Ron Smith: Sharing a nuclear future

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has announced the formation of a taskforce to review (among other questions) the possibility of nuclear energy for Australia. At present the bulk of Australia's power comes from burning coal, with all the implications for the environment that that entails.

Mr Howard's clearly expressed view was that the debate on alternative energy sources has to include nuclear energy "or we run the risk of denying Australians an affordable power source that will not pollute the environment, or put a brake on the economy".

The issue for New Zealand is much the same and the question is, shouldn't we also establish a formal inquiry into our energy future, including the part that nuclear energy might play in it?

Of course, there are differences. Australia already has a nuclear industry: it has uranium mining and a yellowcake export business. And it has an operating research reactor at Lucas Heights, south of Sydney (from which we get our medical isotopes).

The fact that the dominant electrical power source in New Zealand is hydro (and not fossil-fuel based) is also a difference. But we do share with Australia the problem that Prime Minister Howard identified - uncertainty about our energy future.

As we contemplate "the unthinkable" we might take comfort from the fact that others are also doing so (to varying degrees) and that, generally, sentiment with regard to civilian nuclear power is changing rapidly around the globe, as people come to grips with the reality of dwindling oil and gas supplies (and rising prices) and the gathering threat of climate change.

A survey in Sweden showed that three-quarters of all Swedes support the continuation of nuclear generation in that country.

Support is similarly increasing in Switzerland, Finland, the United States and Britain, according to recent public-opinion polls conducted in those places.

Prime Minister Blair and President Bush have also affirmed the importance of nuclear power to their respective countries. There is a high likelihood that nuclear plants will be built in both Britain and the US.

As Bush and Blair recognise, both their countries will face an enormous blow-out in carbon emissions in the years ahead, if this does not happen.

Coming nearer home, we should seriously consider paralleling Australia's moves and conducting our own inquiry into the possibility that nuclear power generation could give us the energy security that we need.

If Australia and New Zealand both decide to go ahead, we could possibly co-operate on a common supplier and a common reactor design. We might also co-operate on infrastructure development and industry training.

As far as the practicalities are concerned, a recent Australian consultant's report has confirmed that nuclear power would be competitive with coal or gas generation and, of course, without the carbon dioxide emissions.

There is no reason to think the situation would be different here.

Another practical point worth noting is that nuclear power plants don't have to be as large as Northeast Asia's (1000-1500 MW). They do come in smaller sizes. There are modern designs in the 500-600MW range that might suit Australia and us. Russia has two reactors in Siberia that are only 40MW.

The development of a coastal site, close to Auckland, could give an unobtrusive, reliable and safe source of electricity, which would obviate the need for more unsightly reticulation development to bring power from the south. It could also enable us to consider alternative uses for the water in the southern hydro lakes.

* Dr Ron Smith is the director, International Relations and Security Studies, Department of Political Science and Public Policy, University of Waikato.