KEY POINTS:
In Sydney late last week, Vladimir Putin signed a deal to buy uranium from Australia for Russia's civilian power stations. This would have been unthinkable even a short time ago, let alone during the years of the Cold War. Yet in matters pertaining to nuclear power, the world is moving quickly. Not this country, though. Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons can still expect little demur when she states that New Zealanders decided more than 20 years ago that nuclear power was not appropriate and show no sign of changing their minds.
In reality, we were, at the outset, more consumed by the threat of nuclear weapons than the dangers of nuclear power. The two came to coalesce without much debate, or even a recognition that New Zealand was one of the few developed countries not using nuclear energy. If the Apec meeting did little else, it raised serious questions about the appropriateness of an ongoing dogmatism.
The message taken to Sydney by President George W. Bush was that nuclear power held the key to cutting greenhouse gas emissions for many nations. "If you truly care about greenhouse gases, then you'll support nuclear power," he said. This has a clear resonance in the United States, a country seeking to reduce its dependence on coal-fired power stations. But New Zealand would not have a bar of it, and the final Apec communique read: "For those economies which choose to do so, the use of nuclear energy, in a manner ensuring nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation ... can also contribute."
According to Prime Minister Helen Clark, that compromise recognised New Zealand's concerns about the dangers of nuclear power, the problems of waste, and fears that nuclear material from power stations could be enriched to create nuclear weapons. But it also acknowledged that the dangers posed by climate change now take precedence over the nuclear threat. And that countries like the US and China are not as fortunate as New Zealand, having fewer options if they wish to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions while meeting a surging demand for power.
New Zealand, of course, is blessed with sources of renewable energy. Helen Clark says it, therefore, has no need to contemplate changing its nuclear-free status. There is an element of smugness in this. Since 1990 carbon dioxide emissions from this country's electricity sector have increased 137 per cent, even though our Kyoto Protocol commitments demand financial responsibility for any increase in greenhouse emissions above 1990 levels. Furthermore, renewable energy - hydro, geothermal and wind - is being developed at a snail-like pace. The Government's draft energy strategy envisages a doubling of generation from these sources, but, in many cases, this is being thwarted by residents angered by unsightly turbines or pylons.
Is nuclear power, therefore, a short-cut to meet this country's Kyoto obligations? One that would avoid the problems associated with the importation of LNG as the Maui gasfield expires? Not immediately. At the moment, the sheer size and output of nuclear stations poses a problem for a country of New Zealand's size. Building just one would raise issues of security of supply if it had to be shut down.
Technological advances will produce smaller and safer nuclear stations. That is perhaps 10 to 15 years away. It is, as President Bush suggests, an obvious option for countries with fewer alternatives than this one. But it could yet be relevant to New Zealand if the pursuit of renewable energy remains vexatious. In that case, a closed mind may no longer be an option.
