Sir, – David Robert Grimes calls for an honest debate about nuclear power in Ireland ("We need to debate the nuclear option honestly", February 23rd). I'm all for a full and honest debate, so in that spirit, here are a few points the pro-nuclear lobby need to address.
First, the cost. Ireland has no nuclear regulatory system or infrastructure. Both would need to be established and that won’t be cheap. Then there is the cost of the reactor. The European Commission puts the cost of the new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point in the UK at an eye-watering £17 billion (€23 billion). The small modular nuclear reactor that is being touted for Moneypoint is still little more than a blueprint, with none built anywhere in the world. It would also require going through major financial and regulatory hurdles to reach a sensible and reasonable market value. That could be many years off.
Second, the waste issue. The UK’s nuclear waste legacy is calculated as costing over £80 billion (€108 billion) over the next century and no solution has yet been found in the UK as to where to store higher and intermediate-level radioactive waste, some 30 years after the matter started to be discussed. There are no plans to reprocess any of this waste in the UK, just to store it underground.
Third, the safety considerations. Three major accidents are three too many when considering something which can be as dangerous as radiation. The figures Mr Grimes offers about Chernobyl health statistics are contested, to say the least.
This week Naoto Kan, prime minister of Japan at the time of the Fukushima disaster, will be speaking in Wales. His message is clear – Fukushima was a man-made, not a natural, disaster. It was caused by Japan’s commitment to an unsafe and expensive technology that is not compatible with life on this planet.
For Mr Kan, the only safe option when it comes to nuclear power is to abandon it as it simply is not worth the risk. His views on this matter are rooted in experience and need to be given due weight by proponents of nuclear power when arguing about risk and exposure.
The energy market and the renewable technologies driving it are moving so rapidly that nuclear power can be set aside as an energy option for Ireland, without endangering our economic development. Apple’s announcement that it is to locate a data centre at Athenry powered by renewable energy is clear evidence of this. – Yours, etc,
Cllr MARK DEAREY,
All Ireland Nuclear-Free
Local Authorities Forum,
c/o Council Buildings,
Newry.
Sir, – Up to this year, households with solar panels could export their electricity for 9 cent per unit. That is only slightly above the price paid for large wind turbines, even though the electricity is sent to the local grid, and is all produced at a time when there is higher consumption (ie not at night). Bizarrely, commercial customers have never been paid for exporting their solar power. Houses fitting solar panels are now expected to donate their surplus power to the grid free of charge.
I have always been a supporter of wind power, but we need to acknowledge that wind and solar are complementary sources of energy – usually when you don’t have wind, you have more sunshine and vice versa. Solar can be fitted to the roof of almost any house or warehouse and quietly produces useful amounts of electricity, yet it seems to be ignored as part of Government policy.
Why has Electric Ireland withdrawn the ability for customers to sell their power back to the grid, thus cutting solar out of the equation for many? – Yours, etc,
QUENTIN GARGAN,
Bantry, Co Cork.
Sir, – Harry McGee refers to a discussion with Dr Rory Monaghan at NUI Galway ("Ireland's energy: what's the right approach for a recovering economy?", February 23rd).
Dr Monaghan correctly states that Ireland is hugely dependent on its gas interconnector pipeline to Scotland despite the impending gas from the Corrib field. He is also correct when he says that alternatives such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) would increase security of gas supply for Ireland. But statements such as “UK reserves are running out” and that if “something goes wrong” there will be “zero backup” are somewhat overstated.
In 2014 the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change confirmed that the UK is one of the most energy-secure countries in the world, thanks to the UK’s own reserves which are complemented by diverse sources of imported energy. Currently approximately a third of UK gas is supplied from its own reserves. However the National Grid UK Winter Outlook report for 2014 forecasts a range of gas supply sources including Norway, LNG, and interconnection from mainland Europe, that combined could potentially meet all of the UK gas demand on the coldest winter day in the highly unlikely event that UK North Sea gas were to be unavailable. Ireland benefits from these diverse gas sources to the UK market.
Policymakers should give more serious consideration to how the natural gas industry and the existing gas infrastructure that is already in place can be utilised to deliver an efficient and sustainable energy system. Natural gas has the lowest carbon emissions relative to other fossil fuels and has superior potential both as a substitute for other fossil fuels and more importantly as a complement to renewable energy. The full potential of natural gas, in terms of emission reduction, increasing competitiveness and sustaining security of supply, is often missed. – Yours, etc,
PADRAIC O’CONNELL,
Gas Networks Ireland,
PO Box 51,
Gasworks Road, Cork.
Sir, – This Government, the last government and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) have shown poor judgment by following a primarily “all-wind strategy” as a means to decarbonise our energy system. Despite the hyperbole about reducing CO2, our emissions are rising and current policies are simply not working.
Electricity is not easily stored and must be produced to meet demand second by second. Always-available (dispatch-able) electricity is infinitely more useful than unpredictable or intermittent electricity. Comparing the two is like comparing apples with monkeys. Wind power is intermittent and is only feasible when permanently backed-up conventional generation. The 2.9 per cent contribution from wind shown on your pie chart says it all. It has taken 1,200 turbines and an investment of billions in both turbines and the associated grid for this paltry contribution.
Despite this, our Government, with no proper independent analysis, intends to double the number of turbines on our landscape as well as their associated grid infrastructure, ie pylons. – Yours, etc,
PAULA BYRNE,
Cullenagh, Co Laois.