Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I thank everyone who spoke in the debate. In particular, I appreciate the interest the Minister has shown and the words he used. He said the CO2 targets are challenging, and they certainly are, but he spoke with enthusiasm, confidence and, I think, a knowledge of the technology. On that basis, energy security is in good hands. I was also delighted to hear that the Minister is willing to talk about nuclear power despite the views he has expressed in the past.

Senators Coffey and Burke both confirmed they are willing to talk about nuclear power. If they are willing to debate it, I am not sure why the amendment was lodged, but the fact they are willing to debate it is interesting. I especially thank Senator O'Malley for her criticism of those who have a closed mind and are unwilling to debate the topic. The reason for lodging the motion was to have the debate, to open it up and ensure we talk about the various energy sources. It was particularly interesting to hear Senator Mary White talk about the frustrations and delays that are happening, particularly with wind energy projects.

There is a lot of evidence that wind farms are not an answer to global warming in countries such as Ireland and northern Europe in general.

I was in Austria recently and could not be believe the number of wind turbines between Vienna and Bratislava. The Germans, who have invested more than anybody in wind farms, are finding that, despite having more than 17,000 wind turbines, the nation is emitting more carbon than before it built them. According to estimates, this is due to the fact the turbines are only about 17% efficient because the wind does not blow at the right speed often enough to do any better. As a result, 83% of the electricity which should come from wind must come from coal burning power stations which can never work at optimum efficiency because they must forever adjust to the fluctuating flow from wind generation. We must solve that if we are to get on top of wind energy.

In short, being intermittent, wind power must always be backed up by more reliable fossil fuel or nuclear plants. At present, wind energy is incapable of satisfying the growing demands for energy but I hope we overcome that. Even with the huge attraction of subsidies, energy companies are increasingly abandoning wind as an effective and green source of energy, and I am sure the Minister knows that. For example, one of the oldest and most efficient wind farms in Britain is to be dismantled and replaced by a nuclear power station under plans drawn up by a German-owned power group. That concerns me.

I refer to tidal energy, an area we must exploit. It was interesting to hear Senator O'Toole's views. Tidal waves and currents possess huge potential for low carbon energy generation. However, efforts to harness them have been hampered by the difficulty of designing devices which can tolerate harsh oceanic conditions. This year, however, power generating buoys which harness wave energy 50 m under water were put to the test in the UK and the world's first commercial scale tide turbine delivered electricity to the UK national grid. I mention that because much work is going on to achieve that.

Danish support for wind power helped that country to establish worldwide leadership in the building of turbines. Ireland must do the same with wave and tidal power. We have the opportunity and the ability, as Senator Mary White mentioned, and we know we can do something about it. However, this will not solve our current problems. We need to look at all other resources as well.

Ireland has spent approximately €920 million in four years buying credits under the Kyoto scheme to pay for our carbon emissions. The money we spend on four years' worth of carbon emissions credits is just shy of the €1 billion it would take for Ireland to build a medium-sized nuclear power station. The cost of decommissioning a nuclear plant might add another €250 million or so to this figure. However, this looks like a calculation worth examining. Nuclear is nearly a carbon-free energy. It is not entirely carbon free as there is some carbon use in its construction but, overall, nuclear is a very low carbon emitter so let us not close our minds to it.

We must ask why there has been a massive shift towards nuclear power over other forms of renewable energy across Europe. Can we be truly energy independent by just relying on energies such as wind and wave power? Why are we ignoring the fact that nuclear energy is the most green type of energy because it does not have any of these emissions? Would we save more in the long term by reducing our carbon emissions by going down the nuclear road? Are certain forms of renewable energy profiting from subsidies and favouritism even if they are not the best long-term solution for this country? In effect, are we kidding ourselves that we will ever get close to, let alone go beyond, 20% of our energy being produced by renewable energies?

In a time when energy supply is more volatile than ever, when countries are committed to reducing emissions and when we need to plan for the future, Ireland needs to be energy independent. We must not rule out any one form of energy due to past prejudices, misinformation or lobbying.

This motion has given us a chance to debate this issue. It has been a very useful debate and I thank everybody who spoke. I thank the Minister, in particular, for his open mind. However, I urge him not to allow us to close our minds to the threat not only to us, but to future generations. We must solve this problem so let us not close our minds to every form of energy available.