Eamon O'Reilly

It could even go on longer.

We will need always some form of generation where you burn something as the generation source of last resort.

We're saying Moneypoint has the advantage on coal that you can't get a large stock of coal into a yard.

My sense, whatever, how costs feed into bills is a completely different discussion.

But I think the cost of running Moneypoint on coal will be lower than the cost of procuring brand new gas turbine power plants, which is what Airgrid are planning to do.

Gas is clean, coal is dirty.

Well, it depends on what you define.

Both of them are greenhouse gas emissions.

Coal possibly has, probably has about twice the greenhouse gas emissions of gas.

But if you're not burning it all that often, it actually doesn't matter.

Money Point is an old plant.

It's 40 years old.

It's fully depreciated or should be fully depreciated.

The cost of running Money Point should not be anywhere near as high as a brand new plant that you might procure.

I think what we should be doing is keeping an eye on Darlington in Ontario and Canada, where they're building, Ontario Power, building 1,200 megawatts of G-Hitachi SMOs.

Keep an eye 70 miles from here in Wilfa, where Rolls-Royce are doing the design now for three 470 megawatt SMOs.

They're not molten salt.

They're not fancy technology.

This is old boiling water and pressurized water technology.

Keep an eye on those.