The Irish minister in charge of energy policy, Eamon Ryan, portrays himself as a man of vision. Under his watch, he assures us, Ireland will become a “world leader” in renewable energy.

The energy minister is enthusiastic about the onerous targets the EU Commission is set to impose, including that 20% of our energy supply comes from renewables by 2020. “We can meet, even surpass, the EU target,” he has declared.

It’s doubtful that his colleagues in government share this enthusiasm, particularly if the likely effect of his policy will be to accelerate the flight of industrialists from our shores.

The Irish Exporters Association estimates the EU package, which also includes a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels and a further 20% saving from energy efficiency, would increase Ireland’s annual energy bill by €2.6 billion. Other calculations suggest a figure of €1 billion. Either way, it’s a substantial amount of money for hard-pressed industrialists and ordinary families to find these days.

There are a few practical difficulties, such as the €650m investment in our electricity network to accommodate a vastly increased input from renewables, and the fact that they currently comprise only 3-4% of our energy mix. There’s also uncertainty that the rush to renewables will deliver. If it doesn’t, what’s Plan B?

But as was once remarked of King Philip II of Spain and his ill-fated Armada, for our minister it appears no experience of the failure of his policy is likely to shake his belief in its essential excellence.

Ireland is 85% dependant on imported fossil fuels. In time we will face a serious problem with security of supply, never mind the exorbitant cost that attends our current dependency on oil and gas.

Leaving aside arguments about climate change and emissions reductions, an aggressive policy to develop renewables is undoubtedly justified. But a conclusion that renewables represent the only option, to the exclusion of others, is not. Shortly after he was elevated to his ministry, Ryan said he would welcome a nuclear debate, and then immediately pre-empted it. The outcome, he said, would serve to confirm his belief in renewables as the only way forward.

Nuclear is illegal in Ireland, prohibited by the 1999 Electricity Regulation Act. Our politicians shamelessly acknowledge that electricity imported through east-west interconnectors may be nuclear in origin. But none will advocate removal of our ban on nuclear generation any time soon. In career terms, it wouldn’t be worth it.

There are valid arguments against the nuclear option for Ireland. We don’t have the skilled nuclear workforce of Britain and other EU countries. That expertise can take a generation to develop.

Our national grid would have difficulty with a nuclear power station of the size envisaged for Britain’s new programme, which is likely to be the best and safest option for us. We might end up exchanging our current dependency on fossil fuels for a dependency on uranium. Furthermore we could not manage the waste, given that we cannot even handle our existing tiny amount of nuclear wastes and for more than 20 years have politically dodged any decision to build a repository to store it.

Not least of all, we style ourselves the most anti-nuclear nation on the planet; the high moral ground is always a hard place to abandon without loss of face.

Equally, there are strong arguments in favour. Nuclear-generated electricity is cheaper than offshore wind and many of the other alternatives and is likely to remain so. Nuclear’s carbon emissions are negligible. We could invest in a smaller reactor than the 1,000 megawatt plus models being built elsewhere in Europe.

Wind requires back-up, usually gas, which can negate the emissions saved in the first place. Nuclear’s low-emissions profile makes it more compatible as a back-up for renewables.

Therein lies the rub — such debate as we have experienced to date pitches nuclear versus renewables, as if one or the other is the choice. We need a debate about all our energy options, about the economic cost and impact of the choices we must make, about security of supply, sustainability and the environment.

We know one thing about our past antipathy to nuclear power; most of what we believed was wrongly based. But in the years of plenty, we could afford a level of self-indulgence and the “world leadership” cant that went with it. We’re not in that place anymore.

Veronica McDermott is author of Going Nuclear — Ireland, Britain and the Campaign to close Sellafield (IAP, 2007). See www.veronicamcdermott.com

Times Recommends

• No apology for Germany’s own Nazi victims
• Intricate web of fear and hope tying down deal
• Victims remembered a year after Mumbai attacks