It seems almost certain now that the principal outcome of Britain's latest energy policy review will be recommendation to resume building nuclear power stations, and that this will be accepted by the British government.
In the wake of Tony Blair's announcement of the review last week, Minister for the Environment Dick Roche pledged that the Government would use "every diplomatic and legal process" at its disposal to underline Ireland's opposition to the nuclear option. In reality though, Mr Roche must know there is nothing whatever we can do to prevent our nearest neighbours travelling down the nuclear route, if that is what they decide to do in their own national interest.
Although it is only three years since the last British energy policy review, which put a lot of store in developing renewables such as wind power, Mr Blair said that energy policy was "back on the agenda with a vengeance ... Round the world, you can sense feverish rethinking. Energy prices have risen. Energy supply is under threat. Climate change is producing a sense of urgency".
What he did not say was that the nuclear industry has been quietly promoting itself as an integral part of efforts to bridge the "energy gap", touting its technology as being entirely free of the carbon dioxide emissions blamed for causing climate change - unlike coal, oil and natural gas.
At present, gas accounts for about 40 per cent of electricity generation in Britain, followed by coal at 33 per cent and nuclear at 20 per cent, with renewables far behind at just 4 per cent. There are problems with all of these fuels. Increasingly, over time, a higher proportion of Europe's gas will have to be imported from Russia, as much of it is already, and this raises the unpleasant prospect of being held to ransom by Moscow. Coal, dirtiest of the fossil fuels, is being phased out, though work is under way on developing "clean coal" technology. Wind power is intermittent and there is also opposition to locating turbines in scenic areas.
As for nuclear option, the real problem is what to do about the radioactive waste it generates. The costs involved are enormous. British taxpayers have already incurred a bill of £56 billion (€82 billion) to write-off the nuclear industry's liabilities for decommissioning ageing plants and for dealing with their waste. And though claims have been made that advances in the design of reactors mean that they will produce less waste in the future, it is clear that succeeding generations of humanity will have to look after it all.
They - and we - will have to live also with the risk of terrorist attacks on new reactors, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
A pro-nuclear decision by the British government will also give a new lease of life to Sellafield as the obvious place to store, if not reprocess, the waste that will be produced as a result. Certainly, it seems, the chances of closing down the operation there are now gone.