It would appear that the die is now cast on the outcome of Britain's latest energy review. Using exactly the same phrase as he did last November when it was initiated, British prime minister Tony Blair declared on Tuesday that replacing Britain's ageing nuclear power stations is "back on the agenda with a vengeance", as is what he described as "a big push on renewables and a step-change on energy efficiency".
Otherwise, he warned, the British economy would become 90 per cent dependent on imported gas for electricity generation, and Britain would be unable to meet its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These "stark" facts had to be confronted and will presumably be addressed when the "first cut" of the energy review is polished for publication.
Reaction in Ireland has been predictably negative, with Minister for the Environment Dick Roche saying he was "deeply disappointed" that the outcome of the review "appears to be predetermined". He also pledged that the Government would pursue further legal actions against Sellafield and any plans to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors in Britain because of Ireland's legitimate environmental, safety and other concerns.
One of Ireland's long-standing arguments against nuclear reprocessing at Sellafield has been that we derive no economic benefit from its operation, even though we are exposed to the risks associated with it. However, this situation is about to change. Six weeks ago, the Taoiseach told the Dáil that the Government had agreed in principle to build an electricity interconnector between Ireland and Britain. "This would link us to the UK grid and ultimately to the European grid," he said, adding that the interconnector was needed in the interest of energy security. What the Government glossed over, however, is that plugging into the British grid means that we would also become clients of a nuclear industry that curently supplies 20 per cent of the UK's electricity requirements.
If the proposed interconnector is of sufficiently high capacity - say, 1,000 megawatts - it would offset the need to build an equivalent amount of generating capacity here. And despite what a recent Forfás report had to say, the Government remains firmly opposed to the nuclear option. This reflects the strength of Irish public opinion on this issue in the year that marks the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. However, it is now clear that Tony Blair is preparing the ground to persuade the British public that there is no viable alternative to a new generation of nuclear reactors.
There will, of course, be a nod in the direction of energy efficiency, which could save almost as much electricity as Britain's nuclear plants currently produce, and further support for renewables such as wind. But any claim that nuclear power is compatible with sustainable development must be classed as a chimera because the unenviable task of managing the radioactive waste it produces will be passed on to future generations.