Madam, - The ESB's new energy strategy (March 28th) carries a price tag of €22 billion.
As the ESB currently has assets of around €6 billion and debts of around €2.5 billion, it is clear that the public will eventually have to pay the cost of this strategy. This will not only result in higher prices for electricity but also for goods and services and there will be an inevitable loss of jobs. It seems crazy that such an expensive scheme is being proposed when there is an alternative - nuclear power - that is not only much less expensive but also is much more reliable. We realise that this option is not available to the ESB at the moment because the generation of electricity by nuclear power is prohibited by law (The Electricity Regulation Act 1999) but the Government could and should revoke this.
In the absence of the nuclear option the ESB is forced to an alternative strategy which involves the spending of €4 billion on renewable energy plants (mostly wind), €11 billion on new and reinforced networks to accommodate the additional renewable energy plants and a further €6.5 billion on smart metering. So what do we get for our €22 billion?
The answer is said to be the achievement of "net zero-carbon" by 2035. But this does not mean absolute zero-carbon. It seems to mean that the ESB will buy carbon credits for whatever carbon is still being produced by the company at that time. To achieve absolute zero-carbon would require the ESB to install a so-called clean coal plant at an extra cost of about €1 billion; the snag here is that clean coal technology is still in the development stage and may not become viable.
The largest cost item is the €11 billion to be spent on networks. This is the cost of building new power lines to connect the many new wind farms that are envisaged in the strategy. This amounts to over 5,000 kilometres of new and reinforced power lines. This does not, however, include the significant cost of the construction of many new roads to facilitate the erection and maintenance of the wind turbo-generators.
The objective of achieving close to zero carbon emissions could be realised by employing about €3 billion worth of nuclear plant for which only comparatively minimal upgrading of the networks would be required with a corresponding saving of close to €11 billion. The through-life cost of nuclear-generated electricity has been shown to be much cheaper than that generated by wind.
The ESB's strategy, supported by the Minister, goes way beyond the Energy Policy White Paper of March 2007, and yet there has been no discussion, comment or analysis of this change - could this hugely expensive strategy be just a whim of the Minister?
And, finally, can we not now have a rational debate on the nuclear option before it is too late? - Yours, etc,
IAN McAULAY, Shrewsbury Road, Shankill, Co Dublin; JIM MORRISSEY, Burnaby Woods, Greystones, Co Wicklow; TOM O'FLAHERTY, Malahide, Co Dublin; DAVID SOWBY, Knocksinna Crescent, Dublin 18; FRANK TURVEY, Greystones, Co Wicklow; PHILIP WALTON, Moycullen, Co Galway.