Sir, – Nuclear power is not the answer to the climate or fuel crisis on the island of Ireland. What we are witnessing is the exercise of a distraction tactic already in use in the US and Europe.
The new proposals for nuclear in Ireland are intended, by design, to waste public time and energy on debating impractical options so that plans for data centre development and US liquefied natural gas (LNG) continue.
As traced by the historian of technology John-Baptiste Fressoz, international nuclear power advocacy has its origins in right-wing globalist campaigns to undermine international democratic decision-making on energy sovereignty, efficiency and climate action. Nuclear served the ends of delayism well precisely because the “transition” discussion could be swallowed up with its impracticality: major lead-in times, escalating costs and staunch public opposition.
Nuclear has become the fuel of choice for the far right for the same reason. The AfD, Nye Borgerlige, Vlaams Belang have all called for the abolishment of nuclear bans in their countries (a call now echoed by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael).
RM Block
Nuclear serves as a wedge into energy debates; moving the Overton Window of the conversation back to fossil fuel business as usual. Environmental harm from fossil fuels, like lignite mining in AfD constituencies can be acknowledged, while deflecting attention from real solutions.
In the US, the tech industry has applied the same “nuclear” method to undermine public opposition to data centres. By throwing a grenade into the public arena like “uranium mining in Donegal” or “mini reactors for west Dublin data centres” vested interests can eat up atmosphere as people react in horror. Emerging from the chaos, business-as-usual looks reasonable in comparison.
In Ireland the question to ask is not, “Do we need nuclear?”, because it has been well established we do not. The question to ask is why are a number of centrist Irish politicians suddenly aligning their views on nuclear with the US and European far right?
In most cases, these individuals have never expressed an opinion on nuclear before. Considering the timing – which aligns with major decisions on data, AI and LNG – you’d be forgiven for seeing the shift as disingenuous.
It is a misuse of our public discourse and media when we must examine real solutions to the energy crisis, such as re-evaluating the EU’s price-driven internal energy market and reliance on US tech and LNG. – Yours, etc,
SINÉAD MERCIER,
PhD Researcher in energy and climate law and policy,
Crumlin,
Dublin.
Sir, – Twenty-five years ago I worked as an intern in the market research department of the German airline, Lufthansa. My primary task was to examine potential future routes that could be flown into China over the next 10 years.
This involved an in-depth analysis of things such as population trends, economic growth forecasts, linkages with German industry and so on.
With the Government apparently considering the use of nuclear power, I would like to think a similarly rigorous approach to future planning will be taking place in the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment.
Although, if the progress shown with the introduction of offshore wind energy is anything to go by, I suspect the research team at Lufthansa might get there quicker. – Yours, etc.
BRIAN KELLY,
Orwell Road,
Dublin 14.
