Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Jun 1971

Vol. 255 No. 1

Nuclear Energy (An Bord Fuinnimh Núicléigh) Bill, 1971 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

When a method of producing self-sustaining nuclear fission was first achieved during the course of the Second World War its first application was to produce a devastating weapon of war. Since then, progress in nuclear science and technology has made possible some revolutionary contributions to the material and humanitarian advancement of the world. The most obvious example of this progress is in the development of nuclear power plants which are now in many countries providing a safe and reliable method of producing electric power in competition with traditional methods. Research into nuclear power continues at a very intensive rate throughout the world with the present emphasis on fission reactors fueled with natural fissile material generally in an enriched form. The next development will be the production of commercial breeder reactors utilising as fuel virtually inexhaustible supplies of fertile material such as uranium 238 or thorium. Further ahead is a prospect of controlled fusion which could give access to the potential energy in the heavy hydrogen in the oceans of the world.

Apart from the production of power, nuclear science has made progress in a multitude of beneficial applications based on radioisotopes. These have been of great value in research, in medical diagnosis and treatment, in food preservation, in various agricultural uses, in quality control in industry and in the development of new products generally. It can be said that nuclear science has contributed and will continue to contribute materially to the alleviation of suffering and hardship and in improving the lot of mankind generally. Nuclear science has, therefore, a tremendous potential for good as well as for evil and the efforts of various international bodies have been directed more and more in recent years towards increasing the peaceful uses of atomic energy while ensuring the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. I am glad to say that different Ministers for Foreign Affairs of this country have taken an active part in these international activities. The bringing into force in the past year of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was a successful outcome to a resolution pioneered by Ireland at the United Nations Assembly in 1961.

The development of nuclear power reactors is continually improving. In recent times the more advanced countries have been able to commission nuclear reactors competitive in price with power stations based on the traditional fossil fuels—coal and fuel oil. Nuclear power stations have very high capital costs with relatively low fuel costs. The capital cost per unit of output decreases with overall size and hence the larger sized units offer the best competitive performance as compared with oil fired units.

Experience in the electricity industry shows, however, that it is wiser not to have too much generating capacity, say not more than about 10 per cent of the peak load, concentrated in a single generating unit because of the effect of a breakdown in a large unit. Normally an electricity supply company increase their generating unit size in steps as their load develops taking advantage of the experience already gained by larger supply companies in the size ranges chosen. Thus the ESB at present operate with 60 megawatt units as the largest size in a system with total capacity of about 1,400 megawatts. The demand for electricity has been growing for some years at the rate of 10 per cent to 11 per cent a year so that it is necessary to double generating capacity every seven or eight years bringing the probable capacity at the end of this decade to about 3,000 megawatts. With this expansion, the capacity of the board's system to accommodate larger units than the present maximum of 60 megawatts will increase. The board will commission the first 120 megawatt unit this year and the first 250 megawatt unit in 1975. The most economical nuclear generating stations being planned at present are in the range of 1,000 to 1,200 megawatts and upwards and, of course, there can be no question of commissioning any individual unit of this size in Ireland for many years to come. Technical progress in recent years, however, is succeeding in reducing the size of a nuclear plant which can compete with traditional generating methods. I am aware that some smaller countries are now commissioning nuclear plants in the 350-500 megawatt region and they claim that these smaller plants are both economic and competitive.

With such small nuclear plants in operation and with the board's growing capability to accommodate larger units in their generating system the time has now come for us in Ireland to plan the commissioning of a medium-size nuclear generating station which, on the one hand, will not be unduly large in relation to total generating capacity and, on the other hand, will be sufficiently efficient to compete with oil-fired plants.

From a broad security aspect also it is desirable that the ESB should diversify their fuel sources, since at present just over 50 per cent of total electricity production in Ireland is based on fuel oil and, without diversification, this proportion could grow to 80 per cent or so before the end of this decade. Of course, the fuel for a nuclear station will have to be procured from abroad but we can claim that diversification by way of nuclear power stations will add to the security of the electricity supply.

Deputies are aware that there is an inter-connection between our ESB system and the Northern Ireland system. This connection allows a saving in installed capacity on both systems while maintaining the same standard of security. As far as a nuclear plant is concerned the existence of this inter-connection will allow the individual size of a generating unit to be increased, since the risk of losing one of the units can be covered by the insurance provided by inter-connection.

On a power system the spinning reserve, that is, the spare generating capacity available immediately it is required, must at all times be capable of compensating for the loss of the largest unit on load. The size of the nuclear station we can build in relation to our total capacity would, therefore, require that running cover would have to be spread over the two systems both north and south as a precaution against a breakdown in the station. This presupposes the existence of detailed planning of running schedules by both authorities on a complementary basis. It would be impossible for either north or south to proceed with the establishment of such a station without an understanding with its neighbour. This type of understanding has already evolved arising from the existence of the interconnection. Each party is now fully aware of the plans of the other in the matter of generation programmes.

I wish to make it clear to the House that no decision has been taken to build a nuclear station. The ESB have for some years past been training engineers in nuclear work and they are at present engaged in a detailed examination of the technical, economic, social and financial problems connected with the installation and operation of a nuclear station. All aspects of the project will require most careful consideration by the board; and the advice of the new Nuclear Energy Board will be required before the Government can take a decision. In particular, the provision of capital funds to finance the station may present difficulties.

If in due course, a decision is taken to build a station, the siting of such a station will be a matter to be determined primarily by technical criteria such as the availability at the site of very large amounts of cooling water and its proximity to the electrical system load centres. The site should also have suitable foundations and geological characteristics and should be located where the station will cause a minimum disturbance to local amenities and ecology. When the suitability of the various sites has been assessed, a decision on the site to be chosen will be reached in the light of the expert advice of the Electricity Supply Board and the new Nuclear Energy Board.

The establishment of an Irish Nuclear Energy Board has been under consideration at different times. The Atomic Energy Committee report published in May, 1958, and presented to the Oireachtas, suggested that an atomic energy board should be established with responsibility for the operation of a research reactor and for other matters pertaining to the development of nuclear energy. In the circumstances of the time, however the Government felt that there were very few advantages to be gained by setting up the suggested board and acquiring a training reactor. A further committee, the members of which were drawn from the universities, the Electricity Supply Board, the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, An Foras Forbartha and various interested Government Departments reported in 1966 in regard to the setting up of a nuclear energy board and, in particular, in relation to the composition and functions of such a board. The recommendations of this committee are incorporated in the Bill now before the House.

It is proposed that the primary functions of the board should be that of keeping themselves informed of developments in nuclear energy and associated matters with particular reference to the implications for the State of such developments, and to act as a competent source of advice for the Government and Ministers of State. Particular functions being given to the board, as set out in section 5 (1) of the Bill, include advising the Government or any scientific body interested in nuclear science on the acquisition of nuclear reactors or other radioactive devices for training or research purposes and, if such reactors or devices are acquired, on all aspects of their location, installation, operation and supervision. The board will also offer similar advice on proposals for the construction of nuclear power stations. In addition, they may prepare draft safety codes and regulations dealing with fissile fuel, radioactive substances and devices and irradiating apparatus taking into account relevant standards recommended by international bodies dealing with nuclear energy and they can, if requested by me, ensure compliance with any such safety codes or regulations. The board may offer advice regarding representation of the State on international bodies dealing with nuclear energy and may maintain such direct relations with such bodies as may be agreed. A particular function of the board will be to promote knowledge, proficiency and research in nuclear science and technology and to act as an agency for the collection and dissemination of information on matters relating to nuclear science.

At this stage it is not proposed to assign regulatory functions directly to the board but provision is being made for the assignment from time to time of specific functions agreed with the particular Minister concerned. During the debate in the Seanad, fears were expressed that in practice this would mean that Ministers with statutory powers of control over radioactive materials would continue to exercise such powers to the detriment of the status of the board. A number of Senators felt very strongly on this point and contended that the opportunity provided by the enactment of this Bill should be taken to centralise all such controls in the board. My following remarks are intended to reassure the House on this point.

At present control over radioactive substances, irradiating apparatus and the safe disposal of radioactive waste products is vested in the Minister for Health under the Health Act, 1953. The Minister for Labour has also, under the Factories Act, 1955, powers of control over radioactive substances and apparatus in so far as these constitute a risk to factory workers. There is a duality of functions here between the two Ministers which will be further complicated by the fact that wide powers of control over radioactive materials and apparatus are being vested in me under section 6 of the Bill for eventual assignment to the Board. The intention of the Bill as introduced in the Seanad was to leave the position open so that the board, when set up, would assist in rationalising the situation. However, in view of the opinions expressed in the Seanad I have amended the Bill to enhance the independent position of the board and to facilitate the eventual transfer to them of the control of radioactive substances and irradiating apparatus.

Under the Bill as amended the board will not be confined to offering their advice on nuclear matters in response to requests by the Government or Ministers of State for such advice, as was originally envisaged. They will instead be able to offer advice irrespective of such requests and not alone to the Government or Ministers of State but also to interested scientific groups. They can also prepare safety codes on their own initiative. Of more significance, however, is the fact that section 5 (2) of the Bill, which is the section under which I can assign functions to the board, has been revised to enable me to require the board to ensure compliance with any safety regulations under the Health Act, 1953 or the Factories Act, 1955 dealing with the use of such radioactive substances or devices. Moreover, these Acts are being amended by this Bill to enable the enforcement of such regulations to be effected by officers of the Nuclear Energy Board. The assumption by the board of such responsibilities must, however, be gradual. The Minister for Labour has, I understand, prepared regulations, which are likely to be made shortly, to protect factory workers from excessive radiation and he has had personnel trained in the use of equipment for enforcing these regulations. The Minister for Labour will, therefore, be able shortly to exercise a fair measure of control over dangerous emissions of radiation in factories. The board, on the other hand, even with the best will in the world, would obviously take some time before they would be in a position to operate controls of this kind. Briefly, the situation is that we are not yet able to centralise control of nuclear matters in the board but the mechanism whereby this can be done as required, is being provided by this Bill.

It is intended that the board shall consist of not more than seven part-time members to be appointed for periods of office not exceeding five years. The board will appoint their own staff. I envisage that the initial staff will be fairly limited in number but as developments take place and additional functions are assigned to the board from time to time that the staff will be expanded to keep pace with requirements. It is proposed that the board will be given an annual grant towards their expenses. The board will be required to submit an annual report which will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

What it is sought to achieve in this Bill, therefore, is to establish a board which will be a source of competent advice particularly for the Government and Ministers of State on all matters arising out of nuclear sciences and which will be given additional executive functions as required from time to time within the limits set by the Bill.

It has been the experience in many other countries in dealing with nuclear control that the passage of time makes necessary the introduction of amending legislation and I have little doubt but that when the board have had some years of experience they also will be recommending the introduction of new control measures. At some future stage then it will be necessary for us to amend and expand the provisions set out in this Bill.

The Bill has been carefully scrutinised in the Seanad and a number of suggestions were made to improve it in its legal and technical aspects. I was happy to introduce the necessary amendments to meet these suggestions. The Seanad has expressed itself as quite pleased with the Bill as it now stands and I can confidently recommend it to the House.

Mr. O'Donnell

I must confess I have been surprised by the Minister's introductory speech for a number of reasons. The tone of the speech today differs from the tone of recent statements he has made in relation to the development of nuclear energy and the establishment of a nuclear power plant. His recent statements indicated that the intention was to proceed with the erection of a nuclear power plant which would be operational in 1978. Perhaps the Minister is more honest than some of his colleagues because now he admits to financial difficulties. During the course of his speech today the Minister stated:

I wish to make it clear to the House that no decision has been taken to build a nuclear station.

Later in the speech he stated:

All aspects of the project will require most careful consideration by the board;

That is fair enough but he then mentions something which has not been stated in any previous speech either in the other House or outside, namely, that the provision of capital funds to finance the station may present difficulty. This seems an extraordinary situation because in addition to reading the debates in the Seanad I have been making inquiries into the matter from people who are directly involved in the project and it appears that the green light was given to go ahead and to plan for a nuclear power station in 1978.

I am disappointed at the brevity of the Minister's speech. This legislation deals with what could be described as the most complex scientific and technological subject in the world today. The Minister has left unanswered a considerable number of questions. This brings me to the comment I have made here in relation to other technical measures and the difficulties of Deputies, particularly Opposition spokesmen, in dealing with such matters. We have not access to the departmental experts or other sources of advice available to the Minister and to a large extent, we must rely on the Minister's opening statement. I admit the fact that this Bill originated in the Seanad has been a help but if Bills dealing with such technical subjects continue to be introduced, a system must be devised which will enable members of the Opposition parties particularly to carry out research and to have access to information that will enable them to inform themselves adequately.

We are asked to pronounce judgment on the desirability or otherwise of proceeding with the establishment of a nuclear energy board. I do not know if any Deputy is technically qualified to speak on nuclear energy—certainly I am not—but all of us are capable of reading material and of doing a certain amount of research. Having regard to the information available in the Minister's statement today, it is impossible to engage in a detailed discussion of the matter or to give this complex subject the attention it deserves. I hope in the not too distant future we will have in operation a parliamentary committee system which will enable technical legislation to be considered and studied in a detailed manner. This is the third Bill the Minister for Transport and Power has introduced in the past fortnight; first, we had a shipping Bill, last week we dealt with the Bill in connection with transport and now we have the Nuclear Energy Bill. It is a compliment to the Minister that he is bringing so much legislation before the House but I do not regard the method adopted as satisfactory. I do not like expressing a judgement in this House on any subject unless I have studied it and am satisfied with the validity of the viewpoints I express.

Although we are now considering the question of nuclear energy, from what the Minister has said today I am somewhat sceptical about our having a nuclear power station by 1978. There is no doubt that the development of nuclear science and technology has been dramatic. It has been the result of years of painstakingly brilliant research by the world's leading scientists and technologists. Unfortunately, in most people's minds the subject of nuclear energy is associated with the horrors of war, particularly with the devastation caused by the atomic bomb. When we are embarking on a programme of nuclear development for power purposes, it is vital that the public should be informed on all its implications.

There is a massive public relations job confronting the Minister, the Government and, in particular, the nuclear energy board when it is established. It is important that the fears of the people should be allayed and they must be informed that nuclear science and power is not only the dreadful instrument of destruction we have read about. It must be brought home to them that nuclear science has also made a tremendous contribution in many fields of human endeavour. I would mention in particular the contribution to medicine, to industry and to agriculture. Nuclear science has been of tremendous value in research, in medical diagnosis and treatment, in food preservation, in various agricultural uses, in quality control in industry and in the development of new products.

Perhaps its greatest contribution has been in the development of power; in this connection it has been so successful that now it is the major source of power and energy in many parts of the world. It is estimated that in 15 to 20 years time some two-thirds of the total power and energy requirements of the European Economic Community will be met from nuclear science. Nuclear power stations appear to be the order of the day. The Minister is proposing in this measure, as an initial step, the establishment of a nuclear energy board to advise on all aspects of this science for the provision of power and energy. The amount of reading and research I have done from the limited sources available to me have convinced me that the decision to establish a nuclear power station here is a sensible decision. The establishment of such a station is practicable, feasible and logical. We have no option but to proceed with this project. On the arguments for and against I believe the arguments for going ahead far outweigh the arguments against; indeed, the arguments for going ahead are overwhelmingly favourable.

This will be a major development. There are, of course, serious economic implications. It would be unwise for us to get bogged down here on purely scientific and technical arguments and, because of that, I prefer to approach the subject from the point of view of the ordinary person. Certain questions occur to me. Is this necessary? Is it feasible? Will it be economic? Most important of all, will it be safe? The financial implications are a matter for the Government. If the Government are doing their job properly they will have to make sure that the economy is moving in such a way that the necessary finances for this project will be available.

A new source of power must be found. At the moment we have three sources of power—water, oil and turf. I understand our hydro-electric stations are working to full capacity. I understand there is no room for further development. I understand our supplies of peat will be exhausted in another 40 years. I have seen various figures given in this respect: 20 years, 25 years, 30 years, 35 years and 40 years. It should be possible to be more definite. I believe 25 to 30 years is as safe a guess as any.

A Bill was introduced here last February dealing with fuel and oil, a Bill designed to enable the Minister to take emergency action should there be a cut in fuel supplies. The present situation is a rather alarming one. Our electricity generating stations are dependent for 50 per cent of supply on oil. This is a dangerous situation and the danger was highlighted by the Minister's seeking special powers to take emergency action in the event of fuel supplies being cut off. Our transport is dependent on oil. A good deal of domestic heating is dependent on oil. In these circumstances it is vitally important that we should find another source of power supply. There is urgent need to diversify our power supply resources as much as possible.

There are very real difficulties, political, military and otherwise, in regard to fuel and oil supplies in the world. We saw this in the case of the Korean war and again during the Suez crisis and the various crises there have been in the Middle East. Early this year there was danger of a blockage of fuel supplies because of a row over prices. I believe we have no option and the decision to proceed towards the erection of a nuclear power station is wise and necessary.

The second question I have asked myself about this project is: is it feasible? One must here take into account the economic aspects of the project. I understand there has been a vast rate of growth of nuclear power stations in Britain and in EEC countries and in the United States. It is estimated that in 15 or 20 years time two-thirds of the total electricity supply in the present EEC countries will be generated by nuclear power stations. As far as I can gather the problem concerns the size or capacity of the power station. I understand that the intention is to commission a nuclear power station of 500 megawatts at a cost of £50 million. The cost of generating electricity by nuclear power is high; I think it is reckoned as twice as costly as conventional methods. I also understand that the minimum size unit at present which would be considered economic, would be a 1,000 megawatts unit. Considerable progress, I understand, has recently been made towards the development of small nuclear stations of the 500 megawatt capacity which the ESB propose eventually to erect here.

Another point that occurred to me is that this is a very expensive project. The available information indicates that the minimum economic size is 1,000 megawatts. However, we find ourselves saying that the 500 megawatt station would perhaps be the most suited to our needs but would be less economic than the larger one. Since the matter of a nuclear power station was first mentioned I was very much attracted to the idea of a joint operation between north and south because I felt this kind of project would lend itself admirably to such joint enterprise. I am aware of the electricity agreement between the Northern Ireland Government and our Government whereby there is a link-up between the two systems but nobody from whom I have inquired has yet been able to give me a valid reason why a 1,000 megawatt power station jointly financed by the two Governments in this island could not be considered.

When the Minister is replying I should like him to give us some idea of what discussions have taken place, apart from the agreement for a link-up between the two power systems and joint transmission lines and so on. Many people like myself have been asking this question and are interested in it and think this type of project would be admirably suited to joint enterprise between the two parts of this country for economic and many other reasons. Such a project in which both Governments participated would have very valuable results apart from economic ones. It would be a major contribution to the encouragement of better and closer cross-border relationships. I am aware that the Minister's Department, particularly in the field of tourism, has been doing a good deal in this respect and there is also the electricity supply agreement with the Northern Ireland Joint Electricity Authority but I believe the possibility of taking a bigger step in this matter of joint participation should be fully explored. I have in mind the very successful joint effort culminating in the establishment of the Erne Hydro-Electric Scheme.

On the question of the feasibility and economics of this type of operation I was very interested to read among the documents I was able to procure and study on this subject a paper entitled: "The Initiating of a National Nuclear Power Programme" read to the Third International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy held under the United Nations auspices at Geneva in 1964. With the permission of the Chair, I should like to quote one or two extracts from it. This paper by two internationally recognised consulting engineers, deals with the question of the feasibility of establishing a nuclear power station in any particular country and with the factors which have to be taken into account and it ties up very much with what I have been saying about the feasibility of this type of operation here and the economics of it. This paper states that a decision to proceed with the construction of a nuclear power station would probably be made for one or more of the following reasons:

(1) because calculations indicate the energy produced would be cheaper than from any other source;

(2) because domestic sources of energy are becoming exhausted;

(3) to act as a deterrent to an increase in the price of conventional fuel;

(4) to obtain operating experience and operator training facilities in anticipation of nuclear power being required in larger quantities in future and

(5) To provide manufacturing industry with experience.

The extraordinary thing is that the authors of this paper go on to conclude that almost no nuclear stations have been built for the first reason above —that is, because calculations indicate that the energy produced would be cheaper than from any other source. So, there are factors other than the purely economic which can influence the decision. They go on to point out that while none has been built for the first reason, that is, the purely economic ground that there are cheaper means of generating electricity, most of the stations that have been built were built for a combination of other reasons. The reason that is of particular significance to us in Ireland is the second one—because domestic sources of energy are becoming exhausted. That is the particular element in relation to the peat stations.

The third reason—to act as a deterrent to increase in the price of conventional fuel—is important and significant having regard to the continuous increases in the price of fuel oils over recent years.

The development of a nuclear station may be important from the point of view of providing training for scientists and technologists and giving practical experience in the use of nuclear power.

The Nuclear Energy Board will, of course, inter alia, have the duty of advising the Minister on the feasibility of establishing a nuclear power station. It is a wise decision to establish this board. From every point of view and particularly from the point of view of the tremendous contribution made by nuclear scientists to developments in medicine, agriculture, industry and so on, and the importance of nuclear energy as a source of electrical power, we must face up to the situation and must push ahead.

I mentioned at the outset that probably the major problem which the board will have to tackle is the reassurance of the public that nuclear energy is not just a destructive force, that it is not as dangerous as many people believe it to be. Since I become aware that the Bill was to be introduced, I have engaged in the very useful exercise of testing public reaction at branch meetings and so on. I have tested the reactions of the 30 or 40 persons who visit me at my weekly clinic as to the various types of legislation that come before the Dáil. Many of these people probably have never heard of the atom and, perhaps, have not studied science even at school level. One would be amazed at the intelligent opinions one would get. I am convinced that there is a feeling abroad that nuclear power is a dangerous thing, that it is not safe. The Nuclear Energy Board will have to undertake a massive public relations job with a view to allaying the fears that many people have. Of course, this fear has been engendered to a large degree by the outpourings of cranks, fanatics and pseudo-scientists and others, some of whom we have had in this country in recent times since the question of nuclear energy came to be debated and papers have been read and public statements have been made in the Press as to the dangers of nuclear energy. Apart from the Nuclear Energy Board carrying out this public relations job, we as elected public representatives can play an important part in interpreting as correctly as we can the implications of this scientific development for the people of this country.

Because of my annoyance at some of the articles I had read, I have over the past six or eight months collected cuttings from newspapers and journals in relation to this question and have studied some of the public statements that have been made and some of the views put forward in relation to the question of safety. I have tried to examine the situation objectively. It is only right and proper that even at this early stage in legislating in regard to nuclear energy we should put on record our views in relation to the question of safety and I do this fully conscious of my responsibility in the matter.

There is no doubt that the minds of many people in this country have been conditioned by the terrible events flowing from the first practical application of atomic energy in the world. They have been conditioned by the cranks and others and the anti-nuclear groups that have appeared in other countries. The people are not aware of the peaceful uses to which this energy can be put. There have been unfortunately one or two accidents which have been highlighted in the world Press and which have tended to frighten people. The destructive possibilities of this science have been highlighted while the peaceful uses have been overlooked.

We are late in the field in relation to the development of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power is making an important contribution to electricity development in Britain and on the Continent and in the United States. A very relevant consideration in relation to the safety factor is the fact that in recent years in the United States power stations have been erected within 15 or 20 miles of major urban centres. This proves beyond all doubt that the application of nuclear energy to the generation of power is a perfectly safe project. I want to go on record as saying that I have been tremendously impressed by the colossal amount of research that has been carried out in regard to the safety element in the application of this science. There has been a massive investment in safety research and the most exhaustive research has been carried out. So far as existing nuclear power stations throughout the world are concerned every precaution has been taken to ensure the safety in operation of these particular power plants. As far as I can gather, and I have been particularly interested in this, there has been no serious incident at any nuclear power station in the world to-date. I understand there have been one or two incidents at military power stations but so far as the nuclear power stations of the type we are proposing to establish here are concerned the safety record is beyond question.

It is interesting to note that one of the main reasons why it is possible to ensure absolute safety in the operation of these particular plants is because of the relatively minute quantities of fuel consumption which are required. I have seen some amazing figures in relation to the fuel consumption of this particular type of power plant. One pound of uranium—this reminds me of my days in front of the blackboard; however, this is a serious subject and I believe in putting on record my views, for what they are worth, in relation to every aspect which I was capable of absorbing from my study of it —is equivalent to 3,000,000 pounds of coal; one cubic foot of uranium has the same energy content as 1.7 million tons of coal, or 7.2 million barrels of oil, or 32 billion cubic feet of natural gas. The amount of fuel needed to keep a nuclear plant of the type we are proposing to establish going, which when in operation would be equivalent to two-thirds of the power we are generating at the present time, is equivalent to one lorry-load per month.

Because of the small amount of fuel required to be handled compared with conventional types of fuel like coal, oil and so on, it should be possible to take the most elaborate precautions possible. The nuclear station is not of itself a danger in the sense of there being explosions or anything like that, but there is an element of danger— and this is where the safety factor comes in—with regard to the transporting of the fuel because the fuel will have to be imported. I understand that the intention in the foreseeable future is to import fabricated elements of enriched uranium; there is no intention of establishing reactors here for the purpose of enriching uranium or any of the other sources. There will be the problem of transporting the fuel to the plant, the handling of the fuel, the storage of the fuel and so on. There is also the problem of the waste fuel which is radio-active. People have expressed concern about the danger of radio-active waste adjacent to the site. I understand from my study of the subject that there is no need for one drop of this fuel, whether it is the original fuel or the spent fuel, to be wasted or to fall out. When the fuel has been used the remaining waste will be transported back in special containers to the original suppliers and the waste fuel can be reprocessed. The only danger in relation to radio-active waste is in the case of dumping of some of these materials in the Atlantic.

I am looking forward to the practicalities which will have to be considered before the location of the site is decided. Some people will not want this particular project to be sited anywhere near their homes while others will want it to be sited near their homes. I can visualise people advocating the suitability of their particular part of the country for the siting of the station. I understand the locating of this station does not pose any great problem because one of the major considerations is access to a plentiful supply of water which will be used for cooling purposes and there is no shortage of that particular commodity here.

I have seen statements suggesting Wexford, the west of Ireland, the Shannon Estuary and other places as suitable locations for the siting of this station. I suppose the natural reaction of a politician is to say that his locality is the most suitable, and I am no different from any other politician in that respect. I know that one of the functions of the Nuclear Energy Board which it is proposed to establish will be to advise on the possible location. I sincerely hope the Minister will abide by what he said in his speech today:

If in due course, a decision is taken to build a station, the siting of such a station will be a matter to be determined primarily by technical criteria such as the availability at the site of very large amounts of cooling water and its proximity to the electrical system load centres.

I am aware that the ESB have done a great deal of research into this whole project and members of their technical staff have been sent abroad for training and study in this particular field. In relation to the siting of this plant, which I foresee will have political implications, I do not know whether or not there is enough water at Athlone but I doubt it very much so the Minister can afford to be objective in relation to this.

The estuary of the Shannon.

Mr. O'Donnell

Maybe the Tolka or the Dodder. I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept the findings of whatever feasibility study has been carried out in relation to the sitting of this plant. This is a project of such magnitude and of such vital importance to the future of this country that political considerations should not enter into the actual siting of the plant. This may be an extraordinary statement to make but this is my view. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the findings of the feasibility study and if the Minister and the Government are not prepared to accept the advice that will be offered by the proposed Nuclear Energy Board, which under this Bill the Minister will be empowered to set up, then it is only a waste of time setting up a Nuclear Energy Board.

I am not qualified but my view is, and it is the feeling of many people, that perhaps a tremendous opportunity is being lost here for practical cross-border co-operation. I would again urge on the Minister the desirability of exploring every possibility of having a nuclear plant for this island in which the two Governments, north and south, would jointly participate— one nuclear power plant serving north and south of this country. This is what appeals to me. This is, I think, a feasible proposition. It is also a very desirable proposition from many points of view. I would refer to the tremendous success of the project that was initiated in this House under the legislation setting up the Erne Hydro Electric Scheme. Even if I had information which led me to believe that the most suitable site for this project was in the heart of my own constituency I would still advocate a joint operation between north and south.

The function of the actual board which the Minister proposes to set up will be to advise the Minister, as he puts it, on things nuclear. This is important. Deputy Dr. O'Connell will be interested in the medical aspects of this particular science and is well qualified to speak on this subject. It is important to emphasise the fact that this Nuclear Energy Board will have the function of advising the Minister not merely on the application of nuclear science to the generation of power or to the erection of a nuclear power station but it will be concerned with research into all aspects of the application of nuclear science. Having studied and researched, they will then be in a position to advise the Minister and the Government as to the application of this particular science to the different fields of medicine and industry, agriculture, provision of electric power and so forth which might be feasible in this country.

I take it that the proposed Nuclear Energy Board will be a board which will consist of people who are expert in this field. I do not know how many people there are in the country who could be termed experts in the field of nuclear science but I am sure that in our universities and perhaps in industry and maybe in the medical world as well as in the ESB it must be possible to find seven people who are expert enough to advise the Government and the Minister on the applications of this science. A suggestion has been made regarding the possibility of the Minister going outside the State for one or two members of this board. I am just throwing this out for what it is worth. It is a highly involved and highly technical business and this Nuclear Energy Board will have vitally important functions to fulfil. I would say that it should be possible north and south of the Border to find suitable people. Again I should like to see the Nuclear Energy Board operating for the whole island.

I acknowledge the fact that this Bill was discussed in the Seanad and that the Minister has introduced amendments to meet suggestions made in the Seanad. The Minister pointed out that the Seanad was pleased with the Bill. I do not mind saying, despite the various aspects I have gone into, that I consider the Bill reasonably satisfactory from the point of view of taking the first step towards the harnessing of nuclear power and the practical application of nuclear science to different fields. I hope this board will be established without undue delay. The board will advise the Minister and the Government on all aspects of the application of nuclear science. Assuming that advice is given by this board, will the Minister come before the House and will there be further legislation necessary? In other words, are we to set up a Nuclear Energy Board now which will be empowered to advise the Government and the Minister and will the Minister have a carte blanche in relation to all nuclear developments or will further legislation be introduced?

Not unless it is necessary. The purpose of the Bill is to set up a board that will advise me on all nuclear matters.

Mr. O'Donnell

As one who has been critical of the ESB—and, in fact, the other day I called for an inquiry into the operations of the board—I want to say that the manner in which the ESB faced up to the practical realities of the advent of nuclear power is very commendable. I am aware, from personal contacts with some of the people who have been assigned to study this development, of the tremendous amount of work that has been done. I am satisfied that, as a result of their foresight and initiative, the ESB have now acquired a very highly qualified and highly skilled unit among their employees. I have no doubt that we can have confidence in their ability to bring the proposal in relation to a nuclear power station to a successful conclusion. I wish the ESB well in their endeavour in this direction, despite the economic situation and the financial implications to which the Minister referred.

Deputy O'Donnell complained that the Minister's brief was brief. He certainly did not treat us to a brief discourse on this relatively limited Bill. The Seanad like to get first "go" at a Bill. I was in the Seanad when the Coinage Bill was introduced in 1950. This was the first time a Bill was introduced in the Seanad and there was great excitement. I notice that the amount of discussion on this Bill in the Seanad was quite exceptional.

They spread themselves on it.

Deputy O'Donnell talked about facilities for Deputies for researching this matter. I went into the Library this morning and the three relevant volumes were missing. That did not help my researches. As briefs go, I thought this was one of the very best briefs I have ever listened to in the House and I have listened to a lot of them and written some myself. The discussion in the Seanad especially by Senator Dooge and Senator West, and on the legal side by Senator Alexis FitzGerald, was comprehensive. It went on for days. They spent one day on Second Reading, two days on Committee Stage, and one day on Report Stage.

On Committee Stage I will probably have some remarks to make about odd things in the different sections but, subject to that, this Bill is perfect. I suppose I must say a few words about it. The Minister accepted many minor amendments during the discussion in the Seanad. He said that the Seanad were "quite pleased with the Bill as it now stands and I can confidently recommend it to the House". The Minister is justified in making that claim. Not so long ago we had a Bill in the House which was not unlike this in format, the Higher Education Authority Bill, but it was not as good as this and I had a great number of very adverse criticisms to make on it. The section dealing with pensions in this Bill is superior to what was in the Higher Education Authority Bill.

The Minister told us the history of the attempts by various Governments to approach this subject. We were lucky that different Governments showed a great deal of common sense because we could quite easily have run into serious trouble. There was untold trouble in other countries. The promises of scientists are not unlike the promises of astrologists, or soothsayers, or forecasters. They see the future as being wonderful. I am not saying that there is not a wonderful future for nuclear energy in the long run, but it is a long way off. A great deal of money was wasted, even in the island next door, in connection with nuclear power stations. They proved to be not at all easy to develop.

I was glad to hear Deputy O'Donnell —very late in his speech I notice—say a few words in praise of the ESB. I was wondering had he forgotten them altogether. It is true that the ESB have shown a great deal of common sense on this matter. They looked after the training of people and this was the right way to go about it. This board will not interfere in any way with them. It will be purely an advisory board. The second inter-Party Government set up a board and the Minister said that when they reported in 1958 the Government decided not to go ahead. I see nothing wrong with that. That decision was right. There was a subsequent board which reported in 1966. One would not have gathered from Deputy O'Donnell's speech that a specific statement was made by the Minister: "I wish to make it clear to the House that no decision has been taken to build a nuclear station." I am not a bit surprised. I remember being in the north of Scotland and seeing the Dunrea station with Deputy Donegan. The Dunrea station proved to be infinitely more expensive to build than was anticipated originally. If some Government here had been foolish enough to barge into this field we would have found ourselves with a millstone around our necks.

The Minister referred to large generators. This is a most serious matter. In England they started to build these large generators in ordinary conventional power stations—600 megawatt generators. Then some technical difficulties arose. One of them went out of action with the result that a large area in England had to be blacked out for a period. If we had even a 250 megawatt generator, one-quarter of the country would be blacked out if we had not got adequate power elsewhere.

We have been developing very nicely. We have a number of 60 megawatt units. I think the ESB practically have in hand 120 megawatt units. They are about 10 per cent, I understand, of what we use at present. That is as much as one should have in one unit. For a Government who are normally in such a hurry to import ideas from outside, the Government have shown commendable caution in this matter. We are not in any sense embarking on a programme of nuclear development for power purposes. The Minister said that the spare generating capacity available immediately it is required, must at all times be capable of compensating for the loss of the largest unit on load.

I do not hold the same view as others as to the disaster involved in a blackout. We have not had a blackout here since the war whereas they have been experienced in different parts of England at various times. However, this has probably cost us a good deal in money terms because our engineers have been extremely careful to pay close attention—maybe even too close attention—to the limits to which these generators should be pushed. These limits are set by the manufacturers and, of course, the manufacturers having regard to their good name set tremendous margins of safety. I am informed that not the slightest attention is paid to these margins of safety in Germany or Britain and consequently the generators are pushed to a much greater limit than the limit to which ours are pushed.

I do not agree with Deputy O'Donnell as to one being able to forecast the time at which our peat resources will be exhausted. Although one might have ideas in this regard, there is not much point in going into detail when one is not an expert in this field. This board is to be an advisory board. This Bill is a small one and in opening the debate this afternoon the Minister was perfectly right not to have presented us with an extensive brief.

The Minister tells us that the development of nuclear power reactors is continually improving. Of course, this is the most important matter in the Bill. We have been told also that in recent times the more advanced countries have been able to commission nuclear reactors competitive in price with power stations based on the traditional fossil fuels. This has happened only recently. Heretofore the performance was not nearly as good as the original promise but in the long run the performance will probably be better than the promise. The Minister has told us, too, that nuclear power stations have very high capital costs and relatively low fuel costs. This aspect, so far as we are concerned, presents us with one of our greatest difficulties because capital is now getting scarce and much capital will be required for the purchase of the new machinery. The Minister stated that:

the fuel for a nuclear station will have to be procured from abroad but we can claim that diversification by way of nuclear power stations will add to the security of the electricity supply.

Of course it will because once the nuclear fuel has been purchased it will last practically for ever. Finally, I must commend the Minister in that towards the end of his brief he said:

I envisage that the initial staff will be fairly limited in number but as developments take place and additional functions are assigned to the board from time to time that the staff will be expanded to keep pace with requirements.

The Minister deserves to be complimented on bringing this Bill before the House.

At the outset I should like to mention an incident which Deputy O'Donovan may remember. This happened about ten years ago when the Deputy and his good and beautiful wife, together with my wife and me were holidaying in Scotland. One day during that holiday, while on our way back from John-o-Groats, we observed a nuclear power station and decided to have a look around. However, when we arrived at the front gate we were not received very well. Perhaps my blond hair at the time and the fact that I was driving a Mercedes and wearing sun glasses——

Made you a security risk.

——gave the impression that I was a German. However, we did see the plant. Undoubtedly, this legislation is necessary. One has only to consider the trends in the provision of power for industry to realise how things can change because matters are different in another part of the world. It is only three years since every oil company in the country was begging businessmen to make a contract with them and were competing with each other to have volumes reduced in price by fifths of an old penny per gallon. Then the sheiks of Araby decided they wanted more money and, inevitably, a compromise followed—a compromise which, at the flour and bread inquiry at which I was present last week, was stated to be 2p per gallon. I do not know whether this figure is correct but it indicates how the entire aspect can change. One has only to reflect on the days of Suez when vast quantities of oil were carried on the canal, from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Mediterranean, into Rotterdam and then to the entire Continent. Since then we have become familiar with Whiddy Island in which, as the Minister knows, I have some considerable interest. Incidentally, I am not in complete agreement with his actions in that regard. Of course the operations at Whiddy Island resulted from the non-usage of the Suez Canal for the shipment of oil. Many millions of pounds were spent providing super-tankers to take oil to what is the second greatest area of usage in the world, the competitors being the United States and the general Continent of Europe. As well as these changes there were what could be described as experimental plants, plants which must have cost many millions to construct.

This source of energy which heretofore might have been regarded as a rarity, perhaps because of its relationship to the splitting of the atom, or to Hiroshima, or to any of these other things of which Senator Dooge, for instance, would have a deeper knowledge than I, is now a reality. As has been said already this board is merely a first shot in this field of nuclear energy. They are being set up for the purpose of investigating this whole field and from that point it is not necessary that they have arbitrary functions or that they be bound tightly by rules and regulations. In time another Bill on this subject must emerge.

There is the question also as to whether the population of this country and the degree of industrial usage of fuel warrants what is foreshadowed in the Bill. That is a matter for investigation by the board but Deputy O'Donnell was right in suggesting that there might be an avenue of co-operation with the North of Ireland in this regard. The population of one and a half million people there would add considerably to the volume of usage, to an even greater degree than the population figure suggests. If one leaves out certain rural areas, such as Fermanagh, one finds that on average the degree of industrial development in the north is higher than in the south. That is not to decry ourselves. It is a fact. One has but to consider the undeveloped areas in the south, which are called designated areas; obviously the usage of fuel in an area such as Mayo is considerably less than in Dublin or Belfast. The development of the new city of Craigavon and the work done there—in advance of our efforts in industrial development—means that there will be heavy usage of fuel in the North of Ireland. Politicians must be level-headed in their approach in this matter. If there is an opportunity for co-operation with the North of Ireland in the production of power from nuclear energy and if that requires a high capital injection, the question of whether it should be the subject for one scheme to cover the entire country will be considered.

With the exception of certain people —I would mention Senator Dooge and Deputy de Valera—on this subject most of us are lay people who have not interested ourselves in a detailed way in this matter. I am aware that Deputy de Valera has interested himself in this matter; in fact, I was with him when he travelled to Brussels some years ago especially to hear a lecture on this subject. Similarly, by reason of his profession Senator Dooge has a specialised knowledge of this matter. However, most of us have not this knowledge and we must generalise but in our generalisation we should be able to look at the problems.

Mention has been made of our supplies of peat. I remember a phrase used by the then Minister for Finance when the Government had failed so abysmally in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion and were introducing the Third Programme.

Deputy Haughey said at the time that the Second Programme had "excessive quantification"—a glorious phrase. It was not relevant then because we should plan towards targets and targets mean quantification but in this regard it is difficult to quantify exactly how much peat we will use and how much we have left. Some of the bogs are not opened yet and it is difficult to decide how practical they will be if they are opened.

The position in regard to the practicality of opening them can change in a period of years. An example that may be cited is the Arklow mines. The first difficulty in relation to the Arklow mines was when the price of copper on the international market dropped by half. People may have been critical of the way the matter was handled but the prime reason for the difficulty was not the fact that there was no copper there or an opportunity to mine it but that it was not a viable proposition. If we consider the closing of the Suez Canal and the demand of the oil sheiks for more royalties we can find over a period of five or ten years a changing situation which might make one proposition viable at a certain time and not viable later or vice versa.

There is also the position regarding hydro-electric schemes. The greatest example of co-operation between north and south was the Erne Hydro-Electric Scheme. It is a sad feature of modern life that one of the events of the past two years was an attempt to blow up part of that installation. In relation to nuclear energy and the high capital cost involved we must examine in detail whether further hydro-electric schemes may be viable propositions. I do not know if there has been a report on this or if there are rivers which might be harnessed for hydro-electric power. I do not know if there are estuaries where the movement of the tide can be a source of power. We must quantify with the aid of all the information at our disposal our future needs for power. The development of hydro-electric resources and nuclear energy must be considered side by side.

May I cite an obvious place where investigation is necessary as to whether the provision of hydro-electric power is viable, namely, in the inlet at Foynes? It resembles a Norwegian fiord and from Tarbert to the Clare coast there is a colossal outflow and inflow of the tide. The harnessing of this water has been mentioned many times. Harnessing in itself is no problem; the question is whether the money spent would be a worthwhile expenditure.

In discussing in a general way what has been done in relation to energy for use in industry to provide hydro-electric power, we might consider the instance of a £10 million plant in Wicklow. During the time of low usage of electricity pumping is carried out to pump to a reservoir or lake at a higher level a vast quantity of water which is used during periods of heavy consumption. Here, again, there is the question of harnessing the water. There has been a rumour that investigations have taken place in a general way on the setting up of a nuclear power station. There has been some examination of the southern side of Dundalk. Bay, the portion extending from Dunaney to the town of Dundalk. Rumour has it that there is a certain interest in the tide at that particular point and rumour has it that this interest is tied up with the development of a nuclear power station. I do not know whether or not the strength of the tide would have anything to do with such a station. I do not know if waste products would have to be taken away by the tide. I should like some information from the Minister on this.

Deputy O'Donovan and Deputy O'Donnell referred to safety regulations. What will be the position about the disposal of deleterious waste, waste which might affect human life, fish life, animal life or the amenities of a district? I am sure the Minister has had some information on this as a result of the operation of nuclear power stations like the one Deputy O'Donovan and I arrived at about ten years ago.

Section 15 deals with the secondment of an employee of the board becoming a member of the Oireachtas and subsection (c) deals with the position of a member of the Oireachtas who becomes a member of the board.

This is something we shall have to deal with on Committee Stage. We have two Members of the Oireachtas who have a specialised knowledge in hydro-electrics and kindred subjects. Deputy de Valera and Senator Dooge would be excellent members of such a board and this is something we shall have to discuss on Committee Stage; it is a change from the global banning of Members of the Oireachtas being members of any board. For the last 16 years I have been against this kind of legislation. If a Member of the Oireachtas has specialised knowledge he should be allowed to give the benefit of that knowledge wherever it will be most advantageous without let or hindrance. If this ukase were to persist in legislation the only result would be to deprive the whole community of specialised knowledge.

The investigation committee may be a little late. I think this committee should have been established years ago. The particular problem became highlighted as a result of the increase in the price of oil from the Arab countries and as a result of the Suez crisis. The Government, as I said today at Question Time, have had other problems to deal with in the past two years and a good deal of pending legislation is arriving late in the House.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister says there are no problems.

We will leave that to the Minister and the newspaper columnists. Late or not, this is a good move. I am not against it. I am glad the ex-Minister for Finance has arrived in the House because we have just been discussing some of his phrases.

This is an interesting Bill. A recommendation was made to the Government in 1966 that a nuclear power station should be set up. I am wondering why the delay. There is need for such a station. We have only to look at the advances in technology, medicine and science to realise the urgent need there is for such a station. Nuclear power has resulted in fantastic strides in medicine from the point of view of both diagnostics and of treatment. All available information gained from similar bodies in more advanced countries should be available to us.

This body will undertake research into the dangers resulting from radio-active fall-out. This could be a serious problem. Even if there is no war there is always the danger of fall-out. An example of that was the American plane which crashed off the coast of Spain two years ago. There was consternation at the time. These planes are in the air every day and it is most important that we should be equipped to deal with the position should a similar accident occur off our own coast.

We cannot discuss this Bill without thinking of co-operation between north and south in this particular field. Different Deputies have spoken about co-operation. I should like to see us go one stage further. There is an opportunity here for the Minister in appointing the seven members to the board to go a stage further and, perhaps, discuss with the Northern Government the possibility of appointing two or three members from the north on this board. This is a major opportunity that could be taken by the Minister to extend the hand of friendship and say: "There are many matters on which we could co-operate and we invite you to do so." Even if the Northern Government were not co-operative the Minister might consider inviting two or three people from the north to join this board. Such a step could not but show the Northern people that we are ready to work in harmony with them on many projects. The Minister should seriously consider this because if progress is to be made in this field it will certainly involve both North and South; we cannot consider setting up this body or the operation of nuclear stations without taking the North of Ireland into account. We cannot work economically without the North and therefore in this instance we should consider what I have suggested.

I was a little disturbed about the expansion of the Electricity Supply Board and the fact that in a short time 80 per cent of their fuel to produce electricity will be oil. This is worrying in that we would then be dependent so much on outside sources. We know there are great dangers when these countries are concluding agreements with commercial concerns about the supply of oil. I think we shall shortly see a situation in which there will be greater and greater demands and the stage may be reached when we shall find ourselves without fuel. We can see what is happening and where countries have no political stability and where there is growing discontent there is an ever-increasing danger to oil supplies for electricity production.

This places us in a very difficult position and I should like to think we might not have to depend on oil. Even though the capital cost of a nuclear plant might be phenomenal it would be worth considering in the light of the danger of oil supplies being cut off. We should not be daunted by the capital cost when we remember that Common Market countries are at present operating nuclear plants for industry and we shall have to compete with these countries for so many things.

We must have an electricity supply available to industry at economic rates. The increasing cost of electricity under the existing system indicates that we may have seriously to consider facing the capital cost of investment in a nuclear plant that would supply electricity at an economic price. I should like to know if the Minister has investigated which Common Market countries have nuclear plants and could he tell us at what cost electricity can be supplied from a nuclear plant as against the cost of supply from oil.

I hope that in appointing the board of this body we shall not talk in terms of political appointments. We should move away from this obnoxious practice. The Minister should give a lead by appointing people of ability, completely disregarding their political affiliations. This would do much to enhance the Minister's position. People nowadays are a bit fed up when they see political appointees on boards which are set up. This is not good. We should like to see people on this board who, perhaps, have particular experience in the scientific aspect of nuclear energy and, possibly, its application in medicine. There could also be somebody from the Board of the ESB. We should think in this way rather than in terms of politics. Unfortunately too often the appointments to new boards are political. A couple of weeks ago we read that a director of a board set up for a semi-State body was fired when he no longer found favour with the present Cabinet. The Minister now has an opportunity to adopt a completely different policy and he would gain public respect by doing so.

I was concerned about one matter the Minister mentioned. He said the Department of Labour were making regulations protecting factory workers against the dangers of radio-active substances. This suggests that nuclear energy or radio-active substances are at present being used in industry. If that is so I should like to know where and what precautions are taken. If it is used in industry I should like to know if those concerned are fully conversant with the dangers and if there are adequate precautions for the workers.

You also have it in medicine.

I have worked with it in medicine and it is because I know the dangers that I emphasise the fact that in industry adequate precautions may not be taken if the workers and their employers are not aware of the dangers.

When we are setting up this body we must talk seriously about the question of a nuclear generating station. This will come in the not too distant future even though present circumstances may not permit it. I should like to think that the ESB would think far enough ahead. Too often the danger is that they do not. I have a great regard for the ESB who are too frequently criticised. I have found them, in my dealings with them, a great body, very anxious to help. They realise their social obligations, which is more than can be said of many bodies. I should like to think that they are sufficiently far-seeing to realise that we will have tremendous economic expansion. I would hope that we will not have a problem created by power stations not being adequate. We have problems at the moment of power stations not being adequate to meet the demands of rapidly built-up areas. This arises, for me, in Ballyfermot, Drimnagh and Crumlin. The people there cannot view a TV film. There is not enough power to produce a good picture. This may seem irrelevant and negligible but it is very important for the people concerned. The board should look far ahead and have regard to the tremendous economic growth which we can expect in the next decade. Ten years ago we would not have envisaged anything like the growth that we now have. It is not a percentage; it is a logarithmic increase in economic progress. This should be taken into account. I do not know if we will have opportunities to discuss this matter if the question of investment in a nuclear plant arises. They should plan, not for the present or for five or ten years, but far ahead and make an investment which will meet the demand, perhaps, for ten to 20 years. This is particularly important having regard to the capital cost.

I see the opportunities that there are in providing a nuclear energy station and I like the idea of a body being set up and of information being collated and disseminated and made available to scientific and medical bodies, from the health point of view and the dangers of fall-out. We should have set up a board a long time ago. I cannot see the reason for the delay and I would hope that the board will be established as soon as possible.

I should like to thank the House for the very constructive debate on this very necessary legislation which is designed to ensure that the Minister for Transport and Power and the Government will be fully advised on all nuclear matters. Naturally enough, a great deal of the debate has concentrated on the nuclear generation aspect but I should like to emphasise that this Bill covers all matters relating to nuclear development. Deputy O'Connell rightly emphasised that aspect with regard to safety in factories, medicine, hygiene, in regard to all aspects affecting the community. This board will be in a position to advise the Minister and the Government on all of these aspects arising out of radio-active substances.

Furthermore, on the aspect of research, education and training, again the board will be in a position to advise on developments, to set up the appropriate inquiries and make the necessary arrangements to enhance the developments in Ireland, if necessary, or collect and collate information gathered from abroad on these aspects of research, training and education, and then, of course, on the important aspect of power generation as it will arise in future, again, this expert authority will be established designed to ensure that the most expert advice is available to the Minister and the Government on how to plan development in this field.

I want to assure the House of one thing that has been raised by Deputy O'Connell and that is that there will be no question of this being in any way a board on which people will be appointed for political reasons, or anything of that kind. This will be a highly scientific, specialist board that will be recruited with the objective of covering the aspects I have mentioned—the medical, educational, research and generation aspects, the aspects of nuclear energy development in future that will be covered in the composition of a specialist board who will be associated and acquainted with the problems of nuclear energy in these various fields.

Deputy O'Donnell and other Deputies were concerned about the proposed nuclear power station and Deputy O'Donnell mentioned the fact that no decision had yet been made. This is a fact. No final decision has yet been made. The ESB have their experts and engineers working on the feasibility of establishing such a power station. They have surveyed possible locations around the country and they are preparing proposals at the present time for my consideration and the Government's consideration. These proposals will be considered in the months ahead and I want this board established to advise the Government fully on all aspects relating to this so that a decision can be taken, if it is to be taken, with the fullest and best advice available.

The importance of such a decision can be emphasised by the best barometer of all, which is money. I mentioned £50 million in the Seanad but the finances could possibly run into the region of £70 million to £80 million. It is of that order. It is certainly money of that magnitude. Again, there are no hard and fast figures as yet. These are in course of preparation. Capital investment of that kind is not to be lightly undertaken and I want to emphasise that we want to keep all our options open in regard to the future power requirements of the community. The overall picture is that oil is now running ahead of 50 per cent of the resource for power generation in this country. I emphasised this fact in the House before and it has been referred to in the course of the debate that this is unhealthy. I agree that it is unhealthy. It is undesirable that this should be the case and it is desirable that we should as far as possible diversify our fuel requirements for power purposes.

I shall go through the other ones: in regard to hydro-electric resources for actual generation purposes, we have reached, at the present view of it, the feasible limit in regard to generation, not in regard to storage. Hydro storage, such as we have had at Turlough Hill, County Wicklow, and proposed for the Comeragh Mountains in Waterford, where another site is being investigated, and there is another one in the country being investigated, is separate from hydro generation. Hydro storage enables you to store water for utilisation at the best possible time so that you can balance the supply of power. It levels off the peaks and the valleys. That is, broadly speaking, the purpose of hydro storage but this does not mean new generation, as it were.

We are investigating what was mentioned by Deputy Donegan, the question of harnessing the tides. Again, on the present view, this does not appear to be economic. It has been done in France already. We do not, at present view of it, have sufficient tidal force in any of our estuaries to make this proposition economic. It is being kept under review, particularly in regard to the Shannon Estuary but, again, it is another one of the options the ESB are examining.

As regards the peat resources, at the best figure, certainly at the end of 40 years the resources will be exhausted but certainly over the next 30 years they will be reduced to a very low level. Over the next 30 years peat resources, in so far as power generation is concerned, will be diminishing. Coal resources will be another uncertain source of supply. Coal resources will diminish in time. Oil supplies are not inexhaustible. In this situation it is very important for the ESB to survey alternative methods of power generation and, having examined all proposals, to come up with proposals from which the Government can make their selection. This is the thinking behind the search for natural gas and oil around our coastal waters. The thinking in regard to a proposed nuclear power station could be changed if we discover oil or natural gas around our coast. There have been some favourable reports about such finds already.

The whole purpose of the ESB is to examine every possible source of supply and to ensure that the community are protected and that we do not become overdependent on any one source of fuel for power purposes. We are becoming overdependent on oil. At the present time we have no oil resources in Ireland. In that general picture it is very important to plan alternatively. That is why the ESB are now at an advanced stage of planning in regard to a nuclear energy station for which they could, if given a direction, invite tenders some time next year. They could have such a station in commission by 1978. It would be a 500-megawatt station. At that stage it would be able to supply nearly 20 per cent of our requirements on the basis that we would have in the region of 3,000 megawatts supply requirements by 1980. The present rate of expansion of 11 to 12 per cent per year on the 1,400 megawatt supply of power that we have now would mean that a 3,000 megawatt supply would be needed.

Mr. O'Donnell

That is the most economic plan?

I am talking about the total. If we proceed at the present rate of expansion in regard to utilisation of electric power the community will need a power supply in the region of 3,000 megawatts by 1980. At the present time we are supplying 1,400 megawatts. In that situation a 500-megawatt nuclear energy station would supply between one-fifth and one-sixth of the requirements, assuming such a station is commissioned and is in production by 1978-79. This is forward thinking to ensure that we have an alternative source of supply by 1980. If we do not have some such alternative supply we will be overdependent on oil by 1980. The general position in the world in this regard shows that it is obviously undesirable to be overdependent on one source of power. This is a matter of grave concern to countries such as Germany, France, Britain and the west of Europe. All these countries are concerned about their overdependence on oil as a source of power supply.

Mr. O'Donnell

Is it not a fact that the research planning done by the ESB has reached a stage where the board are ready to invite tenders next year?

That is what I said. They are in a position where they can invite tenders early next year, provided the appropriate capital arrangements are made. If the Nuclear Energy Board assess the project in all its aspects it would be a matter for the Government to consider the economic and financial aspects of it.

A great tribute is due to the ESB.

Tremendous credit is due to the ESB for their forward thinking in this matter. They have reached a situation where, depending on the proposals put forward by the ESB, the advice of the Nuclear Energy Board, our own assessment of alternative fuel supplies for power purposes, and also on the whole situation from the financial viewpoint in the capital sense, we will be in a position to make a decision in this matter within the next six to nine months.

Mr. O'Donnell

In view of all the work done by the ESB in this matter, would it not be a ludicrous situation if the Nuclear Energy Board turned down the scheme?

There is no point in oversimplifying a complex matter. No decision will be made on an easy basis. It is a highly complex matter in which various aspects have to be considered. I want, on behalf of the community, to be in a position to have the most expert advice available to me as to the feasibility of such a project.

Mr. O'Donnell

Is the Nuclear Energy Board to be set up at the time the ESB decide to explore nuclear energy?

The ESB are concerned with the technical aspects of power generation. Their concern is totally separate from what the Nuclear Energy Board or the Government are thinking. The Nuclear Energy Board will have the task of looking at the overall picture. The ESB are concerned with power generation. There are a number of aspects of the problem which have to be considered by the board and the Government—for instance, the siting of the station. A number of environmental matters can arise apart from power generation.

Deputies O'Donnell, Dr. O'Connell, Donegan and Dr. O'Donovan mentioned the question of co-operation with the North of Ireland in this important matter. I wish to emphasise that there must be co-operation with the North of Ireland. The inter-connection which now obtains between north and south in regard to electricity supplies makes it imperative that in any such development there must be close co-operation between North and South to ensure maximum utilisation of any nuclear plant erected down here. The same would apply if it were decided to erect a nuclear plant in the north-east of the country. Such co-operation will take place at all stages. Anything done in regard to the capacity of the plant, or its nature, will be done after consideration of the fact that the power of the inter-connected system will be shared in all parts of this island, including the North.

Does the Minister see many obstacles to my suggestion about members of the Nuclear Energy Board inviting people from the North to join in?

There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. If I can find a person with the required specialised knowledge which is needed I do not care what part of Ireland he or she comes from. We wish to secure the best brains in the country for participation in the work of the Nuclear Energy Board. If, in the course of my inquiries over the next few weeks, it emerges that there is such a person in the North of Ireland I will have that person considered for membership of this board. It is part and parcel of the whole arrangement in regard to power distribution between North and South that the capacity and the nature of the operation of the proposed nuclear power station should be developed on a basis of co-operation and consultation with the Northern authorities. This is inevitable. The proposed station will be feeding into the same transmission grid that brings power to the North and the South.

Mr. O'Donnell

Is there a possibility that there could be one plant serving all Ireland?

There is no decision on that. Looking ahead at the expansion of power requirements in both parts of the country, it is on the cards that there may be two such power stations. I do not anticipate this. I can assure the House that there will be very full consultation on this whole matter. I visualise the Nuclear Energy Board and myself and my officials engaging in such consultation over the next 12 months. The House can be assured that this sort of consultation will take place and that we will not go ahead with a project of this magnitude without consultation with all the interests concerned north and south of the Border. One point which was raised by Deputies and which I would like to emphasise is that the great merit of having nuclear generation is that the running costs are low. The great difficulty is the enormous capital investment involved.

What EEC countries have nuclear generating stations?

All of them.

We shall need a station to compete with them.

We share this disadvantage with the EEC, that the vital ingredient for reactor breeding, uranium, does not exist in Western Europe. Canada and Australia are the principal countries supplying this material. Of course, as mentioned by Senator Dooge in his very interesting contribution in the Seanad, we are at a very early stage in this whole development of fission and fusion in regard to nuclear power. Heretofore the problem has been that it has been impossible to get a reasonably-priced nuclear power station at a reasonable level of power production. It is only in the very recent part that a 500 megawatt power station such as the one now envisaged by the ESB has become economic. Only very recently 1,000 megawatt power stations were regarded as the minimum size. It is only now, after 25 or 26 years of investigation in this field, that nuclear power production is becoming economic. Deputy O'Donovan was right when he said that we and other Governments were wise to hasten slowly in this respect.

Mr. O'Donnell

The cost of fuel oil is going up all the time, so the gap is being narrowed.

Yes, the gap is being narrowed by reason of the rise in fuel oil costs. The extension of nuclear fission development is nuclear fusion, which is the most exciting power prospect of all time. We are very much in the early stages as regards this, as Deputy O'Donnell said in the course of his remarks, but if we can achieve nuclear fusion the hydrogen in the world is at our disposal for continuous power production. That prospect is at least a generation ahead, but pending its realisation, which we hope will finally solve the world's power problems, we have to live with the various fuels I have mentioned, some of which, like oil, have been causing the world some trouble in the recent past. In the interim period before we have nuclear fusion as a permanent power source, the sensible thing to do is to ensure that we, as a small country, have as diverse a range of fuels as possible from which to draw for power purposes, and the provision of nuclear energy for power production fits into this overall plan for diversifying our power sources.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share