Clean, Green and Nuclear Energy
By Joshua Drummond
New Zealand's attitude to nuclear weapons (and the associated issue of proliferation) has been one of common sense - no one in their right mind wants more of the horrible things, and New Zealand has been a leader in rightfully decrying the proliferation, testing and use of nuclear weapons. But nuclear power has been, fairly or unfairly, painted with the anti-weapons brush. It's easy enough to see why. In 1987 , when the landmark New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act was passed, memories of Chernobyl were still very fresh, with a literal and figurative radioactive cloud hanging over much of Europe, tension was running high over the visits of US nuclear-armed and powered ships, and the Greenpeace protest ship Rainbow Warrior had recently been bombed in an act of state-sponsored terrorism by French agents - because of the ship's crucial role in protesting French nuclear testing in the Pacific. It all had the effect of making everything "nuclear" look downright threatening.
New Zealand's action, more than appropriate in the circumstances, was to legally isolate itself from all things nuclear, making it the first (and so far only) country to enshrine its anti-nuclear success in legislation. This had far-reaching repercussions; the United States quickly suspended its mutual defence obligations with New Zealand under the ANZUS treaty, and the legislation remains as a bone of contention which has been identified as a barrier to a free-trade deal with the US.
It's a literal as well as a figurative barrier; New Zealand's territory runs to a 200-km offshore boundary called the Economic Exclusion Zone or EEZ, and our law says no nuclear-powered ships or nuclear weapons may pass that invisible line.
Apart from some radiological material, such as that used for some hospital treatments, and some exceptions like the Americium found in smoke detectors, we are allowed no "nuclear" materials inside the EEZ at all.
For many Kiwis, this all-things-nuclear-free stance is a source of national pride and identity, one that will not be given up at any cost. But the "what ifs" our country needs to answer are: what if nuclear power isn't a bad idea? What if it's a safe and environmentally sound alternative to present methods of greenhouse gas-spewing, non-renewable methods of energy generation? What if - and this is the big one - what if we actually need it?
It's now 20 years since the nuclear-free legislation was passed, and needless to say, much has changed since then. Chief amongst the changes are the facts of climate change and a looming energy crisis precipitated by the arrival of "peak oil" - that point where demand for petroleum exceeds supply. Awareness of the immediacy of these two trends sparked something unimaginable in 1987 - claims that nuclear energy is the most environmentally-friendly option available in a world of diminishing energy resources and accelerating warming.
What is even more astonishing - particularly to the New Zealand national psyche - is that many of the calls for nuclear to become the power generator of choice are coming from those in the so-called green movement.
James Lovelock, known for his controversial "Gaia" hypothesis, is one such greenie who thinks nuclear power is not just a good idea, but an essential one. Along with people like prominent commentators Steward Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog and co-founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore, Lovelock makes the point that nuclear power is the only low carbon-emitting energy source that is developed enough to be "rolled out" on a scale large enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short term. Nor does he mince his words. "Only nuclear power can now halt global warming," he wrote in Britain's Independent newspaper. "I entreat my friends in the [Green] movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy."
The schism between pro-and-anti-nuclear camps within the green movement has seen the anti-factions grow more vociferous than ever. Greenpeace, possibly the highest-profile environmental watchdog, has branded co-founder Patrick Moore as a heretic, and are committed to opposing nuclear power. "We have always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity," Greenpeace's US website brays. Many greens in New Zealand are no less vocal. The Green Party, in a press release celebrating 20 years of the nuclear-free legislation, strongly warned against embracing nuclear power, linking it dubiously to weapons research and American imperialism.
"In the spirit of the 1987 legislation New Zealand should be reasserting its opposition to nuclear power at a time when many nations are wrongly imagining it as a safe alternative to greenhouse gas emitting power plants," Keith Locke, the Green party Foreign Affairs spokesperson, said.
But the pro-nuclear environmentalists are matching the anti-camp word for word, and are becoming more vocal themselves. Terry Wynn is one such man. A former British Labour Party member, and a 17-year member of the European Parliament, Wynn is convinced nuclear power is the way forward. During a stint as Auckland University's European-in-residence, Wynn made a powerful argument in favour of nuclear power over coal, saying that while coal mining alone causes over 5000 deaths a year - and not even accounting for the environmental damage coal-fired power stations wreak - nuclear accidents are rare. Even a worst-case scenario such as Chernobyl, he said, caused just 56 deaths. "I've seen the muck and the filth we churn into the Earth's atmosphere, we treat the Earth like a dustbin," Wynn told the New Zealand Herald in March. "Do you think any worker who [works in a nuclear plant] would do so if he thought it was dangerous, unsafe and prone to terrorist attacks? Would they put their wives and families at risk by living next door to a nuclear power plant? The people who work in that industry know the safety aspects of it, the security aspects. They know what happens if things go wrong."
These kinds of statements have, in a truly inspiring irony, been enthusiastically seized upon by many traditional enemies of the green movement. Nuclear energy pundits and governments keen on expanding existing facilities, particularly the United States, are becoming increasingly vocal about the need for nuclear power to save the world.
At the time of writing, the APEC conference was underway in Sydney, and US President George Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard were waxing lyrical about their support for a nuclear-powered future. "If you believe that greenhouse gases are a problem ... if you take the issue seriously like I do and John [Howard] does then you should be supportive of nuclear power," Bush said.
The New Zealand APEC attendees met this kind of suggestion with a mixture of rhetoric and outright hostility. Prime Minister Helen Clark said nuclear power was "not something we are going to endorse," and others were far less friendly. Foreign Minister Winston Peters, ever quick with a sound bite, talked of nuclear power "abrogating our sovereignty," and said that nothing that happened at Apec would change New Zealand's policy. Trade and Disarmament Minister Phil Goff talked pragmatically of waste disposal, safety and terrorism problems - which amounted to a collective "hell, nay!" from New Zealand's representatives.
The answer to the question of whether New Zealand needs - or will need - nuclear power generation is a flat "no," according to David Parker, Minister of Energy, Climate Change Issues, and Land Information.
"Nuclear is not a preferred option for New Zealand," Parker told Intrepid. "We have many other cheaper and environmentally preferable renewable options."
Unfortunately, our scope for exploiting renewable options may be more limited than people think. All renewable options currently being used have some adverse environmental or cultural effects.
New Zealand's energy future, says Parker, will rely on a combination of existing, non-renewable energy generation systems (oil, gas and coal, essentially) and renewables such as hydroelectric and geothermal power - as well as "developing" alternatives such as solar and wind power. Renewables, Parker said, account for about 30 per cent of current energy production.
Unfortunately, our scope for exploiting renewable options may be more limited than people think. All renewable options currently being used have some adverse environmental or cultural effects. Geothermal energy, which has been used successfully in Northland and Rotorua, is not always strictly renewable, as land tapped for geothermal energy can actually lose heat and affect the surrounding land area. Hydroelectric power suffers from a number of disadvantages, including flooding of land area, silting, and disruption of natural river systems. Hydroelectric and wind power systems also often suffer from powerful "not in my backyard" backlashes, with the Clyde Dam Saga being a powerful reminder of how many people dislike dams. Wind power, one of the most fledgling of the renewable technologies (and the most truly renewable), has seen remarkable community opposition where it has been planned or trialled, particularly the planned Wel Networks wind farm near Raglan.
Asked if New Zealanders should be educated about possible benefits of using nuclear power, Parker said that nuclear energy was "more expensive, and therefore there is no need to consider in further detail the environmental risks of nuclear accidents, radioactive waste or terrorism" - neatly dodging the actual question.
The problem with talking about nuclear energy in New Zealand is twofold, it seems. On one hand, the populace, after twenty years of anti-nuclear sentiment, is ready to backlash at any suggestion that nuclear energy might be beneficial for the country. This makes the issue a handy political football as well as career suicide for any politician who dares suggest that nuclear power's not all bad, or alludes to any aspect of the legislation as negative - witness the reaction to former National Party Leader Don Brash's comment that the nuclear-free legislation would be "gone by lunchtime" in the advent of a National government being elected. On the other hand, elected politicians for 20 years have been happy to crouch behind a wall of excuses - that nuclear power is too expensive, too dangerous (because of the chance of accidents, or terrorist proliferation - i.e. blowing up a power station or nicking nuclear fuels or waste products).
What this means is that the issue of whether or not New Zealand needs - or could ever need - nuclear power is being stalled indefinitely because of public lack of knowledge and complacent politicians, happy to back up a policy that seems to enjoy infinite popularity.
The jury is far from out on whether New Zealand would ever build a reactor. But examples of how we might fare may be found in other nations that have had plenty of success in their experiments with nuclear energy.
For instance, Japan, which is officially opposed to the manufacture, use and proliferation of nuclear weapons (with the very respectable reason that they are the only nation to ever have nuclear weapons used against them in war,) still possesses 19 nuclear power stations and 55 reactors, making it the third largest user of nuclear power in the world. Japan gets approximately 30 per cent of its power from nuclear sources, with plans to expand this capacity to 41 percent by 2014, and 60 percent by 2050.
New Zealand's old nuclear-weapons protest foe, France, has also been busy on the peaceful applications of nuclear technology, as well as being fairly prominent in the manufacture and testing of nuclear weapons. Since the oil shocks of 1973, France has embarked on a particularly ambitious and involved nuclear power programme. To date, France has a whopping 56 nuclear power plants, which supply up to 76 per cent of its power needs. This was recently the subject of a PBS documentary in the United States, "Why the French like nuclear power."
Among the points the documentary made was the oft-cited issue of nuclear waste - including the interesting statistic that "volume of the ultimate high-level [nuclear] waste was indeed very small: the contribution of a family of four using electricity for 20 years is a glass cylinder the size of a cigarette lighter." All the more interesting given the French people profiled in the documentary didn't much mind having a nuclear power plant going up next door - on the contrary, they were ecstatic, as it provided much needed jobs. What they were concerned about is the proper disposal of nuclear waste.
This is one of the biggest problems with nuclear energy, and the most concrete objection to it left after the spectre of climate change is taken into account. What do we do with the waste? Radioactive waste from nuclear power plants can have half-lives that extend into the many hundreds of years, remaining dangerous for many human life spans. Not to mention that terrorists might get hold of it.
It's David Parker's most concrete objection to nuclear energy in New Zealand by far.
"Nuclear power has become safer, but there are issues of waste disposal and potential accidents. With regard to the latter, we have seen in Japan just recently radiation leakages from a nuclear plant following an earthquake, which has caused significant disruption and fear. Nuclear energy is viewed with suspicion by many and could harm our 'clean green' image overseas, which could in turn impact on tourism and trade."
Parker has it in one. Nuclear power has become safer, much safer. And, if experts like James Lovelock are to be believed, it is also our best hope for combating global climate change. Certainly, things like nuclear waste are problems. But the fear of nuclear power as being inherently dirty and dangerous, and being linked inextricably to issues like that of nuclear weaponry, is the most pressing problem by far. New Zealand's opposition to nuclear energy on the grounds of sovereignty and national pride might be noble, but it is misguided. If we are to be truly clean and green, it will be necessary to become truly educated about nuclear energy, and consider it as a rational - and perhaps necessary - solution to the problem of climate change.
