well as putting the planet at risk. If it is possible to overcome these problems and if nuclear energy can be developed through technological advances and other means, then it should be kept on the table and there should be an open and honest debate about it. However, I do not feel now is the time or that it is likely in the near future.