Head over to our T
Ryan Calls for Debate on Nuclear Power
Read more about: Cork, Energy, Fianna Fail, Government, Grassroots, Green Party, Irish Election, Manifesto, Media 
Eamon Ryan was on RTE this morning and said that it is time for a full debate on the merits of nuclear power in Ireland. In light of the decision which seems to be coming today in the UK to begin upgrading their nuclear power generators. A debate which has been called for a while back.
Ryan suggested that the Dail Committee on Energy may well be the ideal place to get the “full science” out there and under discussion. There is no doubt in my mind that a full debate is a welcome thing. While I am not in any way committed to nuclear power, it has always baffled me that the nuclear issue is taken as sine qua non as a political issue.
There are huge merits to opening the floor up to the question of nuclear power generation in light of our desperate need to reduce CO2 emissions in the country. The issue, it must be said, rarely addresses the science element of nuclear power, admittedly its not the only factor but should increasingly be the main one, rather focussing on cost/waste and rapidly descending into a farcical standoff which leaves most people none the wiser.
For me the single biggest factor is overall CO2/Energy production. My main source of scepticism is that nuclear cant fuel cars etc., and doesn’t represent a full solution. Beyond that point, enlightenment from both sides is hardly a bad thing.
Labour reckon that he is being disingenuous on this, since he cannot act on any of this and is only passing the buck to the Dail committee to hide behind it (Fianna Fail weren’t fans either at election time). Quoting the 2007 Energy white paper;
The Government will maintain the statutory prohibition on nuclear generation in Ireland. The Government believes that for reasons of security, safety, economic feasibility and system operation, nuclear generation is not an appropriate choice for this country. The Government will continue to articulate its strong position in relation to nuclear generation and transboundary safety concerns in Europe in the context of the EU Energy Strategy. Developments in relation to nuclear generation in the UK and other Member States will be closely monitored in terms of implications for Ireland.”
It has been a tough time of late for the greens as the lightbulbs issue has painted John Gormley as perhaps less in control of the agenda than he would like. Yet I think that this is a little bit away from the point.
The prohibition of nuclear doesn’t prohibit debate, especially when-at the beginning of a new term of government-Ministers have changed around and a new direction may be forthcoming. Of course for the Greens it gives them the opportunity to do some more to reinflate some flagging momentum and also give a chance to provide leadership (one way or the other) on an important issue.
I don’t think we need to slavishly follow the UK on every singly policy move and Nuclear has always been a point of some division between the two islands and there may never be a time when that changes. However the true benefit that I see here is that the known timeline for nuclear provision will be drawn out against cost and subsequently held up against the forthcoming alternative energy options.
The options such as wave, solar and bio-fuel will be compared and contrasted to the range, availability and use of nuclear. It may finally give a serious direction on which options will provide the most rounded approach to lowering CO2 emissions. The real worry is that this debate only spawns more debates, committes, taskforces and zero decision making.
It’s all very well for Minister Ryan to call for a debate on nuclear but his plea is somewhat disingenuous given that he’s already pre-empted the outcome. What the Minister actually said to the Committee on Climate Change and Energy last December was:
“One question that clouds the energy and climate change debate is the issue of nuclear power. It is no harm to have a debate on the option of nuclear power. This committee is a perfect forum for that issue to be addressed. I am often asked how can I favour renewable energy and yet want a debate on nuclear power. However, the committee should examine it with an open mind and it would be interesting if the committee produced an in-depth report on it. By going into the real detail of energy production and its associated economic opportunities, costs and expertise, it will show a clear response that nuclear power does not make sense for Ireland. It is important for us to have a clear indication on that. When the nuclear power question is answered, it will allow us to concentrate with much greater certainty on key developments in renewable energy and energy efficiency.”
In other words,”we’ll grant you a fair trial, hear all the evidence and then we’ll hang you anyway.”
The science of Nuclear is that it is safe. Giving a good regulatory environment it is safe and it works well. It is the economics of it that are dodge (and distribution). The cost/waste arguement is probably the biggest issue surrounding it and cannot be ignored. A call for a debate on the science of it is a bit useless.
Also on the CO2 issue it does reduce CO2 emission. But only by something like 12% of a Coal plant. But perhaps every little helps as they say.
The problem about any debate on long-term energy policy for Ireland is that our politicians are trapped by the history of our nuclear dispute with Britain into a negative mindset towards the use of nuclear energy. Here I must ‘fess up to knowing a great deal more about nuclear politics in Ireland and Britain – happily or unhappily as the case may be! – than most because I spent ten years working as a political consultant in Ireland to British Nuclear Fuels and in October last year my book on the respective nuclear histories of the two islands, Going Nuclear, was published by Irish Academic Press.
Nuclear power has always been a highly politicised issue both in Ireland and the UK, but for most of the rest of us it’s a ‘back of the mind’ question at the best of times. The conjunction of climate change with an impending crisis in energy security of supply have brought it back onto the UK political agenda as a longer term solution to long term problems.
It would be as impossible for any mainstream Irish politician to come out and say they had no objections to nuclear technology and its use for electricity generation purposes as it would be for them to suddenly announce they were in favour of abortion on demand, for example, and I personally would have a great deal of sympathy with them in this. However, the UK new nuclear build debate has been going on for about four years now and at times has been as divisive and intense as it was during periods of the 1980s and early 1990s. What has changed in recent times is that nuclear is more publicly and socially acceptable now in the UK because of climate change and the recognition that allowing existing nuclear capacity to wither away by the mid 2020s with no replacement in view would likely result in a major energy crisis in the medium term. The UK position has been well-thought through and probably still has further to go as Greenpeace may yet mount further legal challenges to the government policy (which, incidentally, has full Tory support.) The problem in Ireland is that no genuine debate is possible in current political circumstances and the notion of a quick examination by an Oireachtas Committee to provide the definitive last word on the subject is risible.
Sorry to go on so long about this…
I dont think for a minute people will expect the Dail committee to run with the final outcome for an issue like this. The main element that concerns me is that a suitable forum is made available for the proper examination of nuclear up against other fuels and energy sources.
As i highlighted above my main concern is that you will have to go with a “nuclear + __ ” option to tackle all the different forms of energy use. this is likely to be the case. That means that there needs to be a look at which combination will be cheapest/most effective/most sustainable.
I dont deny that it may be pre-judged by politicians but if a decent debate ensues then that is also up for contest.
Cian, I absolutely hope you are right. Someone once pointed out to me that politicians may end up adopting entrenched and inflexible views on things because they are mostly on the receiving end of lobbies and activists with very entrenched views, further reflected in media coverage; whereas the general public are either not particularly interested or not especially committed one way or the other on issues that don’t immediately impact on them when they get out of bed in the morning. Hence the political view can find itself adrift of the trend in public opinion. But if we’re to have a meaningful debate on energy technologies and the best options for us in the medium to longterm then a more open-minded approach among our political classes is a pre-requisite. Otherwise, you’ll just have the ‘pros’ and ‘antis’ , whether its on nuclear, wind, wave clean coal or whatever, slinging propaganda soundbites at one another, which is a waste of all our time.
A tad odd this. In December he ruled out nuclear power in an Irish context with his decision to refuse a license for uranium mining. Based on his previous commentary on the subject, it would appear that he welcomes a debate but only in the context of a pre-decided answer.
John, your comment goes to the heart of the Green’s style of government, which appears to be one of you announce the decision and have any public consultation/ debate related to it afterwards. The purpose of debate is therefore to confirm the decision or nuance its implementation. (Eamon Ryan said as much in relation to the ban on incandescent bulbs initiative in his interview on Pat Kenny this morning.) In most other participatory democracies it works the other way round – government makes a proposal, public consultation/debate ensues, final decision taken. The public here are being asked to take a leap of faith that, in the case of incandescent bulbs for example, technology change will be accelerated to catch up with the political imperative. Similarly with energy policy choices for the future. The Green ‘strong leadership’ approach would be all very well if we all subscribed to their beliefs and shared their absolute confidence in the rightness of their policy decisions, or if the facts supported them rather than a required idealistic leap of faith that everything will turn out all right on the night. No more than their political colleagues across the board, the Greens in government are not averse to playing fast and loose with any facts they don’t want to acknowledge when it suits them to do so.
Nuclear Energy are you kidding… not in my back yard. My neighbour county.
Shell has to go sea.. we don’t want any industrialization on my backyard we like watch sheep go around in my back yard. Who needs gas we have 08 cars.
No wind mill…not in my back yard. It is Eye sore. Who needs wind energy we have coffee cost only 5 yoyo.
Incernator.. no way..not in my back yard.. Send it land fill rather then producing electricity. Who needs electricity we have grafton street.
Solar Energy.. not in my back yard.. sun always shy of Ireland.. don’t know why? Who needs solar energy We have expensive house in Clontarf (with that same money you can buy shopping mall in Berlin).
As long as Property Construction lobby keep us happy with cheap migrant labour.. we don’t need energy. If we need we can always fly to continent using the great Ryan Air. Best export from Paddy land so far. Who needs Nuclear Energy.. Fly away to shopping in New york paddy!
Veronica
would you like to share with us your strategy and tactics deployed on behalf of BNFL while a consultant…
Now that you are a former consultant?
You clearly did a very good job identifying champions and sowing the seeds of social acceptability in the face of an antagonistic history for nuclear power. I suspect that the Anglo-Irish peace process also gave your objectives a boost….taking the sting out of the post-colonial narrative that has formed the background to the Irish opposition to Sellafield.
What do you think?
Peter,
How strange to find this post opening up again after so long! I think we have to more to worry about right now than nuclear power – it all seems like a lifetime ago when it was the object of so much hysterical media and political attention here.
Historically, on a political level at least, there was a huge element of cynicism, mixed up with nationalism, post colonialism and wilful ignor involved as well,as, to be fair, the desire to represent the overall public antipathy to the UK ‘s nuclear industry, and genuine public concerns especially about Sellafield. On the media side, well paper never did refuse ink!
When I started working with BNFL they had a lot of political problems, not least of which was a fear that their own government was very shaky in their support for Sellafield and its reprocessing industry. A lot of the problems they were experiencing were self-inflicted or arose from the historical legacy on the site, mainly to do with wastes that were stockpiled during its early years of operation as a military site. They had a new Chairman, John Guinness, who had a great affection for and interest in Ireland. And they also had a High Court case in Dublin on their hands, courtesy of the Louth Four legal action.
In 1994, at the height of the Thorp debate, the UK government had offered a bilateral treaty to the Irish government on nuclear issues. (the EU Commission had earlier advised both Ireland and the UK to deal with their difficulties over nuclear issues through such a mechanism.) Brian Cowen was Minsiter for Energy at that time. The UK initiative was rejected – in the hullaballoo surrounding the issue in Ireland, it would not have been possible for any Irish Minister or the government to accept any such proposal.
So my job was simple: work with BNFL to develop and utilise public affairs and media relations mechanisms to promote an environment which would eventually lead to the conclusion of a fair and reasonable agreement between the two countries on how they would deal with nuclear matters. I estimated it would take six years, working on all fronts consistently and with perseverance, as well as dealing with the inevitable blow ups – major incidents in BNFL’s own business and at the Sellafield site itself – along the way. It took ten. The whole campaign required a lot of commitment, courage and tenacity by a number of people in BNFL itself and in the UK government administration.
Dick Roche signed the agreement and the accompanying bi-lateral in September 2004, which covered every contentious area except nuclear transport. I knew this final stage was on the cards from 2002 onwards, after Ireland initiated its ill-fated, and contrary to the Treaty of Rome as they should have known had they bothered to check the legal situation, illegal international court actions against the UK over Sellafield. But over a decade, it had been a roller coaster ride – lots of mistakes, lots of political cul de sacs, setbacks, media crises and some fairly satisfying triumphs occassionally that made up for the rest of it.
The story is well covered in the book, if you care to read it.
Anglo Irish relations changed very considerably over that period, obviously because of the peace process. But Sellafield and the nuclear issue never had any influence on what was happeneing at that level in intergovernmental relations; it didn’t even arise in that context. But the overall improvement in Anglo Irish relations did work the other way around in that a greater understanding of Ireland’s position on how the Northern conflict could best be resolved and political respect in Westminster for our position transferred into a greater appreciation also of genuine Irish concerns about Sellafield and a willingness to do something positive and cosntructive to change the context and remove the antagonism from exchanges on nuclear matters.
I believe it has all worked very well and that a very useful process has been set up for exchanges of information on nuclear installations and examination of any risks associated with their operation between the relevant and respective national authorities here and in the UK. The most recent nuclear site visited by the RPII was the Wylfa power station in 2006, at which the RPII made risk assessments of a range of accident scenarios and subsequently reported to the Minsiter for the Environment in October 2007.
The real value of the arrangement between the two countries will, in my opinion anyway, only become apparent as new nuclear stations are built in the UK – there’s a proposal to build a new plant on the existing Wylfa site when the current power station closes in 2010. if that proposal goes ahead – the site is now owned by a German utility, nPower, which I have noted also sponsors the Ospreys rugby team, according to their jerseys anyway – the new plant will be three times the size of the current old Magnox plant. Since we’ve got been offered – according to Eamon Ryan, Minsiter for Energy, on RTE news a couple of days ago – 100m euro from the EU to help build the interconnector between Ireland and Wales, a large new power station at Wylfa might be very beneficial to us in terms of meeting our energy needs in the future.
Late last year the UK government sold off its British Energy nuclear power plants to the Frency, EDF I think. Their plan is for four new power stations on exisiting nuclear sites. BNFL has been wound up and is gone. I’ve long moved on too – but I seem to have acquired a ‘nuclear legacy’ all of my very own!
If you really want to know the history and understand the politics of the issue, internationally and between these two islands going back tot he very beginning; then all I can say is : read the book!
Here is a law for you. Don’t get until you need it. Why build more power plants for power we do not even use right now. Or are you afraid to venture were no person has ventured before. Like waiting until you need it. Give me a list of reasons why we need it before now when we do not use it. As many as you can. Then give me a list of reasons why we do not need it.