Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE SITE WHERE the UK Secretary of State wants to build a nuclear power station is closer to the coast of Ireland than it is to Leeds, claims the group launching a legal challenge against the development.
An Taisce has started judicial review proceedings in London to question the legality of the British government’s granting of permission to build and operate a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in the Bristol Channel. The Somerset location is just 150 miles from the Irish coast.
Lawyers for the charity believe the decision is not compliant with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the UK’s own regulations on transboundary impacts and consultation because there was no consultation with the Irish people.
The UK did not consult with the Irish public about the project before it granted consent in March this year, according to the National Trust.
“The first time many Irish people learned about the nuclear power plant proposal was when the decision was announced. Their views were not therefore taken into consideration as part of the UK government’s decision and assessment process,” it said in a statement this evening.
An Taisce argues that consultation would allow both regional governments and the Irish population- which could be impacted – to contribute to the consultation and decision-making process. It would also allow the UK to properly and fully consider the impacts and effects of the plant across boundaries.
Other countries, including Finland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic, have all contacted neighbouring nations when planning nuclear facilities.
Spokesperson James Nix said the case is not interfering with the UK’s rights to make decisions. It is also not about being pro- or anti-nuclear.
“It is about ensuring that the rights and interests of the Irish public and their concern for their environment are not excluded from those decisions, and that the Irish public is properly consulted in accordance with the law on a project of this nature,” he said.
“Ireland’s agriculture, food, fishing and tourism – which are our essential indigenous industries – are critically dependent on the quality of our environment, as is the health of our people. This is therefore a matter of considerable importance and concern for Irish people, and for our interest in our environment.”
An Taisce believes the court’s ruling will also impact future proposals, including plans for a nuclear power plant in Anglesey, which is even closer to Ireland and in an area prone to earthquakes.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Nuclear is pollution free. So emissions isn’t an issue. Just don’t build them in countries susceptible to earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, fires, natural disasters etc. In all seriousness though,nuclear plants when built correctly is the cheapest, cleanest and most effective source of energy available.
We should have one or two here.it just makes sense.cheap sustainable fuel.and I’ve read the raw material for it could be mined in Donegal.we wouldn’t be so dependent on foreign oil.win win if you ask me.
Agreed Pat green irish eejits gettin themselves into a hysterical flap about an industry they have little or no knowledge of. British nuclear power plants are some of the safest in the world, Mr Nix should be more concerned with the shite farmers are pumpin into rivers than what british engineers are doin. efficiency compared to Kg of coal to Kg of uranium, the ratio is something like 10,000 > 01
Or else Mr Nix should channel his energies to 1000 plus wind farms which have the go ahead to blight our Midlands, but i forgot all the quick money kick backs from private companies our so called government will get, these people dont care ie Mr Nix doesnt give to shites this piece is purely a headline grabber
Pollution free? Used isotopes? Radioactive half life of 10 million year etc. etc
Blast it to sun. Bury it in the middle of te desert in Australia. Bury it in the Sahara. My preferred option is blast it at the moon though.
I think it’s short sighted to build a power plant that lasts like 20 years? And leave waste for millions… Blast it into space? Hope your joking!
Fusion is the future but until then we should be looking to green tech like wave wind etc which we have plenty of!
Pat, we should outsource our nuclear program and build a reactor within the sellafield compound with a direct interconnecter. An extra reactor there would not cause more risk but would be much cheaper and quicker to get online
Renewables in Ireland is just a waste of time. Wind is the only source that can produced on any significant scale in ireland and it is completely unreliable. Even if you had 10000 MW available capacity, you would still need a base load plant which would either be coal or gas. As a result you have coal plants switching in and out of the grid which are not designed to do so and immediately halving the life of burners, boilers etc all for the sake of unreliable wind generation.
The amount of money that has gone into wind is ridiculous. A compromise would be gas but the price of gas is already ridiculous. Everyone complains about electricity prices but that is the cost of subsidising wind. Construct 2 nuclear plants in Ireland and the benefits would be self evident. No emissions and significant reduction in electricity price. We could export an enormous amount of power.
The irony is that with the east west interconnecter we are probably already importing French nuclear power.
The only issue is waste and the location of the plant. Put it on a hill with a water supply ideally in central Ireland and Ireland will have 40 yrs of cheap electricity
A. Where do we get the 30+ billion to build a plant?
B. Uranium is a finite resource. What do we do in 40 years?
The 40 yrs refers to the lifetime of the switchgear/reactor etc. I don’t know the lifetime of a nuclear plant but generally power stations have a stated life 35-40 yrs. some plants in Ireland are still in service after 90 yrs. ardnacrusha for example.
Yes uranium is a finite resource but the quantity used for generation in comparison to say coal is quite small. On top of that there are significant uranium deposits worldwide. Australia has massive amounts.
The major issue as you said is cost. I would start by not investing in any more bloody turbines. Really, I have no suggestions at all for affording the cost. Investment in infrastructure when Ireland had money about 10 yrs ago would have been desirable.
so it is not a solution.
Energy cannot be examined in the absence of economics. Energy creates the economy [although neoclassical would argue against this physical reality.]
The fact of the matter is that our global trade based economy is dependent on cheap oil. Electricity [from any source] is not a substitute.
Don’t be a douche. By that same reasoning wind is not an economically viable solution.
The point of the discussion was on the practicality of nuclear power generation. Every man and his dog knows a nuclear power plant will never be constructed here in Ireland. That’s not to say it shouldn’t but more that it will never get the support it requires, both financially and politically.
I agree with you though. Whilst coal is so cheap there is hardly any incentive to change course.
Hi Paraic,
As far as I know, An Taisce (and James Nix) are very concerned about farm runoff and its effect on Irish rivers. They are members of Swan Ireland (Sustainable Water Network Ireland), an organization which has been campaigning for years to improve water quality in Ireland. An Taisce have also taken appeals in the past to An Bord Pleanala over slurry runoff. They have also been very vocal about the possible threats poorly built septic tanks pose to Ireland’s groundwater.
so it is not a solution.
i didn’t say wind was economically viable. It is quite obviously not- its subsidised. ditto for nuclear.
I can’t say I’m too happy about this. Get Michael D on the phone to that Cameron and rattle some cages. They’d be in our face so fast if tried anything like it with them. As you were.
Captain Flynn.
Adebayo, when did you get promoted to Captain?! Congrats!
Thanks man. Couple of weeks now, it’s been a baptism of fire but I’m enjoying the challenge. :-)
What a dumb comment, closer than Leeds lol probably closer than Newcastle & Inverness but what about Cardiff, Aberystwyth, Borth, Blackpool, Liverpool or the Isle of Man. If Ireland wants to provide the UK with clean energy at a cheaper rate than the cost of Nuclear power then drive on we will happily buy it. But I don’t think we need lectures from countries that are burning smoky house coal & Turf to heat their homes :-)
Awkward moment when the Ireland uses more renewable sources of fuel than the UK (as a % of total) :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources So shut up with your lectures, Thank You ;)
Supply it at a competitive price & Guarantee supply & we will buy it off you & make you rich! Oh yeah you can’t because it is as reliable as the weather :-) The only thing green in Ireland is the grass!
Yeah but wind is a complete waste of time. It’s completely unreliable no matter how many turbines are installed.
There isn’t many other opportunities for renewables in Ireland either way. Other than hydro. Even then it’s only a small percentage of what’s required. So renewables in Ireland is prohibited and as customers we subsidise them.
Go Nuclear and all our power bills are halved! Well will decrease.
Dead right & we all know the damage Hydro did to Cork city. the Kingsley Hotel is still not open even now after they let all that water out in one go because like the wind you either have to much or too little so they flooded the city rather than damage the Hydro plant
Are you for real? Try looking up a bit of history. When the UK built its’ first nuclear power stations (mainly from their desire to be a nuclear power) the slogan was “electricity too cheap to meter”. That is how objections from the public were overcome. The UK and everwhere else are still waiting for the electricity that is too cheap to meter.
Its totally reliable always guaranteed to meet demand & its totally clean we don’t have earthquakes but just in case they are built to withstand them anyway & we’re less likely to have a Tsunami than Ian Paisley is to be the next Pope. Imagine if this damage to the environment had been caused by Nuclear Power Generating Facilities – Cork city left under water as ESB opens floodgates http://shar.es/lv7xz – Has anyone ever died of Radiation poisoning in the UK Nuclear Industry? NO is the answer to that one :-)
To joe
Only a minimum of 10,000 years to wait to see if there are any deaths. Keep consuming as much as you can, as it will be all right jack!
If I could I would, but I can’t so I shan’t :)
At what cost Alby? Renewable and sustainable my arse. Wind farms cost more to install and support than any other commercial power generation technology per watt. And they’re ugly as sin… Oh no wait, we’ll just stick them over the horizon in water so deep it will take 80 years to see a return on the investment. Oh no wait, these turbines and installations have a life of 40 years. Let’s subsidise them anyway! Why not, the public will see us being the champions of green energy while everyone on the planet decides that they don’t really need electricity that much and we won’t put the investment in making nuclear energy cleaner, safer and more sustainable.
How is wind a complete waste of time? With power electronic interfaces being developed wind farms are acting more and more like traditional power plants all the time.
ROCK ON!
Really Enda?? Annoyed that some potentially health endanger construction is being forced on you without your consultation or consent?? Now you know how all those communities in Cavan, Monaghan, and Meath feel about Eirgrid building super pylons right on top of their homes! Not to mention Shell to Sea!
Im sure they’d be a lot angrier if they had blackouts because the system is over capacity or that their bills would rise because they put them underground.
The eco warriors talk crap! Far more damage is done to the environment by burying these these lines in terms of energy used and carbon released into the atmosphere but sure once it doesnt happen in Ireland and it does in africa it’s grand.
In terms of cost, Eirgrid has wasted more than the amount it would of cost to put it underground in the first place with their shoddy planning application. Power lines are being put underground more and more as an alternative to overhead; most recently in the state of New York which has decided to do so after hurricane sandy. 5 years ago it was estimated that the cost of putting it underground would be 15 times that of overhead; that has dropped to three times and will continue to fall as more and more governments put forward policies that consider the environment and homes and communities that are directly affected by these monstrosities! Any land built on or near to these super pylons will be rendered worthless. These land and home owners do not want to prevent an upgrade to the nation grid, but put it underground and they will open the gate for the diggers!
If I hear Shell To The Fcuking Sea one more time. As for the Pylons they’ve been around for seventy years. What’s the problem?
Problem is the size of these ones! And the fact that they are going to carve up our countryside and communities in its path and the government couldn’t give a damn about them!
Then turn off your electricity if you don’t want it
Trea, the only reason New York is going underground us because the overground cables get damaged in storms , not a real problem over here do your post is irrelevant
I was referring to the ever decreasing cost of undergrounding cables because of the demand worldwide, regardless of the reason. Our reason is because of the affect these pylons will have on homes and people lives in the path of them; but hey if people don’t matter to you then by all means shrug your shoulders, you’re in good company with the likes of seanie fitz and co.
Read the last line in my post above, no one wants to stop progress, we just don’t want progress trampling all over ordinary people.
Any reference material to support your claims!
Yes, plenty if you search.
so has cancer Eamonn. Doesn’t mean our lives would be a whole lot better without it, and we can work to do without it..
Er, well: minor point, but in that case the French better be consulted. If you use the ruler on Google Earth you’ll see Hinkley Point is over 40 miles closer to France than Ireland as the crow flies.
Clean nuclear energy is the future.
Also, closer to Ireland than Leeds? What the hell? There’s lots of places closer to other places and further away from even more places… Good argument An Taisce.
your wrong
Which bit am I wrong about? It’s you’re, not your…
What clean nuclear energy?? There is none right now and if your refering to fusion then your about 37 years to early with your comment. They wont finish that tokamak reactor until 2050. The chinese are building a few experimental motlen salt reactors that run on thorium but the first one isnt expected to be finished until 2030. There are a few other good ones especially a fusion reactor that darpa are building but thats still a long way off too.
sorry about typo
The bit about clean nuclear being the future. The article is not about being pro or anti nuclear. The argument put forward is about the right to participate in the planning process based on the ESPOO Convention which both Britain and Ireland are signatories.The Espoo (EIA) Convention sets out the obligations of Parties to assess the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning. It also lays down the general obligation of States to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across boundaries (see some examples).
The Convention was adopted in 1991 and entered into force on 10 September 1997.
The fifth session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Convention took place in Geneva in June 2011.
Nuclear energy evokes very strong opinions, both positive and negative. However, the fact remains that it produces electrical energy and is not viable substitute for oil, upon which the world relies for trade/wealth.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf
@Matthew – Read my comment again and then reply…
@One-Off Ireland – Copying and pasting from wikipedia is against the rules.
i didn’t say wind was economically viable. It is quite obviously not- its subsidised.
DId you make the rules? stick to the point
it wasn’t from wikipedia – it was from the ESPOO Website
It’s nice of An Taisce to look out for the best interests of people and not just their coffers. I bet all the money they receive from the sale of public land will also be put to great use in communities and not to line the pockets of a select few.
Yeah, real good guys. Not looking out for their own interests at all at all.
haha.. what a dope. That’s Coillte you’re talking about. Ya big ham ya, person who I don’t know.
An Taisce is an NGO with a government grant of €6000 per annum. They receive nothing from the sale of lands and all their income is by donation. Their interest is purely philantropic.
Hahaha @ mart. I hate trees too, them and their big leafy heads going all whooshy when the wind blows. Who do they think they are the pr*cks?
Those trees you hate supply the oxygen to enable you to continue to talk garbage. Say thanks to the trees!¬
Thanks trees!
Stupid trees.. coming over here and taking our women and carbon dioxide
Thorium has a big part to play in future energy supply with some 2000 years of fuel available in almost every country. No plutonium produced and the reactors can use existing nuclear waste as fuel. Norway ,India and China all have test reactors running and the last one in the USA ran for 6 years until the project was abandoned due to its having no military uses.
we need cheap liquid fuel for transport
Why dont they put the pylons out the back instead of on top of there homes?
their homes are out the back too!
Whats wrong with turf cant bate a turf fire for hate hi…..
This thing about how long nuclear waste remains dangerous is a red herring.
The Cliffs of Moher will be dangerous for millions of more years.
Lead and Mercury etc. etc. remain poisonous forever.Until the end of time in fact.
They are stable elements with no “half-life”.
As for a dangerous industry:More than one million people are killed in road traffic accidents every year.
Every single day The Journal has an account of the carnage here in Ireland.
Not one person was killed at Three Mile Island.
What about Chernobyl?
Official Soviet casualty count of 31 deaths, never mind the long-term effects such as cancers and deformities that are still being accounted for.
have your say