We have received apologies from an Seanadóir Malcolm Noonan. Our first session this morning, from 9.30 a.m. to 11.45 a.m., is an engagement with witnesses on the use of small modular reactor nuclear technology in Ireland. The committee agreed to undertake this meeting to discuss the potential uses of SMR technology in Ireland. I welcome the following representatives to the meeting: from UCD, Dr. Muhammad Bah, senior energy policy researcher, and Professor Andrew Keane, professor in the school of electrical and electronic engineering and director Nexus and the Energy Institute; from the Irish Academy of Engineering, Mr. Sean Finlay, president, and Mr. Eamonn O'Reilly, chair, of the energy and climate committee; and from the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Professor Aoife McLysaght, who is the Government's science adviser, and Mr. Barry McGreal, official attached to office of Government science. You are all very welcome here today.

I remind everyone in attendance to ensure their mobile phones are on silent mode or are switched off. Before I invite the witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I advise them of the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The format of the meeting is that I will invite the witnesses to make an opening statement to a maximum of five minutes. Once those statements have been delivered, I will then call members of the committee, in the order they indicate to me, to put their questions. We operate a rota system which provides each member with an initial five minutes to engage with our witnesses. It is important to note that the five minutes are for both questions and answers and, therefore, it is essential for members to put their questions succinctly and witnesses to be succinct in their responses. Please note that the duration of this meeting is limited and, therefore, the times must be strictly adhered to, so I ask everybody to be focused on their contributions.

I invite the witnesses to make their opening statements.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak to them today on the topic of the prospects for small modular nuclear reactors in Ireland. UCD Energy Institute is represented here today by myself and Dr. Muhammad Maladoh Bah. I am the director of the UCD Energy Institute and Dr. Bah is an SEAI research fellow at the institute. Dr. Bah’s fellowship is part of an SEAI-UCD Energy Institute research fellowship agreement which aims to bridge academia and policy on topics of relevance to Ireland’s energy system.

Alongside our opening statement, we have provided the committee with a copy of our recent policy paper on the potential for the development of nuclear energy in Ireland. Taking into account the technical challenges, along with legislative, regulatory, infrastructure and construction timelines, our view is that it is difficult to foresee nuclear power availability in Ireland before 2050 through small modular reactors or any other form.

Ireland faces known energy challenges on the path to meet 2050 decarbonisation goals, while also ensuring a secure and affordable energy supply. These challenges include opportunities to develop grid infrastructure capacity, offshore wind, interconnection, storage and demand flexibility. With this is mind, resource allocation and prioritisation will play a key role in what can be achieved.

Nuclear power provides zero-emission dispatchable power and, if developed, would contribute to the security of our electricity supply. However, our analysis, in line with International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, assessments, identifies a number of challenges that Ireland would need to address on the path to integrating nuclear power. Specifically, the IAEA's Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power report outlines 19 infrastructure challenges which countries without nuclear programmes face in developing them. The IAEA's guidance advises that the development of a complete nuclear programme, from planning to operation of the first nuclear plant, takes at least ten to 15 years.

In Ireland's case, the initial set of challenges to the development of nuclear energy are legislative and regulatory. The statutory ban on nuclear power and the lack of necessary regulatory frameworks provide an initial block to the development of nuclear power. Significant reform, including the creation of an independent nuclear regulatory authority, would be necessary for Ireland to advance. A comprehensive techno-economic feasibility study on nuclear power would provide more clarity on the potential pathways. However, regardless of which route is taken, it is unlikely that small modular reactors, SMRs, would be ready for operation in Ireland before 2050.

I will now hand over to Dr. Bah.

There is a variety of options for the development of nuclear power, including large-scale nuclear reactors and small modular reactor technology. Small modular reactors are defined by the IAEA as reactors with a capacity of up to 300 MW. As well as being able to be constructed using prefabricated models, they are also designed to accommodate incremental adding of multiple units over time. Small modular reactor technology, despite having been conceptualised since the early years of nuclear reactor development, is still generally in the early stages of development. Of the currently 62 SMR designs at various stages of development across the world, only four reactors are currently operational, and two of these are experimental or demonstrators. Four further SMRs are in construction. We assess that it will be 15 to 20 years before SMRs become commercially viable, with a mature market developing by the late 2040s. As cited by the International Energy Agency, IEA, in its report, The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy, SMRs still face considerable cost and design uncertainty.

Newcomer countries tend to opt for established nuclear reactor technology designs, leveraging mature supply chains and proven track records of commercial experience. Bangladesh, Egypt and Türkiye, the three newcomer countries, which as of last year were constructing or about to start construction on nuclear reactors, are developing large pressurised water reactor designs with greater than 1 GW capacity. In all three cases, they are being built by the Russian state-owned corporation Rosatom.

There are a number of clear additional challenges to the development of a nuclear programme. Siting of a nuclear facility would require extensive screening, including ensuring that the site is away from population areas, that it has the necessary geotechnical characteristics, that it has access to water but is not a flood risk, and that it has strong road and rail connections.

The long-term management of nuclear waste presents further complex challenges. The internationally recognised best practice for long-term management of spent nuclear fuel is to dispose of it in a deep underground geological repository, typically following a period of interim storage. Nuclear waste management, therefore, faces siting and regulatory challenges.

Another critical issue facing the State is the potential liability arising from nuclear accidents. In such an event, the State ultimately acts as the insurer of last resort, bearing the financial consequences should costs exceed the capacity of plant operators. Historical experience demonstrates that the economic impact of major nuclear incidents can rapidly surpass the financial resources and insurance provisions of private operators, leaving governments exposed to substantial and long-lasting fiscal burdens.

Public acceptance issues are worth considering, as the limited research available indicates that support for nuclear energy remains low. Nuclear power would need broad-based acceptance at both the national and local levels. A significant amount of work would be needed to achieve buy-in from the public.

Ireland faces important choices on the path to decarbonisation of our electricity and a range of issues requires examination in order to provide a secure, sustainable and affordable supply of electricity. Our analysis indicates nuclear power in Ireland would be unlikely to play a role in addressing these critical issues before 2050. This does not preclude taking steps towards nuclear now, but Ireland should prioritise action on known issues and opportunities such as grid infrastructure, offshore wind, interconnection, storage and demand flexibility.

We thank the committee and welcome questions.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach as ucht an cuiridh. We welcome the opportunity to continue to contribute to the deliberations of the committee. We are particularly interested in hearing the views of the other witnesses today.

In the interest of time, I will hand over straight away to the chair of our energy committee, Mr. Eamonn O'Reilly.

I will get straight into it. Some 83% of Ireland’s energy comes from fossil fuels and the main policy options to reduce this dependence are wind and solar. Countries that already have nuclear power and those with a mixture of nuclear and hydro-energy already have a much lower dependence on fossil fuels than Ireland. France is at 47%, Finland is at 35% and Sweden is at 29%. Ireland can never have much hydroelectricity but SMRs could help to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and our greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions.

All big infrastructure projects take a long time to deliver and the persistent mistake we have made in Ireland in recent decades has been to start late and with a weak policy foundation and then blame the planning system for inevitable delay. Work on building the policy foundations for SMRs needs to start now if we want to have an option of deploying them by the 2040s. Ireland should begin, today, to plan for the introduction of SMRs, based on the assumption that the technology will prove itself and that it will be in Ireland's best interests to have a fleet of SMRs in the future, while accepting that the preparation of such a plan is not, in itself, a decision to proceed. Nuclear power is just as safe as wind and solar and has even lower lifetime GHG emissions. Energy policy should be technology neutral and should keep an open mind.

Ireland is a member of the IAEA and, as UCD pointed out, the IAEA has an established milestones approach for countries considering a nuclear programme. This milestones approach would provide an equivalent route to that taken in the 1970s in response to the oil shocks, when the ESB was tasked with preparing for the construction of a nuclear power plant. At that time, the Nuclear Energy Board - now part of the EPA - was established. Under the IAEA's milestones approach, Ireland would establish a nuclear energy programme implementing organisation. Based on the recommendations from a previous report of the academy in 2024, this organisation should be resourced from ESB Networks, EirGrid, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Its work should include designing the legal and institutional structures necessary to license and regulate SMRs in Ireland; actively engaging with SMR manufacturers to evaluate the potential of SMRs with the realistic prospect that Government policy could change to allow them to be deployed in the future; and devising appropriate energy market structures, in consultation with SMR manufacturers and project developers and based on experience in other countries, to enable the introduction of SMRs, alongside renewables, into Ireland's energy mix.

The initial objective of this work is to reach the IAEA's first milestone, where Ireland would be ready to make a knowledgeable commitment to a nuclear power programme, or not. It would take, perhaps, three years to get to this point. It could be done, for example, by 2030. At that stage, there would have been substantial public consultation and debate and an informed political decision to introduce SMRs could be considered. As part of this process, strategic environmental assessment should be used to guide the development of the putative SMR programme. This would facilitate public involvement in the decision-making process and would be consistent with Ireland's obligations under the Aarhus Convention.

I will make two important observations. SMRs with indicative power capacities of 300 MW or 470 MW could be direct replacements for retiring conventional plant, such as the three 300 MW oil-fired steam turbine units in Moneypoint or ageing combined cycle gas turbines with power outputs in the region of 450 MW in a number of locations around the country. Ireland should only proceed with SMR projects when there are, perhaps, ten to 20 units already successfully operating in relevant comparable countries such as Britain, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Poland and Estonia.

If SMRs prove themselves and a small number are deployed in Ireland in the 2040s, then over the second half of this century, there would be an option of selectively replacing some then life-expiring onshore and offshore wind capacity with SMRs, which would operate into the 22nd century.

The potential of SMRs is an opportunity for Ireland to do what we once did well, that is, to plan for the country's long-term and very-long term energy infrastructure needs. It is an opportunity that should not be ignored and one that requires political leadership.

I am happy to be here this morning to address the committee. I am joined by my colleague Barry McGreal from the Department.

For the committee's benefit I will give a brief background. I have been the Government science Adviser since January 2025. I perform that role three days a week, in addition to maintaining my role as a professor and as chair of evolutionary genetics in Trinity College Dublin. I have led a research team at TCD since 2003. During my research career, I have been looking at genomes across a diverse array of life, publishing scientific papers, managing awards and doing typical academic work.

Prior to my appointment as Government science advisor, and unrelated to me or my particular appointment, the Government had recognised that science advice in policy formation has become more complex and that it is impossible for one individual to have the depth of expertise needed to advise on all scientific matters. The Government, therefore, decided to establish new structures. First, it agreed to appoint a new Government science advisor and, second, it agreed to appoint a new national science advice forum. This was established and met for the first time earlier this year. It consists of 12 members, not including me, spanning a wide range of disciplines. The forum's primary role is to assist me in providing advice and in developing science advice capacity across government. That is the particular context in which I am operating.

Moving to the specific issue today, the committee is looking into the issue of nuclear energy and small modular reactors and nuclear's suitability in the Irish context. While I am a geneticist, I have looked into the issue to a certain extent, in particular from the perspective of issues around science and innovation. This has been primarily through a desk-based exercise of reading and assimilating available literature and some engagement with experts.

Based on this, I would categorise the issues as broadly falling into three areas. First, there is the obvious scientific question about nuclear energy. While there are incredibly stringent regulatory and safety issues, it is a somewhat straightforward question. Nuclear energy, particularly nuclear fission using water-cooled reactors, is a well-established science. Nuclear reactors do not use fossil fuel and, therefore, do not contribute to carbon emissions. Reactors can be large or small, with the underlying science being essentially the same. Historically, countries have opted for large reactors, which I believe is generally down to economies of scale rather than any scientific distinction. There is now talk about novel forms of small modular reactors, using alternative cooling systems such as molten salt or lead, but these technologies are not proven to the same extent.

Second, nuclear technology raises a few other what I might group as "technical issues" but they are in fact quite significant. Nuclear energy is a non-renewable energy source. Uranium-235 constitutes less than 1% of the world's uranium and it requires mining, milling, chemical conversion, enrichment and fabrication before it can undergo fission. Once enriched, it can be used as a fuel for perhaps three to five years in a nuclear power plant. After this point, the spent fuel must be stored. While this waste can be stored in appropriate interim facilities, ultimately, very long-term storage is required, often in deep geological repositories.

In terms of the potential of adopting nuclear energy in Ireland, or any so-called "newcomer country", there are significant issues arising in relation to public opinion and communication. I believe this has been referenced already by other contributors. Additionally, a nuclear energy sector requires a highly skilled and specialised workforce, both in the construction and operating phases. There are also issues arising in respect of site selection, with guidelines that these should away from dense population centres, in geologically stable regions and with a source of water in the case of the water-cooled reactors, among other requirements.

Ireland is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. As has been mentioned, the agency has published and updated its document, Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power. This sets out guidance for newcomer countries. The milestones set out 19 steps that should be followed and the report notes the importance that many newcomer states attach to using proven technologies first, rather than those that are still in development.

The third question is the economic one - how much does nuclear energy cost and can it provide cheap electricity? This is a non-trivial question that would require detailed costing and modelling. Notably there is a very large overhead or system cost, that is, the issues related to construction, waste management, establishing a regulator, building capacity, both in terms of a skilled workforce, institutions and so on, and eventual reactor decommissioning, which must be planned for at the outset. In countries that use nuclear energy for a significant portion of their baseload capacity, economies of scale can be realised. It would seem that the economic questions of small modular reactors are still very much open. It is also the case that, in terms of countries with established nuclear plants, when building conventional new plants overruns on budget and timeline appear to be the norm. Of course, this is partly the issue that SMRs are promised to address but, at the moment, it appears to be a case of wait and see.

I now invite members in the order they have indicated to engage with witnesses.

I thank the witnesses. I welcome that we are having this discussion and debate. Ultimately, what we all want to achieve is that we have sufficient energy to meet this country's future energy needs. We want to move away from fossil fuels and we also need to guarantee energy security. A critical part of that debate is that we ensure we invest very heavily in renewables and invest in the grid.

Will we have sufficient levels of energy to meet domestic demand, even in terms of the renewable targets we have set for 2040? Given that we currently bring in, on average, approximately 15% of our energy through interconnectors, much of it through Wales but also the North-South interconnector, given that the first small modular reactor in the UK is being commenced in Anglesey in Wales and given that, very soon, we will have the Celtic interconnector connecting with France, where about two thirds of the country's energy comes from nuclear sources, is it a little bit hypocritical of Ireland to ignore nuclear while importing significant and increasing amounts of nuclear energy?

Who is the Deputy directing those questions at?

I might start with Professor McLysaght and then come back to Professor Keane, Dr. Bah and Mr. O’Reilly.

On whether using nuclear energy through interconnectors but not making our own is hypocritical, I would not say so, no. It depends on why we are not using nuclear. If the reason we are not using nuclear is that it is impractical in our specific context, then it is not a philosophical objection to nuclear but, rather, an economic, practical and geological question, and those are some of the questions that remain open. I do not see any hypocrisy there.

That goes to my point that it is an economic argument as to why we are not using nuclear power, rather than a moral or philosophical argument.

That is what I have been focusing on anyway, yes. The scientific, technical and economic questions are, I think, the relevant ones.

The Deputy's other question was about whether we will have sufficient energy supply by 2040.

I think we all agree that if Ireland were to consider the small modular reactors, it is a long-term project and it will not solve problems by 2040. By 2040 you would not be talking about having these in place anyway, so it would not solve things within that timescale.

If either Professor Keane or Dr. Bah-----

I thank the Deputy for the question. On the question of hypocrisy, I agree: I do not think we are being hypocritical doing this. I think it actually makes good sense. The carbon intensity of electricity in Britain and in France, consistently and on average, is just lower than the carbon intensity of our electricity today. That is due to nuclear, so that interconnection, whether it is importing nuclear or whatever, just makes a lot of sense for a number of reasons, including energy security.

To the question of whether we have enough energy for 2040, we have in our offshore wind resource the bulk energy we need. Now, obviously, the wind does not always blow, so that does not deliver energy security, but do we have enough energy? Yes. I think the challenge towards 2040 and the challenge we face now is that we rely on gas and will continue to do so for our energy security for some time to come but our assessment, as we have mentioned, is that SMRs will not be in a position to play a role to help us before 2040 or, in our view, before 2050.

Professor Keane and Dr. Bah mentioned further afield but, obviously, the UK Government is investing in Wales and certainly sees a modular reactor. If they can do it in Wales, why can we not do it here?

As we have mentioned, there are a number of challenges for us in order to develop a complete nuclear structure, a nuclear sector, from scratch, one of which is our regulatory challenges. The other is the technical maturity of our technology. Siting criteria and a number of other key challenges will make it quite difficult to develop a nuclear sector from scratch. The UK has experience in nuclear power. It has been operating nuclear power for decades so has that experience and can easily transfer those skill sets and those human resources to develop SMRs. We stopped our nuclear power programme development in the early 1970s and since then have not made any headway or progress, so we are very much starting from scratch.

Does Mr. O'Reilly want to come in?

On the question as to whether it is hypocritical, I would not even go there. There were particular circumstances back in the 1970s. There was a really good engineering reason not to proceed with nuclear at that time. There was obviously a big environmental movement, not only in Ireland but also in Germany, against nuclear. That has brought us to where we are today.

I would be very concerned that we might have real tightness in our power supply by 2040. The key thing we will need to invest in between now and 2040 to ensure we have enough power is gas turbines. Whether they are used a lot or a little will depend on how much renewables we have managed to build, but one way or the other there will be an ultimate dependence on gas turbines.

Long lead times for projects are not confined to the nuclear industry. I sat in on an update by Wind Energy Ireland yesterday, and the timeframe for onshore wind projects is about ten years, and it may be 12 years for offshore wind projects. That is a debate for another forum, possibly, but we can do better. That challenge would face any nuclear project in the same way it faces the renewable projects as well.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. It is worthwhile having this conversation. I agree to some extent with what Deputy Byrne said, that it is important we have sufficient energy and energy security and independence and that we move away from fossil fuels. It is also very important, however, that we address the affordability aspect of this. We know that we live in a country where we have the highest energy bills in Europe and there are 300,000 people in arrears on their energy bills, and it does not look like that will be addressed anytime soon. I remember - I am still trying to convince the Department of justice to refurbish a courthouse in Tralee rather than building a new one. Every time I asked I was told there were too many unknowns, and that is just to refurbish a building.

I have a couple of questions to Professor Keane. He says that, according to the IEA, there are 19 infrastructural challenges, that it will probably take ten to 15 years, that there is no regulatory framework and no regulatory authority, while accepting that there are challenges on the 2050 decarbonisation target, that these SMRs are generally in the early stages and that it will be 15 to 20 years before they would be commercially viable or operational. As to what Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Finlay said about the work that would have to go into research and resourcing from the ESB, EirGrid, the CRU and the EPA, do any of the witnesses have any idea how much it would cost to do all that preparatory work?

I suspect it would be very low-cost. Imagining a three-year programme, I suspect it would be difficult to spend €10 million, for example, on it. There is a good example in Estonia, a country of 1.2 million people, which has gone through this precise process within the past three years and is now at the point of introducing regulation in the Estonian Parliament to establish the country's regulatory body, so we have ready exemplars we can look to.

But, to be commercially viable, would Mr. O'Reilly agree that it would be 15 to 20 years? He is talking about the second half of this century, really, when the onshore wind turbines, which have not really been constructed yet, are no longer in use. That is the time he is talking about, is it?

We have no idea whether SMRs will be viable or not, but there does seem to me to be a growing realisation in Ireland that the promise of cheap electricity from renewables is not materialising and will not materialise. I am detecting in things I hear at conferences the fact that what we are heading for is a high level but stable power plants.

What, Mr. O'Reilly would accept that moving away from the international gas markets would be a good idea?

That is an interesting question because you-----

I will have to look for a yes or a no on that because I do not have too much time. Mr. O'Reilly does not accept that.

If we can, of course. If we can become energy independent, that is the best thing we can do.

Professor McLysaght says newcomer countries - Turkey, Bangladesh and Egypt - are all using pressurised water reactors that are being built by the Russian state-owned corporation Rosatom. Is that right? Okay. Is there a problem with that, politically? Do the witnesses think there could be problems? Possibly? Yes, they think so.

The witnesses do not have to answer that.

There are other challenges then: screening, geotechnical characteristics, areas that are not a flood risk, good road and rail connections and a deep underground geological repository. They are all significant challenges. Then there is the liability, where, of course, the State will be the insurer of last resort, and if there is any problem or nuclear explosion, the State will have to pick up the tab. That seems to be standard international practice, that the research would be done by the state and the private operators would move in, but is it usually the case that the state picks up the tab if there is a problem? That is the international experience. Okay.

Not only in the instance of a disaster; there are a number of instances globally where operators have gone out of business during the construction phase, the state has had to step in and the costs have gone up exponentially. The state can be on the hook once you get into a certain level of investment in any event.

Are nuclear power costs any cheaper than wind, solar or-----

If I may answer that, what we have seen is the cost of solar and the cost of storage coming down significantly. The costs of SMRs are totally uncertain, so we just do not know, but I think what we can point to in recent times is how the spike in gas prices is what is driving the cost of electricity. It is what has driven electricity bill increases in Ireland. If we look to Spain, where they have integrated sufficient renewables, in particular solar, they have started to decouple gas from setting the price and they are seeing much lower electricity prices, so we do have evidence in recent times in Europe of a renewable-dominated system bringing down electricity costs for consumers.

Professor McLysaght says there are significant issues about public opinion, obtaining a skilled and specialised workforce and then the mining, milling and chemical conversion. She says the economic questions are still very much open. There are an awful lot of unknowns, to put it simply.

Yes, there are. I do not think anybody disagrees on that. To be clear, there are small reactors and small modular reactors. The idea of the modular one has to do with the economies of scale from factory production and so on. The public consultation is essentially the democratic process. All of this needs to be factored in. Many of the timescales mentioned start from when that has happened. That democratic process will be necessary for any action like this to have legitimacy in the country in terms of people buying into it.

If the decision was taken to go this way, it would need to be sited somewhere. It would need to be a geologically appropriate site, so there would not be an entirely free choice of where that would be. We do not know the answer to that. That survey has not been done. I expect that there would be a very small number of suitable sites.

There are big plans for more offshore wind and solar generation. Progress has not been as fast as we would like. One Minister of State said that the country had been sitting on its hands and navel-gazing about this for many years. Do the witnesses think that we would we be better off continuing on the trajectory towards renewables and that, while we can have a discussion, we should be focusing our energy along those lines?

It is probably a personal opinion but I think it is a faster route to more energy and energy security, and a more feasible one for Ireland.

There are often comparisons between the cost of electricity from solar, wind and other sources.

Is this the cost to the consumer Mr. O'Reilly is talking about?

Yes. People buy their power from the systems.

Is Mr. O'Reilly talking about households?

Households and businesses, in general. We just do not know, but we are seeing quite clearly that the promise of low-price energy from renewables has not been kept. The Deputy mentioned the level of arrears in Ireland. We have the highest electricity costs in Europe, even higher than the UK's.

Our renewables are not as developed as they could or should be. Does Mr. O'Reilly agree with that?

I do but renewables need three other sets of assets to make them work. Nuclear SMRs on their own would be one set of assets that could do the same job as those four. It is quite complex.

Potentially.

Yes, potentially.

This is a very interesting conversation. We have heard that there are a range of challenges and barriers to the implementation of this, aside from any ideological concerns. We have heard about the waste created from nuclear, the security risks, the requirement for additional skills and workforce, site selection and whether we have the economies of scale to deal with it. Indeed, there is public opinion and that in itself would be a significant barrier. Estimates that this can be agreed in three years are highly optimistic, considering that we can barely get a cycle path designed and installed in three years. There is a park and ride in Wicklow that will take four or five years to be operational and that is essentially a car park. The hope of finalising the nuclear question in three years is very unrealistic.

Why is the focus from the IAE on nuclear, which is unproven and non-commercial? We do not know a lot about it and whether it would be feasible here. Why is the IAE pushing for that rather than for a proven technology such as wind energy?

We are not pushing for one over the other. We think SMRs offer a different solution in the future.

On the three years issue, we suggest that we as a country should take the three years to consider the decision and do the low-cost work necessary for an informed public debate with a strategic environmental assessment, SEA, abiding by the Aarhus Convention, and all that sort of good stuff. We completely support the development of more onshore wind, offshore wind and solar. We are sceptical that it will provide low-cost electricity to people. We believe that there will be residual dependence of fossil fuels for a very long time, much longer than law or policy envisages.

We came in today to answer questions about SMRs. We are not pushing them but we believe that they are an option we should not ignore, just as Estonia, Britain and Sweden are not ignoring it. Countries we look to as being environmentally responsible are not ignoring it. We think Ireland should not either. Maybe the main reason, though, is we are an island and particularly vulnerable, much more so than countries such as Denmark.

If I was to look at this again and not have an ideological perspective - which I do have - and look at it purely from a financial feasibility perspective, I still could not understand why we would look at nuclear with all of its problems and costs. I have been trying to estimate it and been googling the potential costs. We are looking at billions of euro. One in Ontario was €6 billion. Why would we put our political energy into that when we could get access to nuclear energy from France or, potentially, Britain? Why not focus on interconnectors to those countries so that we have the benefit of their energy security and nuclear energy while we also focus on what we can do well and feasibly, which is wind and solar energy? From the perspective of the cost to the State, it does not make sense. I know Mr. O'Reilly's rationale. He said wind energy had not produced low-cost electricity but I believe that is a problem of the system, not of the energy type. We have not managed it well enough and there is no reason to believe we would manage the cost of nuclear any better. Is it not more realistic and a better use of the public purse to have interconnectors to countries with nuclear options?

Interconnectors are clearly a big part of our mix. We are already importing 15% to 20% but we need to think about two things about interconnectors. First, Ireland has no control of the electricity available at the far end. It could be stopped. There are already examples in Europe when systems come under pressure and countries say they cannot export. The second thing is geopolitical issues, which are way beyond the realm of engineering. I would be very concerned if we had an overdependency. We simply do not know what way geopolitics are going. Interconnector cables are targets for actors in the system. It is important that Ireland have on the island the means to maintain electricity supply under all circumstances at the lowest cost we can achieve, which, unfortunately, circumstances have shown will not be a low cost.

Does Mr. O'Reilly not believe that having an SMR would be in itself a geopolitical risk?

I do not. There are going to be three of them 70 miles from here - three 470 MW Rolls-Royce SMRs at the Wylfa plant. There will be other SMRs across Britain, I believe. There will certainly be big nuclear plants. It is the biggest single source of electricity in Europe currently. It is a decision we have to look at very hard and provide the space for the information to be collated by engineering, scientific and economics experts before it comes back into the political realm. At that point, all the Members of the Dáil and Seanad will have a lot more information to make a decision. That is the essence of what we are saying. Let us take three years to do that piece. If we did three years of serious work on that, which would not require a lot of people, we could take the decision to go or not. That would be long before we had to take a final investment decision, whether through a State company or a private company. It would provide the means to have an option. That is all we are suggesting.

There is a risk regarding the time, political capital and political energy spent discussing this. Our energy should go into wind and looking at the barriers to wind energy. We have less offshore wind energy than we did 20 years ago and that is an absolute disgrace. We had potential to be world leaders in wind energy and we have thrown that away. We should focus our energy there rather than spending time on something that does not look feasible from an economic perspective or a public buy-in perspective. There is a risk that the debate becomes focused on this and not on why we do not have the wind power we should have.

That is why we are suggesting it be taken out of the political arena and into the engineering and technical arena.

Professor Keane and Dr. Bah, in their opening statement and in their policy paper as well, state that only four SMRs are operational out of 62 designs globally, which is a fact. They go on to say that it is unlikely that SMR technology will play a role in Ireland's decarbonisation by 2050. I take it that this is a fair assessment of part of the opening statement.

Out of interest, I am not sure why they did not say how advanced other projects were. In the US, for example, three are under construction and due to be completed by early 2030. Argentina's is under construction and due to be competed by 2030. Ontario, in Canada, which was mentioned, is moving to construction, with a completion date within the early 2030s. Romania's, targeted for the early 2030s, is at pre-construction. At design approval and licensing stage are: Poland, UK, France, India and South Korea. There is also a pilot in Finland. These are all countries that are significantly advanced in the SMR technology and progressing it. I take the point about the economies of it and that we do not have the expertise. The witnesses mentioned the UK and that there had been an industry there, but we are also part of the European Union and a global market where there is free movement of goods and, in this instance, people. Why is it that they assume that Ireland is not a player in this and it will not play a role in our decarbonisation?

We are aware of all of those projects. We based our assessment on the published information from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Various vendors and projects are making statements and claims about readiness levels but we view it as prudent to go by what the International Atomic Energy Agency's perspective is. That is what our report has been based on.

In terms of the rest of the Deputy's question, I will hand over to Dr. Bah.

I will address the Deputy's first point on the projects that are currently under construction in various jurisdictions - China, Argentina, Russia and Canada. We have described and explained those projects.

I would just like to add that, out of the four SMRs that are currently under construction, three of them are going through serious challenges when it comes to design, regulation and financing. That is because most of the 62 SMRs, and the technologies that are under development, are firsts of a kind. They are quite novel. They are not standardised, so you find that developers face considerable challenges in getting them commissioned and constructed.

In fairness, I take Dr. Bah's point, particularly at this stage. We are all aware that SMR technology goes back multiple decades. It is not new and has advanced. What should stop us, considering how the technology is advancing? It brings me back to Mr. O'Reilly's point about preparing for the future. I take Dr. Bah's point about regulation and issues with construction. Is it not a fair assessment to say that SMR technology could advance to such a stage in 20 years' time that it is a runner for us here in Ireland but because we have hamstrung ourselves by saying that we do not want to pay much attention to it, we will leave ourselves in a worse position, particularly in light our decarbonisation goals?

Definitely, SMRs could become mature within 15 to 20 years, but by then, we will need to assess where we can procure such a technology. If we look at the vendors, there are only a few suppliers of SMR technologies. We would be quite constrained when it comes to choosing the technology and who is going to supply it to us.

There was mention of a Russian supplier. It is important to note that Hitachi is a big supplier and it is Japanese. Rolls-Royce in the UK is British. It is not as if there is only one supplier, and it from a rogue state.

On Mr. O'Reilly's point about preparing for the future, we need to have the political debate. Public opinion has changed. Public opinion is now looking at how we can reduce our energy bills. Renewables should be the focus of this committee and of the Government as well, but we need to prepare and plan for the future. We need to be more strategic in this country when it comes to long-term planning. What would that preparation be from a policy perspective and an early stage approach, if we were to look at this? Let us assume that SMR technology improves in 15 or 20 years and that the relevant regulations and its construction are not issues. What approach should the State and the Government be taking with industry and academics in terms of preparedness?

The recommendation is in our opening statement. What politics or the Government should facilitate is the establishment of a - I will use the term that the IAEA uses - nuclear energy programme implementing organisation. We have suggested where that should be resourced from. There is definitely a role for politics at the outset. My suggestion would be to set such an organisation up based on a recognised assumption that these might meet our needs but with no certainty that they will, and then to give the engineering, scientific and economic experts the time and space to go and do the investigations and to return to the arena of politics and civil society to explain what they have concluded. That would be the point in three years' time when there could be a productive discussion on whether we should go that route or not. We keep emphasising "to go that route or not".

It is a positive suggestion. In the politics of it, we should probably remove implementation so that we get more political buy-in but that it is seen as more of a research piece.

There have been some points made here this afternoon that are unfortunate. They have focused particularly on safety, for example. The witnesses are more than welcome to correct me, but I do not think there has been any incident in relation to the safety of SMRs. That is an important piece of information to get out there, unless Professor McLysaght wants to correct me.

I do not think there is any SMR in existence anywhere, so that is automatically a true statement.

In China and Russia.

The distinction is small modular and small. Small reactors have always been possible. Dr. Bah said that at the beginning. It is just a smaller version of a thing. The idea of small modular is to do with standardised designs, factory construction and achieving economies of scale in that way.

I thank Professor McLysaght.

May I make a point?

Yes, go for it.

At the back of our opening statement, we include a comparison of the relative safety and greenhouse gas emissions produced by Our World in Data, which is a good source. Dr. Hannah Ritchie does fantastic work in that area and I would refer the committee to it. It indicates that nuclear is just as safe as wind and solar and actually has lower lifetime greenhouse gas emissions.

I thank Mr. O'Reilly.

I thank the witnesses for joining us. It is certainly a topical matter at present. There has been a lot of debate about nuclear. Whether rightly or wrongly, I do not know. Our responsibility here relates to our energy independence, security, affordability and decarbonisation. From the opening statements, it is clear that nuclear can play a role in that as well as in the ever-evolving needs of digital and technology advancements and how we want to position ourselves competitively in the global market in that regard.

The Irish Academy of Engineering's closing line was, "It is an opportunity that should not be ignored and one that requires political leadership", but should we see more of an approach at European level rather than from an Irish perspective? Is it not something that we should be looking at collectively in the Union?

That is difficult because there are countries, other than Ireland, that have bans on nuclear. Austria, for example, has a ban on it.

Technically, from a regulatory and legislative perspective, we do, too.

Sorry. In an ideal world, I believe that there should be a pan-European approach through the EU and, indeed, wider, including Britain and Norway.

Is there any talk from an investment perspective as to where this is going or what the appetite is on the markets?

It is in the same place that, for example, hydrogen generation and storage are. It is too early for investors to get seriously involved with this type of technology.

However, we have mentioned that Ontario Power in Darlington, Canada, is building the first GE Hitachi 300 MW power plant. Rolls-Royce is doing the design for the ones in Wylfa. Through Vattenfall, Sweden has just made a commitment to Rolls-Royce for machines there. We are seeing the early stage of countries bringing projects forward. Outside of the United States, final investment decisions have not been reached and they have not gone into construction. Our view is that we are a technology taker. We should be preparing ourselves to be able to take the best technologies Ireland can get its hands on because we do not have a lot going for us indigenously for reasons of geography.

With regard to timelines, there has been a lot of talk about what we need to do with our grid capacity. There is a significant commitment from the Government. In Mr. O'Reilly's view, will the work that is going on in relation to PR 6 and increased grid capacity allow nuclear energy to be accommodated? Are we looking at supplementary investment in grid capacity in order to accommodate this in a given number of years' time?

We generally have a problem with delivering the grid the country is going to need, regardless of where our generation comes from, whether renewables, nuclear or any other source. We are way behind. We have built almost no new overhead transmission lines. It has taken us 20 or 25 years not to deliver the North-South interconnector. There is a real problem.

There is an untold story within EirGrid. EirGrid has done extraordinary work to maximise the use of the existing grid without building new overhead transmission lines but we have now reached that point. We have put out a figure. We think we will have to build something like 3,000 km of overhead transmission lines. If we do not do that, we are not going to decarbonise transport and heating. We will not be able to accommodate the increased power demand those two areas will demand.

I attended the EirGrid strategy launch yesterday. It is certainly on the right trajectory to deliver that. In relation to the political leadership piece I spoke about at the outset, does Mr. O'Reilly have any concerns about the challenges or safety of singular modular reactors? Are there any early signs that would cause him concern?

Based on the history of nuclear, no. If we were talking about hydro, which we cannot actually build a lot of, I would have huge concerns. I would have huge concerns about many other types of generation. However, let us look at what countries such as Estonia and Finland have done. We often talk about Finland as a country we aspire to be like. Finland has the first long-term underground storage facility constructed and in operation.

We are a technology taker. We have a lot of expertise in this country to build nuclear plants. Most of this expertise is in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and civil engineering. We have very able scientists in the EPA. Irish scientists sit on the International Commission on Radiological Protection. There is a lot of expertise in radiological protection in this country. That bit in between - nuclear power expertise - needs to be developed but there are many Irish engineers working across the world, including in Darlington, Ontario, who are nuclear engineers. I do not have any concern that the country does not have available to it all of the expertise that would be needed to have a safe and secure nuclear programme.

Does Mr. O'Reilly envisage those who have that academic experience coming home to drive this initiative forward, if we saw political leadership on it?

With all due respect to UCD, it is about industrial engineering experience rather than academic experience. I am talking about people who are actually building, regulating and carrying out the radiological protection function in Ireland at the moment. We have a lot of expertise.

In the record of those SMRs currently in operation, we have not seen any safety incidents. It is acknowledged that these SMRs are evolutionary in their design. They are required to meet rigid and strict safety standards. My concern is about what happens if there is an accident. How would that be managed? From recent examples, we know that the cost of accidents tends to spiral out of control. Fukushima and Chernobyl are examples. When an accident happens, how are we going to mitigate it? That is my concern. Do we have the resources to solve such issues?

What strikes me is the safety piece. When you do a risk analysis, you draw up a grid weighing up the frequency of problems versus their consequences. As Dr. Bah was saying, it is not just a question of how regularly issues arise, but how serious they are when they do. Will the witnesses comment on the risks and consequences? We saw the immense impacts of the accident in Japan. The witnesses might talk us through those. That system was very well established, respected and so forth. The incident had huge impacts nationally but it also had huge impacts on the achievability of climate targets. That is also a gamble we are taking. Ireland is lucky that we do not have a "Do huge damage" button. The committee spent a lot of time looking at a single risk scenario in relation to energy infrastructure, that scenario being an anchor dragged across an interconnector cable. If we are doing that about one single risk scenario, I would like to know more about what these risk scenarios look like and what the consequences would be.

I have a few other questions. The witnesses from UCD mentioned coming back to fossil fuels. After Fukushima, we saw a switch over to liquefied natural gas, LNG. We were using an emergency response because the work had not been done on renewables. There is a concern that there is silver-bullet thinking about nuclear, which we know would not come on stream for a long time. In the testimony of the IAE when it came before the committee before, there was talk of not accelerating as fast. The association talked about a slowdown in renewables. At one point, the danger of oversupply in renewables was being discussed. We have heard from experts in battery storage. Will the witnesses comment on what a comparable length of time spent on renewables, in light of developments in battery storage, might do for our energy security? I would be interested in that. It is something that Engineers Ireland, the representative body for engineers in Ireland, has said it believes is possible if we focus our energies on it. Will Professor Keane and Dr. Bah comment on those points?

I have a comment on the cost piece. Mr. O'Reilly might come in on this as well. The IAE said that it would be difficult to spend €10 million and mentioned Estonia. Estonia spends €120 million, which includes €73 million spent on regulation and €54 million on the development of emergency responses. The disposal of toxic waste was also mentioned. When we look at the cost, we are not just looking at the cost per unit of electricity. We are looking at very different and extensive costs associated with nuclear energy. Will Mr. O'Reilly come in on those points?

On the question regarding the role that renewables and battery storage can play, they can play a big role. However, as the Senator has mentioned, there is no silver bullet. Storage is not a silver bullet either. We need grid infrastructure, offshore wind, interconnection, storage and demand flexibility. They will all contribute and come together to help secure our energy.

As was referenced by the Irish Academy of Engineering, gas will continue to play a role in our energy security. We will still need it for years to come. We will increasingly be using less gas. While I will not rehash the list I have just given, I recommend prioritising that series of actions around both battery storage and other forms of storage. The costs of storage are coming down. The technology is accelerating very quickly. That is really good news, as is the solar story.

There is uncertainty with SMRs and how storage will develop. However, we are seeing a positive trajectory with both SMRs and storage. We are prioritising those issues.

I fully agree with the Senator that costs are significant. We have looked at assessments in this regard. The costs associated with SMRs are quite uncertain. The limited techno-economic studies that have been conducted on costs have utilised benchmark criteria and cost calculations. However, those calculations do not take into account other broader and important aspects such as costs associated with waste management, decommissioning and liability. These factors are not taken into account. They are not factored into the general cost assessment. We are calling for a detailed and rigorous techno-economic assessment that will factor in all of these costs and give us a much clearer picture.

We did not cover the point on risk assessment in depth, but the EPA has carried out studies looking at the risks of a nuclear accident in the UK and how that might impact Ireland. There are reports in the public domain in that regard. I will touch on the financial consequences. Someone pointed out the costs of liability as well. The general structure across the different countries is to have insurance pools. Nuclear operators are mandated to take on insurance. They set up a pool within the country and, whenever there is an accident, they draw on that pool to cover costs. However, when we looked at the insurance pools in various countries that have nuclear power plants and compare them to the costs of accidents - for example, Fukushima cost approximately $153 billion - these costs exceed the insurance pools that exist in various countries. They far surpass what is in the insurance pools. This is another concern that we need to consider.

I suppose-----

Sorry, Senator, Mr. O’Reilly wishes to come in.

I have a follow-up question for Dr. Bah.

Mr. O’Reilly indicated that he wanted to come in. I will let him speak first.

I will be brief. I wish to correct the record. The academy has never said that we should slow down deploying renewables. We have questioned the amount of renewables in policy, which is to have 54,000 MW by 2050 for a grid that might have demand for 12,000 MW by that stage. That is what we have questioned. We have not said to slow down.

Effectively, the Irish Academy of Engineering questioned the plan to scale up renewables and, regardless of whether one believe the grid needs to be developed, I am just pointing out that we are being asked to take on a completely different set of risks by the same people who are advocating for us not to seek to reach the 54,000 MW target. Mr. O’Reilly was quite clear that he is concerned about the level of target and ambition in relation to-----

It is about the cost of it.

-----renewables from a cost basis. That is a go-slow in respect of renewables.

Dr. Bah addressed the financial aspect. We have heard the issues and concerns in that regard already, but I wish to talk about the impact these incidents have on the nuclear space. Aside from the financial aspect in terms of insurance not covering costs, will Dr. Bah speak to the consequences they have for smaller countries like Ireland, particularly in the context of climate targets? Japan is a good example in this regard. It relied on nuclear but, following the accident, it had to switch back to fossil fuels.

One consequence apart from cost is the risk of human displacement. We saw that with the accident at Fukushima. Ireland is quite small. We know how our settlement is dispersed. That is another big implication in the context of accidents that may occur.

Will Dr. Bah address the impacts on climate targets?

Sorry, Senator, we are way over time. I have other speakers-----

I was just asking what happens with climate targets in the context where nuclear goes offline.

I ask the witnesses to make a quick comment regarding climate targets.

If nuclear goes offline, then gas is the most likely option. Certainly, it is what Ireland and other countries would switch to. In the wake of Fukushima, Germany decided to turn off its nuclear plant and switch to gas. We have actually seen this effect in Europe.

I also welcome this discussion. This matter has been treated like a social taboo in political discourse for decades, but it is something we need to discuss. I welcome that this committee is finally discussing it. I apologise for having another commitment, but I was listening to what the witnesses were saying.

One of the points made - it is also in the witnesses’ paper - is how nuclear is not envisaged before 2050. I accept that analysis. I accept that anything, especially nuclear energy, would involve a delay if built in Ireland. However, I wish to focus on energy more broadly. Professor Keane mentioned Spain’s quick reaction to the influx of more solar panels. I understand he welcomes that Spain has increased its solar and wind capacity. What has Spain done with its grid that we have not? As the Professor knows, we are curtailing a huge amount of our energy. Why would we not work on our grid rather than putting millions, if not billions, of euro into the development of SMRs?

In part, it is a question of geography. Obviously, Spain is well interconnected with Portugal and other European neighbours. We are an island, so the challenges are different. EirGrid has done a good job of managing our grid. The integration of renewables is easier for Spain, let us say. We are integrating offshore wind, which consists of more complex projects. Everyone acknowledges the delays in that regard. They make sense, because it is more complex to integrate offshore wind, when we have not done it before, compared with extra onshore solar panels. Those realities have allowed Spain to have more accelerated action.

I welcome the fact that we are in Ireland. I understand the delays with the current interconnectors. The point in that regard is valid. One of the witnesses mentioned the volatility and the target point of interconnectors and how we are now looking at another single point of failure to have energy security from a LNG terminal.

On SMRs, we have seen what happens when we build large public infrastructure projects. The children’s hospital is one such example. While not a SMR, we have seen how the nuclear power plant in the UK has gone way over budget. I do not think anyone is going to go cheap when it comes to nuclear. The promise of cheap SMRs needs to proven at scale in other states before we can expose Irish taxpayers to the liability involved. Do the witnesses agree that a techno-economic feasibility study, as Dr. Bah recommended, is needed to do that hard-nosed analysis? I welcome that it is being discussed but, ultimately, is the State going to be the last resort if anything goes wrong?

As indicated earlier, the State is the last resort. There is international evidence to that effect when things go wrong. We are recommending that, if we are to look at this, we need a full and rigorous techno-economic feasibility study. I recommend having a societal aspect to that study as well. While there has been polling around public opinion on nuclear energy, we need a much more comprehensive study with the experts involved to engage the public and society on all the complex aspects of nuclear energy in order to establish and determine the social acceptance level of nuclear energy in Ireland.

What is the delay in bringing renewables to our grid? We are still focused on gas rather than renewables. Is there a code problem or is it something to do with the grid and EirGrid? Does Professor Keane think EirGrid is doing perfectly capable work?

As referenced by the Irish Academy of Engineering, we have not extended or increased our power transmission capacity on the island for several years. That is a real issue. We are developing offshore wind. Britain went there much quicker and has established it. We are looking to integrate our first offshore wind projects. Offshore wind is a mature technology. It makes a lot of sense. We are just doing this for the first time. There are planning and other issues that have had an impact.

In the context of those planning issues for the interconnector or transmission lines, we have NIMBYism when it comes to the smallest projects. For example, people want transmission lines run underground as opposed to above ground, even though the cost of putting them below ground is much higher, as the Professor is well aware. Will NIMBYism come into play if we are using SMRs, because I cannot imagine local TDs or councillors voting for an SMR to be based in their area?

To answer that question, we need quite a detailed social and economic study.

Let us use the example of five TDs in Offaly, where there is a proposal to install an SMR. Does Dr. Bah not think there will be public outcry?

From the limited research we have done, public opinion is quite low. We would need a much more detailed and comprehensive socio-economic study just to understand the underlying factors that people are concerned about. Is it the facility itself or the nuclear waste facility beside them? We need to understand the underlying issues there.

I agree with Dr. Bah. Before I went into engineering, I thought nuclear energy was as it is shown in The Simpsons, where we see green rods put in and electricity is generated. I remember learning and seeing that it is just a glorified steam engine. I think public awareness needs to be raised about this and people need to be shown what nuclear means. Going back to the study's findings, if other countries could bring in these SMRs and get that experience, then in 25 or 30 years, when a large number of reactors have been established in other states, we could look at it. I do think, though, that the study is the best option. I will come back in during the next round.

I thank the Deputy. I will ask a couple of questions from my perspective. Deputy Ó Cearúil mentioned a range of projects. Based on Dr. Bah's response, though, my understanding is that they are effectively covered within the 62 projects which it was mentioned were active around the world. They are, effectively, all at various stages of development, give or take. Is that correct?

It is correct.

To pick on the point made by Deputy Heneghan, in relation to research in terms of public acceptance, is that research localised to Ireland? Can Dr. Bah tell us a little bit about it?

We have not done detailed research on public acceptance of nuclear power but we have assessed the literature that has looked into this issue here.

There is a need for that research to be done. Turning to Professor Keane, what is UCD's view? We will need dispatchable power, but nuclear is not necessarily the solution in your view. What is the long-term solution that will give us dispatchable power at a carbon footprint that is as low as possible? What is UCD's view on this point?

If we think about 2040 and 2050 and getting to net zero, I guess there is a technology gap at present. The existing storage technologies will be insufficient to meet the periods, and we have done the research in this area, of possibly around five days where the wind will not blow and the sun will not shine, basically. We will need energy in those times to meet our electricity supply. There is currently a technology gap, so we need long-duration energy storage. There is no silver bullet, so we need all the things we talked about: storage, interconnection and demand flexibility. As it stands, though, there is just a gap.

Now, I am not that concerned about the gap, because it is 2026. Given the pace of technological development, I think solutions will come forward. There is no identifiable solution, though, that I can point to today and say this is the thing that is going to provide our zero carbon dispatchable power in 2040 or 2050.

There is a gap there at the moment. Moving to Professor McLysaght, in relation to the technical issues, she highlighted uranium-235. It constitutes less than 1% of the world's uranium. That itself is not a renewable fuel, effectively, so where does that leave us? Professor McLysaght may or may not know the answer to this query, but what sort of global capacity do we have in terms of uranium-235 or other nuclear fuels? Do we have a sense of this? It does not sound very renewable based on what is being set out here.

It is not a renewable fuel. Europe does not have any; it is imported. Countries that do have significant resources include Russia, Afghanistan, Australia and Canada. I have been talking to experts in the field and they felt that pressure on that fuel source was not imminent. They did not feel there was any yet. There could be geopolitical factors, of course, when importing fuel. At the moment, though, it was felt that the amounts were not incredibly limiting, according to the people I spoke to. That is also based, however, on current levels of usage, so if there was a huge change in the number of countries using this fuel, that calculation might change. That is based on who I have been talking to.

Has the IAEA modelled this scenario?

I do not know. I do not have the answer to that question. I am sorry.

Having trained as a geologist before becoming a chartered engineer, I would like to comment on the uranium question. The status and security of supply for all kinds of minerals are examined annually by the World Bank and by the US Geological Survey. As Professor McLysaght pointed out, there is no imminent threat, given there is a wide range of sources and producers of uranium. As well as those Professor McLysaght mentioned, there are also the Central African Republic and Niger. These are countries that might be a bit more vulnerable to geopolitical shocks. I do not think the supply of the commodity is the problem, though. The other issues mentioned are much more important.

I thank Mr. Finlay. I have two questions for Mr. O'Reilly. In relation to the security of supply, in respect of having a secure source, there is the issue that we would have to import the raw materials required. It does not strike me as being very secure. That is putting a major question mark over nuclear energy.

In terms of affordability, this rarely seeps into the energy discussion. Deputy Pa Daly mentioned it previously. Have we any evidence that adopting nuclear power at the SMR scale would bring energy affordability into focus for consumers?

On the security of supply, the good thing about nuclear fuel is that it has a long shelf life. The isotope has a half-life of 700 million years. We could store as many fuel rods for future refuelling of SMRs in Ireland as we felt like having. We could have one year, two years or three years. That is actually quite straightforward.

On affordability, could the Cathaoirleach remind me of the question?

Is there any evidence that implementing nuclear SMR technology would have a positive impact on affordability?

What there is great evidence for is that countries in Europe that have nuclear power have much lower prices for electricity. They also have much lower greenhouse gas emissions. If we look at the price of electricity in Finland, Sweden or in France, which is probably the best example, they have much cheaper electricity than we have. When we talk about SMRs, we must bear in mind that they are not new technology. The two types of SMRs we referenced in our paper are based on boiling water reactors and pressurised water reactors. Between them, they account for over 95% of all the reactors in the world working today.

Crystal balls are not much use where we are sitting today, but if we look at France or Finland, we will see that those countries have much cheaper electricity. There is at least a prospect that we might have lower-priced electricity in the future than we would have otherwise. It is a prospect. Essentially, our paper is arguing for us to not ignore that prospect and at least to do the investigations so we can take a decision, in perhaps three years, to go further along that path with the IAEA or not to go further along that path.

Turning to Mr. McGreal, where does the Department stand on this question? The Irish Academy of Engineering was setting out a three-year piece of work that should be done in relation to bottoming this out. Where is the Department in all of this?

The remit of our Minister spans science, innovation and research, so he asked us to look at this issue from that perspective, and not from the perspective of a three- or five-year timeframe or getting ourselves ready to do it. He has asked us to just look at the issues in terms of whether this is a feasible and practical technology, go back to him and then have a discussion. We have not had that discussion with him yet, but this is where we are at.

Okay. We will start round two of our questions. Each member will have three minutes.

I just want to raise one issue. All we are trying to do in this committee is to reduce our carbon emissions and energy costs and make Ireland's energy system as beneficial to ourselves and to the world as possible. I wish to raise something in this overall context which is revealing about where we are as a society. Mr. O'Reilly spoke about Finland, France and other EU countries that have lower energy costs. We are now discussing SMRs and bringing in things that would take 25 to 30 years, when we could change an ISO standard for plug-in solar systems immediately and allow people who do not have access to rooftops to reduce their energy costs. The batteries in Lidl and Aldi cost €340. Would the witnesses have any opinion on this issue? I know we are here to discuss nuclear energy, but would the witnesses have an opinion in respect of us not moving fast enough on other developing technologies that are coming out and are being used by other countries?

I think we have to distinguish between the micro and the macro. On the micro side of things, if it is technically safe to plug in solar panels in Germany, why would we not do it in Ireland? If it is technically safe to put in storage systems as they do in other countries, why would we not do so? Of course we should be doing all this.

We should be giving consumers every opportunity to put stuff behind the meter to lower the price of their electricity. We absolutely should. However, we need to keep the macro in focus. It is difficult. Professor Keane mentioned that there is a technology gap and those last five days. EirGrid operates to a standard of 99.97%. Its mandate is to make sure that for all but three hours in the year, there is virtually zero risk of an outage anywhere in the country where supply does not meet demand. That is a formidable level of service.

We have heard a lot about Spain today. I have an interesting thing to say about Spain. It benefits from having both a lot of hydroelectricity and a lot of nuclear power. We read about the fantastic things they are doing in China with renewables, including solar, wind and hydro, and high-voltage direct current, DC, interconnection from the west of China to the east. China's grid works well because it has a huge amount of coal-fired units, which gives the grid the stability that allows it to pile on an awful lot of renewables.

I would not say China gets too many objections to developments.

The Deputy is probably correct. That is precisely why we are saying we should do the work. Let us make an assumption that we are going to go nuclear. That is not a decision. We need to give ourselves the time to go the process, which the IAEA has guided through other countries, which we look up to. We should go that process and then come back to the subject in three years' time when we have the answers to all of the questions being asked today. What do we do with waste? What about the risk of an accident? What about the economics? We do not have answers to any of those questions today.

China has developed its grid immensely quickly and very well in the past 25 or 30 years. Professor Keane or anyone can answer the following point about the North-South interconnector. We have the North of Ireland and the Republic. There are two different Governments. Are the current Government in the North and our Government doing enough to fast-track that project as quickly and cheaply as possible to create the connection? There are different Governments in place here and in the North. The energy minister in the North is saying the North is not against it, but it is not doing it. In the witnesses' opinions, what is happening with the North-South interconnector and the delays?

Politics needs to lead energy policy. Unfortunately, I will be slightly critical of the political establishment. It is leading from behind. It is supporting things that people will support. We need political leadership and the solutions that are necessary to decarbonise the energy system in Ireland. "Twenty years" is probably the answer to give to a question about whether the political systems North and South are doing enough. It has been 20 years and it is still not built.

Would Mr. O'Reilly recommend an above-ground or a below-ground connection for speeding this up and for the economic benefit? I know that above ground has its risks and below ground has its costs, but which would Mr. O'Reilly be for?

It is not just a matter of costs. There are fundamental engineering issues to do with the square root of minus one. You can put cables underground but not for long distances. That just does not work technically. It is why so many of them are overground. The cost is secondary, but there are technical reasons that you cannot-----

Is that the inertia? What is it that is not letting you go far underground? What is it that-----

Conductive reactance.

Okay.

I will come back to Dr. Bah's statement for a moment. He said, "Small modular reactor technology, despite having been conceptualised since the early years of nuclear reactor development, is still generally in the early stages of development." Nuclear technology has been around a long time. What has held up SMR development so that it is still effectively in its early stages?

The same challenge that held back SMRs in the early 1940s and the 1950s holds today. It is the cost. The US experimented with SMRs. In fact, the early reactors were all SMRs. They were small in size but went on to be upgraded. Developers realised that they simply did not have the capacity to spread the costs. If you want to reduce your costs, you need to increase your capacity and you need to have standardisation. That is one of the issues that quickly pivoted the industry towards large-scale nuclear reactors. They could reduce the cost and could have standardisation.

It is a matter of scaling.

It is just scaling.

There is no sign of that changing.

That is on one side. On the other, when we look at the technologies that are currently in the pipeline, they are quite different from the existing technologies. They are novel in the sense that they use novel cooling materials, such as sodium or molten salt. These materials have not been tested in a commercial setting. The second challenge is a technical challenge. How do you get those novel technologies to operate in a safe and secure manner? Those are the issues.

Does Deputy Ó Cearúil want to come back in?

No, it is fine.

We will be publishing the witnesses' opening statements on the committee website. Is that agreed? Agreed. On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses for taking part in the session on this challenging topic of SMR technology. I thank them for their time. I have no doubt we will talk again.