Energy security - The time for debate has long gone

THE British government yesterday approved a new generation of nuclear power stations, arguing that evidence for the move was “compelling”.

In Ireland, Energy Minister Eamon Ryan suggested that we should open a debate on nuclear power so “all the issues can be brought into the open”.

One of these positions suggests a hard-nosed,bottom-line approach to a world demanding ever-greater quantities of energy and a diminishing supply from traditional sources. The other suggests a position based on arguments and hopes that have yet to prove adequate to the challenges ahead.

Mr Ryan also published a report — “the most advanced and comprehensive of its kind in the world” — which suggests that “we can do more than reach our renewable energy targets. We can surpass them”.

He suggests that “it is feasible to generate 42% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. This will be one of the highest levels... in the world.”

Mr Ryan also suggested that, in the fullness of time, we might be able to export green energy. This would be a pleasant change from our current position where we import energy generated at Britain’s nuclear plants, a position likely to remain our fall-back and hypocritical option for the foreseeable future.

Mr Ryan’s approach, in as far as it goes, is admirable and informed by the realisation we have to completely re-imagine our exploitation of finite, natural resources. Sadly, it is a touch more than disconcerting when you realise that he has placed all our eggs in one basket.

By all means, and with the greatest urgency and effort, explore and realise the potential of renewable energy sources. Be it wind or tide, sun or biofuels, let us maximise the energy we can generate through clean and sustainable media.

However, it is not as easy to be comfortable with the argument that we can afford to wait to see what proportion of our energy needs can actually be satisfied by these means. We must do more, we cannot gamble energy security on the imagined potential of methods that are, in mass energy terms, barely off the drawing board. This unease is exacerbated by the realisation that the British would have explored these options but felt compelled to commit to nuclear power, warts and all.

Everything Mr Ryan suggested yesterday is welcome, it is what he did not suggest that causes concern. As a green minister it is inevitable that he would advance green principles. However, that does not mean, especially on an issue as fundamental as energy security, he can afford to ignore uncomfortable options. Green policies can inform debate but they cannot confine it. We need solutions not crusades.

The unavoidable reality is that we should be doing much more than debating nuclear power. We need to take the hard decision now on whether or not to go down the nuclear road to ensure the security of energy supply in the decades ahead. Doing anything less is a fool’s gamble. We simply cannot afford years of prevarication and endless debate.

At the moment we are in a period of transition on energy and it would be reckless to believe that we can find new methods to completely replace conventional — including nuclear — generation processes in the time at our disposal. Nobody can be certain what the future holds but we need to plan for the worst-case scenario and if that includes nuclear then so be it.

The time for debate has long gone.