I apologise for delaying Mr. Turvey. As he can see, it is always difficult to complete one topic before moving to another. I welcome the delegation and ask Mr. Turvey to make his presentation.
Nuclear Energy: Discussion with Better Environment with Nuclear Energy Group.
I should explain my position before the delegation begins as I do not want people to think I am leaving in the middle of a presentation. Some members have a problem in that the carbon budget will be announced very soon. The next speaker in the House will be the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. I will speak after the Minister so I must go and listen to what he has to say. Unfortunately, I am not sure he will be announcing much good news. I reassure the witnesses I will read the transcripts afterwards if I am unable to return. I wanted to mention that before the presentation began rather than leaving without an explanation.
Mr. Frank Turvey
We understand it is a very busy day for everyone. I will kick off by introducing my colleagues, Mr. Peter White, Professor Philip Walton, Mr. John Stafford, Dr. Tom O'Flaherty and Mr. Denis Duff. Our small group, known as BENE, is made up of people who, through their life's work, have gained special knowledge of radiation and its effect on man, as well as nuclear and many other forms of energy, especially electricity.
We have no commercial vested interests in these matters but we care deeply about the environment and the sustainability of our way of life in Ireland, which is affected greatly by energy policy. This is the reason we have come together as a group.
We believe the path on which Ireland is heading is a lonely one. It involves high risk for the environment, for competitiveness in the international marketplace and for the economy in general. It will also make compliance with international targets for the control of climate change extremely difficult.
We do not ask the committee to accept our view about nuclear energy instantly. We ask the members to read the authoritative peer-reviewed, international scientific opinion on nuclear energy and then, on the basis of their own judgment, to weed out the myth from the truth. We hope they will make wise decisions.
For too long we have been influenced by dogma rather than by scientific and technical data. My colleague, Dr. Tom O'Flaherty, will present part 1 of our address and Mr. Denis Duff will present part 2, which focuses on the role of renewable energy, especially wind and nuclear, in the generation of our electricity needs in the future.
Mr. Tom O’Flaherty
I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for giving BENE the opportunity to put before them its considered view that nuclear power has a vital contribution to make to Ireland's future energy needs.
BENE is a voluntary group of people with accumulated expertise in energy matters, particularly in nuclear energy. However, we stress that we are not a bunch of nuclear zealots who are oblivious to the concerns that people have about this technology. We make the analogy that nuclear power can be seen as a form of medicine, which may not be very palatable, but which is vital to take in the interests of future health and well-being. For a person, that requirement would be a medicine, for a country it is nuclear power. We will demonstrate why we believe nuclear power is essential to Ireland's future well-being, and why we believe the objections to its use can be satisfactorily addressed.
The reason we will need nuclear power can be stated very simply. It centres on how we generate our baseload electricity, namely, that part of our electricity supply which is needed all the time, day and night, winter and summer. This cannot be supplied by wind because of its unpredictability. At present the major source of our baseload electricity is the coal-burning station at Moneypoint. However, Moneypoint emits some 6 million tonnes of CO2 per year which is equivalent to 8% to 9% of our total CO2 emissions or just about the amount by which we will exceed the Kyoto limits. It is accepted that because of these emissions Moneypoint cannot continue to operate as at present for more than another decade at most. To replace the coal at Moneypoint with oil or gas would not solve the problem because that would be considerably more expensive and would still emit a great deal of CO2.
We need, therefore, a carbon-free cost-effective source of electricity to replace coal at Moneypoint in ten years' time. It is an incontrovertible fact that the only proven, available and virtually carbon-free source of baseload electricity is nuclear power. Therefore, we suggest that the ideal replacement for the coal plant at Moneypoint is a nuclear plant.
It may be suggested that nuclear power will be prohibitively expensive. We do not believe this is the case and there is authoritative data from the OECD in 2007 that confirms that nuclear power is highly-competitive in cost, taking into full account the cost of waste disposal and plant decommissioning. The cost of a unit of electricity generated from nuclear power is shown to be on a par with that from coal, cheaper than other fossil fuels and considerably cheaper than wind. As the prices of oil and fossil fuel increase, the economics of nuclear power get better and better.
I will address briefly some of the major concerns about nuclear power. We are satisfied that nuclear power in modern installations has a very high standard of safety. An accident such as that at Chernobyl could not occur in a reactor of any of the designs used in OECD countries. Modern designs are evolving in the direction of higher and higher levels of intrinsic safety.
Contrary to what is sometimes said, a solution exists to the problem of ultimate disposal of high-level radioactive waste from a nuclear reactor. The solution is deep disposal in a geologically stable rock formation, following some decades of storage above ground to allow initial radioactive decay and dissipation of heat.
Supplies of nuclear fuel are plentiful and secure and this, again, is contrary to what is sometimes suggested. The price of uranium is only a minor factor in the cost of nuclear-generated electricity, and availability of uranium supply would not be a problem within the lifetime of an Irish nuclear power plant in this century. Under the global nuclear energy partnership currently being developed, it can be anticipated that Ireland will obtain its nuclear fuel from a supplier in one of the countries with a large nuclear power programme, and will return the spent fuel for processing or disposal to the same supplier.
It is also claimed that a nuclear power plant would be too large for the Irish grid. This is not the case. Reactors with ratings of 1,000 MW or less are commercially available, and would certainly not be too large for the all-island grid, which is projected to have installed capacity of some 10,000 MW by 2018. That is approximately the earliest date by which we could expect a nuclear power plant to be commissioned in this country.
The issue of plant size does not ignore the fact that there are issues concerning the incorporation into the grid of large amounts of wind energy with various types of fossil fuel plants. The introduction of a nuclear plant would clearly add a further element of complexity to this mix. We believe this serves only to highlight how unfortunate it has been that in the recently-completed all-island grid study, the possibility of inclusion of a nuclear plant was not even considered, presumably as a consequence of the statutory prohibition on nuclear power.
BENE is of the view that this prohibition seriously compromises any possibility of a balanced and unprejudiced appraisal of the real energy options available to the country in the very exacting economic scenario ahead of us. It greatly unbalances the debate which the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has called for on the nuclear option. We therefore strongly urge that the members recommend, without prejudice to any decision as to whether nuclear power be adopted or not, the repeal of this statutory provision, if only in the interests of unbiased consideration of all our energy options.
Competitiveness, sustainability and security of supply are acknowledged as the key drivers of Irish energy policy. For all of these we need sources of energy which are affordable, reliable and, as far as possible, carbon-free. Nuclear power is the one source which meets all these requirements, as evidenced by its increasing adoption by many advanced countries. When the country is under such financial and political pressure to reduce carbon emissions by every means possible, we suggest that to rule out, absolutely and a priori, a proven and economically-attractive means of substantially reducing such emissions seems to fly in the face of common sense. We therefore urge members of the committee to recommend to the Minister that he establish an expert group of internationally-recognised qualifications to advise him on the technical, economic and environmental issues surrounding the potential use of nuclear power on the island of Ireland.
Mr. Denis Duff
Among the terms of reference for this committee is the requirement to consider the key measures needed to meet the proposed EU 2020 climate change targets and to consider the levels of power supply which can be generated from renewables or other new power supplies. This is a difficult and complex task.
Owing to the significant costs and long lead times involved, it is of vital importance that Ireland makes the right energy policy decisions. The quality of life for our people is dependent on having a reliable and affordable energy supply which causes the least harm to the environment. I propose to share the BENE Group's understanding of the current national and international thinking, with particular emphasis on electricity generation.
It is useful to set out the climate change impact of the various popular fuels used to generate electricity. As the table shows, four fuel types stand out from the others, namely, clean coal, hydro, wind and nuclear. It is clear to the international community that the answer to climate change lies in some combination of these four fuels, which have a much lower carbon dioxide quantity per unit of electricity produced that other fuel types. The optimum mix of fuels varies for each country or region depending on its particular circumstances.
There is some hope that clean coal will become technically possible in ten to 15 years. However, it is expected that a severe financial penalty will have to be paid for this technology if it ever materialises. In addition, running pipes carrying CO2 gas across the countryside and burying the gas permanently would create political and social problems. Owing to the uncertainties surrounding clean coal and its use in Ireland, it may not be wise to depend on this technology. However, it should be kept under consideration as the technology develops.
Hydro is almost completely harnessed already in Ireland. Apart from ensuring that we use the resource well, it has little more to offer us. Before considering nuclear energy, which has remained largely unexplored here for the past 30 years or thereabouts, we should examine the potential of wind energy. After all, if wind could satisfy all our requirements, why would anyone consider nuclear energy as an option?
Ireland is well situated to take advantage of wind and wave energy. The former, in particular, will play an important role in reducing our CO2 emissions. It is important that we make the best use of this natural resource. As wind is such an abundant, clean and free renewable fuel, the temptation is to assume it can also solve our energy security problems while providing a cheap source of electricity. Regrettably, this is not the case.
The all-island grid study is the most authoritative study on the potential of wind energy in Ireland. Members will be aware that it concludes that installing 6,000 MW of wind on the system could generate up to 42% of Ireland's electricity needs and reduce our related CO2 emissions by 25%. However, the study also flags many serious warnings associated with fulfilling this potential. Many commentators have paid scant regard to these warnings. In particular, the study warns:
The benefits of renewable electricity generation may be lower than estimated and some associated costs are likely to be higher than estimated by this study. There is a risk that, due to the limitations of the models used ... curtailment of ... wind, at times of low demand has been underestimated significantly. The effect of such an underestimate is to overstate the CO2, fuel usage and cost benefits of renewable generation and to underestimate the cost of renewable support payments required.
The study also calls for many other complementary actions. It notes the following: that the transmission network development required is extensive; the distribution network development to connect renewable generation is at least as ambitious; costs associated with the incremental 500 MW of interconnector capacity are not included; the installation of flexibly dispatchable plant must be effectively incentivised so as to maintain adequate levels of system security; mechanisms such as capacity payments and-or ancillary service payments will be required to supplement the energy market income of all generators to ensure they remain in business; and there are uncertainties with some risk that the additional cost could be significantly higher. It concludes:
The limitations of the study may mean that, on further analysis it is found that the benefits are not as great as indicated and the costs are higher. Finally, the benefits will not be achieved without the complementary actions listed above being addressed.
The next table, taken from a Royal Academy of Engineering 2004 report on the cost of power generation, shows that wind is not the optimum solution from a cost perspective. The table also shows the costs of the four most climate change friendly fuels. Nuclear power is by far the cheapest of the four, followed by fossil fuels, which are unfortunately high in CO2, renewables and clean coal.
Clearly, therefore, further study is required on the economics of renewable energy before we commit to its large-scale development. This does not appear to have been recognised by some commentators. It is vital that this work is done if Ireland is to remain competitive internationally.
What is the position of wind power in terms of energy security? Again, we can look to Irish experts in this field for their considered analysis. EirGrid's opinion is that wind energy in Ireland is not terribly good for energy security. For instance, it states that 4,000 MW of wind capacity provides only the equivalent energy security as a 400 MW fossil fired plant. Known as the capacity credit of wind, this concept is slightly complicated. The figure and table, which are taken from the EirGrid Generation Adequacy Report 2008-2014, may help elucidate the point. It shows that the capacity credit of wind increases only slightly, even with large additional increases in the amount of wind on the system. The capacity credit reaches its maximum at slightly more than 4,000 MW.
The all-island grid study has this to say about energy security:
Within the assumptions and limitations of the methodologies applied, the examined portfolio with 8 GW of wind installed is not a feasible option. Both the dispatch and network study showed severe reliability problems .... such a portfolio has to be considered more or less speculative.
The studies show that wind energy, while it is good in terms of climate change, will not help us meet our energy security requirements and there are serious doubts over its cost effectiveness. Concerns also arise about the true extent of the reductions in CO2 available. Although we wish this were not the case, the facts are self-evident.
Most countries are increasing their renewable energy targets by a reasonable amount, consistent with the limitations described. No other country is considering the type of increase under examination here. This is not only because wind regimes elsewhere are not as good as the regime in place here but also because of the technical limitations described. This is the reason nuclear power is an option which is increasingly being implemented internationally. It is the cheapest, most reliable and cleanest source of bulk electricity available from a proven technology. While this surprises many people who have not studied the matter in detail, the figures for nuclear cited throughout this presentation include all the life cycle costs involved in the nuclear process, extending from mining through fuel fabrication and usage to spent fuel storage and decommissioning of the plant.
This final table summarises the position of each of the fuels. It shows that, apart from the area of carbon dioxide, the performance of renewables is not good. They are an expensive overhead which Ireland can ill afford, particularly in the current climate. Only two fuels, hydro and nuclear, record excellent results across the board.
We recommend extreme caution in drawing firm conclusions from the all-island grid study under the qualified climate change advantages of high levels of penetration of wind generated electricity on to the grid. These should be weighed against very clear financial disadvantages. We propose a safer option of a lower level of wind penetration in keeping with best present practice together with nuclear power.
I thank the delegation for its presentation. It is welcome, particularly in light of the importance of having a debate on all forms of energy in the context of achieving energy security and reducing our carbon emissions, the tasks with which the joint committee is charged.
I support the delegation's call to have the unjust prohibition on nuclear energy removed. It is only fair that we have a level playing field and its abolition would show we are not afraid. It is most unjust that there is such a prohibition. The committee might debate it and decide if it should endorse such a proposal. On a personal level, I would support it.
I am not happy with one or two aspects of the presentation. I am also a fan of renewable energy sources and do not like their denigration by saying, "it is expensive". It is better to trumpet one's own story than to pick holes in someone else's. With the increasing connectivity of Ireland to the UK and European grid, is the argument in favour of the need to build our own power station as strong as it was? With greater connectivity, we can buy nuclear power supplies from UK or European markets. I would be grateful if that issue was addressed. It represents the biggest risk for the delegation but would overcome Ireland's problem. Despite what is stated in the presentation, the delegation cannot move away from the impact one nuclear power station would have on our rather fragile grid. Interconnectivity would mean everyone would win. Historically, there has been a hostile reaction to nuclear power. Our system is fuelled by nuclear generated power supplies, whether this is acknowledged, but there is nothing to fear. There is an argument that we do not need to build our own power station; we will simply import nuclear power supplies from elsewhere.
I thank the delegation for its presentation. What we have heard in the last hour is one of the best presentations I have heard in a long time. It has touched all of us here. I concur with Senator O'Malley on the delegation's proposal. I also support the call that the Minister establish a highly qualified expert group. That would make sense. The consultants should have another look at this document and come back to us with a further report. I cannot digest all the material in a short time. This is a document that would warrant the making of a report quickly. For too many years we have been opposed to nuclear power, for want of knowledge more than anything else. I thought wind power was the way to go, but having listened to the delegation, it is not. The presentation was excellent and I would like to see the committee doing more work on the matter. We should support the recommendations of the delegation.
I too welcome the delegation. I wondered why everyone was opposed to nuclear energy and it may be because of what happened at Chernobyl and its consequences. This gives us another option. It is important that the committee recognise all the proposals and alternatives available. This is one alternative that should also be examined. Like Senator O'Malley, I understand why there is an embargo on the use of nuclear power in Ireland. It is a taboo; if it is mentioned, people think we will all be blown to pieces.
I am delighted with the presentation which gives us food for thought. We have listened to other presentations; we are discussing energy security. Nuclear power is one option which should be debated openly. We should have the facts. Like my colleague, I did not realise, as shown in the charts, how efficient it could be. Perhaps we should look at this option more than the others. Certainly, it should be considered. I am told uranium is very scarce and will be in the future. If we consider taking the nuclear route, we may run out of uranium. It is an element that must be used in nuclear power. Is that true?
This is a good debate. We should debate the issue more and decide if there should be an embargo on the use of nuclear power in Ireland.
Mr. Frank Turvey
I will be delighted to answer questions; I may miss one or two but my colleagues will pick them up.
On Senator O'Malley's points, the prohibition should be removed. We are delighted to hear her opinion and those of Deputies Fitzpatrick and Aylward. It would be a sensible move, but it is essential that there is an open debate.
Regarding Senator O'Malley's impression that we denigrated the use of renewables, we did not. If that was the impression we gave, I am sorry. Renewables are very important and will play an important role in providing the energy we need. Our worry is that on a first reading the report on the all-Ireland grid seemed to be very optimistic and provided an answer for most of our electricity generation problems. If one reads the study carefully, it shows there are huge problems, with a 42% electricity penetration rate. There are cautions which have not been seen or read by those who make the decisions.
The purpose of Mr. Duff's presentation was to demonstrate that, although we accepted and were enthusiastic about wind power and other renewable energy sources playing a part in providing electricity, there were limitations to the amount that could be provided to a stable electricity system. One needs to have base loads, conventional plants such as oil, gas or nuclear power stations. We are not against renewables, only the very optimistic views of people of importance of the role they can play.
In Denmark 16.5% of electricity supplies are generated from renewables. It is in a very favourable position on interconnection with neighbouring countries, some of which, including Norway, avail of hydropower. If one presses the button at any time of the day, the water falls and produces electricity. That is as much as they have been able to do. A figure of 42% has been mentioned for us. That involves a huge risk. We are not against renewables, but they will play a much smaller part than expected. We can have interconnectors, but when the wind is not blowing in Ireland, or when we need electricity supplies, we will want them from our nearest neighbour, the United Kingdom, but it will probably be suffering in the same manner.
Does Mr. Turvey continue to believe we need a nuclear power station when we can import electricity generated by nuclear power through the grid? I am not talking about connectivity for renewable energy sources.
Mr. Frank Turvey
We need a nuclear power station here. Let us suppose that way back in 1999, when we prohibited the use of nuclear power in Ireland, we had decided to build a nuclear power station that would, for example, replace Moneypoint. Today, nine years later that plant would be running and it would replace Moneypoint. The advantages would be as follows. We would have saved €390 million that was spent on the refurbishment of Moneypoint to bring it up to international standards with regard to emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide. On top of that replacement of Moneypoint by a nuclear power plant would have meant a saving of some 6 million tonnes of CO2 per year.
What Mr. Turvey is saying is slightly theoretical. If we had remained isolated and interconnectivity was not part of our energy security agenda, then one would understand why we would need a nuclear power station. The argument on the need for a nuclear power station would be considerably stronger. However, because we are now linked into the UK grid the argument for an isolated nuclear power station in Ireland is diminishing as we can get our power from nuclear power stations in Wales or other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Frank Turvey
Security is certainly improved by the interconnector. However, we can never be sure that when we want the power it will come from the other end. First for technical reasons——
It can be done in so far as we can buy——
The Senator should allow Mr. Turvey to finish his point.
Mr. Frank Turvey
There are two reasons a country cannot be fully confident that it will get the power when it asks for power from the neighbouring country at the end of the line. There may be technical reasons for it not being available, for example the line might be down as it has been with the interconnector between France and England. On many occasions when they really needed it in the south of England it was not there. It also might not be available for other reasons. For example, if the source of the imported electricity is a country that gets considerable electricity from renewable sources it might be suffering from the same climatic conditions as the importing country. In other words its windmills are not turning and it just may not have the power to export. When a country needs electricity from the other end of an interconnector it is not 100% certain that it will get it.
Is Mr. Turvey talking about self-sufficiency?
Mr. Frank Turvey
Exactly. If we have our own nuclear power we rely on ourselves. The ESB has done a marvellous job for more than 80 years since 1927. We have never had a big black-out and we have always been successful in looking after ourselves. The ESB deserves great credit for that. We would be nervous in going too far away from that situation.
Mr. Philip Walton
On Deputy Aylward's question about fuel security, which has often been raised, in the past 20 years the development of nuclear power in the West has been a lull. There was a glut of uranium with some uranium mines shutting down. On top of that, with the decommissioning of atomic bombs, that material has been used as fuel. There was no need for new mines and new finds. However, all of a sudden now with this great resurgence of interest in nuclear power, while I would not say there is a shortage, these mines are being reopened and more exploration is being done. The wisdom of the International Atomic Energy Agency is that there is plenty probably for the next 100 years.
However I should add that other fuels could be used. One is thorium, which exists in the ground and is even more plentiful than uranium. Breeder reactors already exist and we are likely to see more of them in the future. These can use the unusable part of uranium and make it into more fuel. Then we would be talking about thousands of years into the future. I believe China is building 11, proposing 15 and planning for 67 new nuclear plants. If there is a worry about fuel supply, then surely countries, like China, that are promoting it now have done their homework about the future supply of fuel.
The arguments that BENE has put forward today and in the past make it appear to be a "no-brainer". It is cheap, clean and easy. However, there is an image problem and there is a fear problem. If the debate is to get on to a rational reasonable level, we must overcome these fears. We need to answer the questions that people will put. For years we have fought to have Sellafield closed down. We have seen the damage caused by the unfortunate Chernobyl plant. People throughout the world have seen the evidence of what happened to children and so on.
Everybody who examines the matter will understand that the safety of plants has improved like most things. However, to what extent has the risk element gone from these plants since it was proposed to build a plant at Carnsore Point 33 years ago? What progress has been made that would eliminate most of the fears that were present then and still are? To have sensible open and free debate on this issue we must address these real fears first and let people try to contradict what experts will say. This committee is a platform or forum for people. I would have thought the media would have been more interested in covering this meeting to inform people. Unfortunately, as will be evident to the witnesses, we suffer from not getting coverage, not that we want coverage for ourselves but rather to inform the public.
I am anxious for the witnesses to be able to address some of the human fears. It would help us in bringing forward the debate and ultimately governments will need to make decisions. We can supply all the information and provide the forum to people. If people want to come in here and put on record their objections to what today's witnesses say, that is democracy. At least there is a forum in which to do it and it will be on the record. I accept that queues of people are not waiting to get in to listen to this debate. However, it is on the record for people to refer to if they wish. Perhaps the delegates can address some of the continuing fears among the public.
They need to speak about the risk factor. If a nuclear plant were to be built in Ireland, would it be built with taxpayers' money or would it be built privately? Will the group come forward with proposals? How would the nuclear plant be built? Who would build it?
Mr. Frank Turvey
We have thought about that problem. We would like the ESB to get behind this project. Like some of my colleagues, I came home 30 years ago to help with the licensing of the plant at Carnsore Point.
Can Mr. Turvey's organisation address the fears held by many?
Mr. Frank Turvey
We are addressing them. Deputy Aylward referred to the risk factor. The level of risk today is much lower than it was when the Carnsore Point facility was being planned. In those days, we would have been building a generation 1 or generation 2 nuclear reactor. Today, we would be building a generation 3 reactor. It would be a much safer plant. There has been just one serious accident at a nuclear power facility in the OECD countries of the western world. I refer to the accident at Three Mile Island which involved an early generation 2 reactor. Nobody was hurt or killed in the incident. In the last 40 years no member of the public has ever been seriously injured at any of the 100 nuclear reactors in the United States. The same can be said of France and other OECD countries with strong nuclear programmes. Safety standards are getting better all the time.
What was the cause of the Chernobyl incident?
Mr. Frank Turvey
It was a generation 1 reactor. The disaster was caused by operators who were undertaking an unsafe test. They had no permission from the regulator to do it. As the regulatory body in the then Soviet Union had not been set up for very long, it did not have much muscle. The operators broke the safety rules by going ahead with a dangerous test which went wrong. The design of the plant was also poor. The Chernobyl reactor did not have a containment building like those in western reactors. When the fuel melted and the pipes broke, radioactivity was released straight into the environment. Western reactors which are better designed are surrounded by a containment building. That is what saved the day at Three Mile Island.
Mr. John Stafford
One of the distinguishing characteristics of the Chernobyl-type facility was that it involved a graphite moderated reactor. Its nuclear core was surrounded by large quantities of graphite, a flammable material. That is one of the factors that distinguishes such facilities from the type of plant we favour. We would prefer a water moderated reactor, which is much safer from that point of view alone to be built in this country. Some think the fire at Windscale in 1956 took place at a nuclear power plant, but that is not the case — it was a graphite moderated plutonium production plant. The worst disasters in the history of the nuclear industry have involved graphite moderated plants. We do not recommend the construction of such a plant.
Mr. Philip Walton
I would love to speak at length about the Chernobyl incident but will not do so. It is interesting to examine the resurgence of interest in nuclear power throughout the world. Ukraine, where the Chernobyl accident occurred, gets 48% of its electricity supplies from its 15 nuclear power plants. It is proposed to increase the number to 20. That says a great deal about the real impact of the Chernobyl incident. That is how they feel in Ukraine, but a different attitude prevails in this country.
Like most ordinary people, I am not familiar with the technicalities of nuclear power. I do not claim to be a great expert on the matter. When people see a wind turbine, they can appreciate what is happening. I suggest nuclear plants are a mystery to a high percentage of the public. We must address that issue if we are to have an objective debate on the use of one system, rather than another, for the production of energy. We need to remove the element of fear from the debate if we are to have a level playing field. According to what we have heard, it is obvious that nuclear power is more reliable and cheaper in many respects. It can hold its own in any debate. I urge us to try to get rid of the fear factor.
Mr. Frank Turvey
We agree with the Chairman.
As the organisation has so much knowledge, anything it can say in simple layman's language is of help.
Mr. John Stafford
I wish to pick up on the Chairman's comments about safety issues. I would like to anticipate some of the other objections typically made to nuclear power. It is often argued that there is no need to consider nuclear power because there are suitable alternatives to it, including wind power and, increasingly, clean coal technology. The achievement of a 42% renewable penetration rate has been posited. Even if we were to accept that figure without argument — we will not argue with it at this point — it is obvious that a further 58% would remain to be dealt with. Clean coal is often suggested as a means of dealing with it. The quickest answer to that, as Mr. Duff indicated in his presentation, is that clean coal is not available. It is not likely to be so for at least ten years, if ever.
A great deal of money is being spent on trying to discover it.
Mr. John Stafford
Absolutely. When clean coal is eventually developed, other problems will develop. I wish to make two large points about it, without going on too much about it. First, it is estimated that at least one third of the power output of a clean coal power plant would be spent pumping coal smoke into holes in the ground. Second, there is an implicit assumption that coal is cheap and hugely plentiful and will continue to be so, but that is not the case. In the United States the reserves of the best forms of coal — bituminous coal and anthracite — have peaked and are declining. The demand for coal in the coming years will probably ensure the price will increase significantly. That is all I want to say on the matter.
Mr. Denis Duff
I will answer Deputy Aylward's question on who would build a nuclear plant.
I was curious about the issue of payback.
Mr. Denis Duff
The ESB, which would have built the plant at Carnsore Point, is still willing to build nuclear plants. The cost of developing these facilities has declined by an extraordinary degree. Another power generating company, Endesa, will shortly commence operations in Ireland. The ESB has sold four plants to the company, which runs five nuclear installations in Spain. Endesa would be more than willing to run another plant here. I understand E.ON is also willing to operate a nuclear plant. If a private investment option was considered appropriate — that may not be the case — I know of private investors who are willing to foot the bill. There is no shortage of money. The nuclear option is so cheap it would be a great investment idea for anybody who has a few bob.
I referred to one nuclear power plant.
Mr. Denis Duff
In responding to Deputy Aylward I will also try to answer Senator O'Malley's question on whether it is appropriate to have a large nuclear generator in a small system. While some nuclear plants are very large, these facilities can also be built to generate 335 MW of power. This is less than the output of some of the combined cycle units currently on the system. One could build a small plant for a reasonable amount and it would not be necessary to have only one plant. In time, when oil and gas are no longer available and wind generation is not delivering as much as anticipated, we will eventually shift to nuclear power. The question is when this shift will take place.
Mr. Philip Walton
I agree with Mr. Stafford on the question of where we will source 58% of our energy requirements in the event that renewable generation increases to 42%. The words "peak oil" have not been mentioned today. I attended a meeting of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas in Cork about a year ago. That association's members include experts on the oil industry. The consensus at the meeting was that, give or take five or ten years, we are approaching the world peak in oil production, which will drop off at approximately 2% per annum. This development is taking place against the background of increased oil consumption in India and China. While the oil price has declined a little in recent weeks, it is inevitable that the overall trajectory will be upwards. We will observe a similar trend with gas in about 20 years. What will we do? That is the bottom line. My attitude to energy is that we will need to avail of every option, whether conservation, renewables, nuclear or otherwise.
Mr. Peter White
To wrap up, we hope we have shown to the committee that strategically — in every sense — this is a highly important issue for Ireland. If we were to commission a nuclear power plant tomorrow morning, it would take virtually a decade to get it up and running. Everyone else is seeking to do the same thing.
This issue is of immense strategic importance for Ireland. However, as the Chairman noted, it is very technical and clouded in emotion. We ask the joint committee to consider how it can achieve the objective outlined by the Chairman. It should identify the best path forward for a debate on this issue based on fact which is of great importance to the Irish people.
Two things need to be done. First, the ban on nuclear power must be removed to allow Departments and others to have an open debate. We have had reports on energy which did not even consider nuclear power. I do not criticise Departments in this regard because it is pointless to debate a form of energy which is banned.
Second, it would make sense to pool the best international opinion to work for the State under whatever guise, whether on behalf of this committee or the Minister, and move this issue forward in a practical manner. The best way to do this is to ensure every Member and citizen has access to factual information and can read reports from other parts of the world.
Ukraine was mentioned. The French would consider it extraordinary that we are even having this debate, having decided shortly after the Second World War that they wanted to reduce their dependence on oil. We ask for a removal of the ban to allow a free debate and the use of authoritative, internationally-based expert sources of opinion to ensure a fact-based, well-grounded debate takes place.
Mr. Tom O’Flaherty
As the Chairman stated, bringing members of the public around to a slightly less alarmist view of nuclear power is a major challenge. The political system can do much in this regard. The apparent blanket opposition to nuclear power at political level contributes to the public view. For this reason, a report from the joint committee that brings more balance to the debate would be a significant step towards bringing about a change in public opinion. Such a change will be slow but we can all work towards it. Action by the joint committee in this regard would be a real help.
Interconnection, an issue raised by Senator O'Malley, is an economically important issue. It is extremely valuable at times of moderate demand on both sides of the Channel to have interconnection as it enables the most efficient plants in both countries to be used and delivers a cost saving across the board. It is a different story if Ireland chooses to rely on a nuclear plant in Britain for its baseload supply or for supply when in real need. It will be difficult for us to have a priority claim on a plant in Britain. If we managed to negotiate an arrangement under which we would have a claim on a British nuclear plant when we are at the pin of our collar for power, we would pay a large cost penalty. That is the reality of the suggestion that a nuclear plant in Britain with an interconnection is the solution to our problem. While it would have some merits, it would not solve our problem.
It certainly would not overcome the hypocritical attitude that we should ban nuclear power and close our eyes to nuclear generated power transmitted via the interconnector.
Mr. John Stafford
Would that be an Irish solution to an Irish problem?
It would not be the first.
I apologise for my earlier absence which was due to a commitment to attend another meeting. One of the common concerns raised about nuclear power relates to safe, long-term storage and disposal of nuclear waste, which is potentially harmful for thousands of years. One of my siblings works in renewable energy, while another works for ESB International. Both of them say this concern is shared by those working in the sector. If this issue has been addressed, I will check the record of the proceedings.
Mr. Frank Turvey
Various types of waste arise from the operation of a nuclear reactor. Simply put, these are high-level, intermediate and low-level waste. Industry and hospitals produce equivalents of low and intermediate level wastes. These types of waste are not of great concern because solutions are available and are being followed in many countries. Ireland, however, does not have such solutions and tends to store or export these categories of waste.
We should, therefore, concentrate on the problem of the high-level waste, which essentially concerns the stuff one takes out of the reactor at the end of each year. It is often called "spent fuel". If one disposes of spent fuel, one must let it cool off in storage for several decades, after which it is put in a hole in the ground in a stable geological formation. By this stage, the really intense radiation has died off and less intense radiation remains, which features for many thousands or tens of thousands of years. What people do not really understand is that this radiation is weak and not strongly penetrating. It is more or less like the radiation from the uranium we dug out of the ground in the first place to use as fuel. In our gardens, certainly in mine, one will find traces of uranium and it does not do us any harm.
There is a solution for the disposal of spent fuel but we should note that it contains a lot of material that can be reused. One can therefore reduce the mass of the material and split it in two. Approximately 5% is highly radioactive and dangerous but the other 95% can be reused as fuel. This is what reprocessing is about. One gets more bang for one's buck if one reuses the material but not all countries like to reprocess fuel. If one splits the material, the very radioactive 5% can be stored quite safely in a deep hole in a stable geological formation for several decades and wrapped up in copper and concrete.
The third point to be understood with regard to high-level waste, be it spent fuel or the other form, is that, for reasons associated with the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, a small percentage of plutonium is contained therein when it is taken out of the reactor. If one is clever chemically, one can extract it and possibly make a bomb. The states with nuclear weapons have devised a proposed global nuclear energy partnership as a means to reduce the possibility of material falling into the wrong hands. It means that, in the case of Ireland, we would obtain our fuel from a state such as France or the United States and sign a document stating that when it has been used in our reactor, it will be sent back to that state. Thus, the possibility of proliferation would be reduced and Ireland would be released from the problem of dealing with the high-level waste.
There are a number of answers to Deputy Doyle's question. The first is that we do not have the problem alluded to because we return the spent fuel to the supplier. The second is that we could send it to a country that would reprocess it and reduce its volume, after which the high-level material would be returned to us. We know from studies carried out by the European Union many years ago that we have various rock formations that would be suitable for the safe disposal of high-level waste.
Mr. Philip Walton
The volume of high-level waste from a nuclear power plant operating for one year is 1 cu. m. One should compare this with the discharge of Moneypoint, which amounts to 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and 50,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide. The nuclear industry captures its waste and does not emit anything. It manages its waste whereas Moneypoint throws it into the atmosphere.
It is all part of what the debate should focus on.
Absolutely.
I thank the delegation.
It has been a great pleasure to listen to the delegates. I liked the fact that the presentations were made by a group that does not have a vested interest financially. Its members, some of whom have hung up their boots from a professional perspective, are concerned citizens and are a well of great knowledge. I thank them for sharing it with us.
This is an educational programme that will continue. Perhaps in the future we will draw on the delegates' expertise again. We will have to decide on what approach to take in extending this debate. There may be people with the opposite view to the delegates who want to address the committee. At least this will present an opportunity for debate. We have commenced the process with the help of the delegates and I thank them most sincerely for attending.
Have we got the information in written form? There were many members missing today.
Yes, there will be full record of today's meeting.
Mr. Frank Turvey
We thank the Chairman and other members for listening. We have enjoyed the occasion and hope our presentation has been useful.
I thank the delegates.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.50 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 October 2008.