NZ should embrace nuclear power
Relevant offers
OPINION: The big bogeyman that is nuclear power raised its energy-inflated head in France last week, writes Cherie Sivignon in this week's L'expat.
Well, French President Nicolas Sarkozy raised it at the International Conference on Access to Civil Nuclear Energy held in Paris on March 8 and 9.
"I can't understand why nuclear power is ostracised by international finance, it's the stuff of scandal," Mr Sarkozy said, urging the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and others to do more.
I hope there was coverage of this conference in New Zealand.
France, which produces about 78 per cent of its electricity using nuclear power is an authority on the subject.
And, if some theorists are correct, and the energy-hungry New Zealand public is being softened for a frontal attack on its proud non-nuclear stance, surely France is a good place from which to gather information.
Mr Sarkozy wants to share, too.
In a speech, the French nation's leader announced a new body to pool "France's best teachers and researchers" in nuclear technology. "I have decided to change up a gear by creating an International Institute of Nuclear Energy that will include an international nuclear school."
At roundtable sessions during the conference, attendees discussed bilateral and multilateral co-operation to help countries that are considering launching nuclear energy programmes.
That included ways to develop an effective infrastructure to fulfil regulatory and international obligations, as well as to secure finance and ensure responsible management.
There's a good conference website – conferenceparis-nucleairecivil.org – which can be viewed in English. Under the "press" section there's a pdf "press kit" document that outlines the pro-nuclear environment that exists in France.
So, what's New Zealand to do.
I was an impressionable teenager in the 80s when the nuclear-free New Zealand bandwagon was the only vehicle to be riding.
It was a popular policy of the fourth Labour Government and its witty leader, David-I-can-smell-the-uranium-(on your breath)-Lange.
I'm not sure that environment still exists in modern Aotearoa where growing energy demands are making power blackouts increasingly likely. Will the teenagers of today forgo their power-draining modern conveniences to protect a policy from the 80s? Especially when their French counterparts can access comparatively cheap electricity from what appears to be a safe nuclear source.
Maybe they will.
Still, the nuclear power debate – Oxford-style or not – is a discussion New Zealanders need to have.
Speaking of energy, the sun is now higher in the sky over our home in the French Alps as the worst of the winter is behind us.
Mind you, there's still plenty of snow covering the vast ski areas surrounding us – and the tourists have headed home as the month of winter school holidays have drawn to a close.
That means there's time for the local residents to head out on the pistes and enjoy the magnificent vistas of alpine splendour and the promise of spring to come.
» Cherie Sivignon is a former Southland Times journalist who has moved to France with her French-born husband and their family.
- © Fairfax NZ News
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
Nuclear power is cheap in France because it is hugely subsidised by the government so they can sell their technology to other countries like NZ pretending it's cost effective.
Some studies shown that wind farm are twice cheaper to use than nuclear if you take into account the whole process of making energy (including having to deal with nuclear wastes for centuries).
But the best sources of energy I reckon are geothermal and tidal which NZ would be well positioned to develop further.
I don't know if those news reached NZ but there has been few nuclear leaks in France in the last 2 years so regarding safety, if the most advanced country on the subject can't guarantee it, who can.
I'm French and would be very disappointed by Kiwi if they would go this way.
New Zealand has a lot of good policies and ideas. however,the old worn out, outdated, impractical, no longer relevant NZ stance on the use of nuclear power has to go now. You have made your point. Its time to move on.
Remember Chernobyl! What about the waste!, won't somebody please think of the children! these are all arguments that people are clinging on to from a debate that happened over 20 years. not saying that these are still not issues, they are just no wear near as big an issue as opponents like to make out, the technology has improved drastically over the last two decades. This how ever, is not to say that New Zealand is the right place for a nuclear power station. what a lot of people forget, is that our ruggedly beautiful landscape is so because the entire country sits atop a fault line. to the uninformed this means earthquakes, Lots of them, on average last year new Zealand had 1 earthquake a day. with reactors being made from concrete, a country with a high rate of earthquakes is not going to be a good place for a nuclear reactor.
I am not to sure either way but the first 3 posters on this article forgot to mention power prices. Yes renewable energy is a great idea but the truth is people are struggling to pay their bills and do we really want people to freeze to death because of this? I would like a comparison of how much it would bring our power costs down (if at all). You see the problem is most kiwis have no idea (myself included) about Nuclear power. What's wrong with assessing our options?
We need it.
We cannot afford to pay for electricity generated the way we do it now - our domestic bills are 45% higher than the UK and our average income about 45% lower!
Either we need to do what they do there - force the generation and supply companies to charge only what the government regulator determines is fair and reasonable - or we need a cheap, plentiful supply.
Nuclear is the answer - especially once fission plants are achieved.
france has a lot of good policies and ideas. nuclear power is not one of them.
clark boswell outlined the problem well
A very brave article no doubt the greenies will shoot you down but Im not listening to them anymore..... If it comes down to power companies ripping us off for years and cheaper prices I say lets do it.
What's with the last three paragraphs? Do they bear any relevance to the rest of this piece? Or is this just a gloat? Sounds like France is the perfect place for you Cherie - long may you stay there..
I agree with Clark Boswell...the energy may be cheap but the waste disposal is not! The nuclear waste is Toxic and remains pretty much for ever. I live in Germany now and the Nuclear debate is still strong. Germany has had nuclear power for some time...and has had its problems...does New Zealand really want this?
PM fields hard-hitting questions from junior audience
Park owner defends broadside in letter
Pre-trial date set for Tindall clip charges
Woolhandlers vie to take on the world
Rugby Southland killing competition
Waihopai scoop five golds on first day
Famous white stallions to dance
Classic yacht race finishes at pub
Tourists arrested for drink-driving
Race car engineer drove dangerously
Moonshine riders handed steep challenge
Lessons learned in horror year: Slade
I've actually forgotten to mention the main point. You don't NEED nuclear. Come on, only 4 millions people in a resourceful country the size of England.
The energy problem is not a problem of production but of consumption. The best way to cut your energy bill is to consume less, not differently (by the way, I doubt prices would drop with nuclear, have you ever seen energy prices dropping? Do you know how much a nuclear power plant costs?).
The problem in NZ is very leaky and inefficient houses. If the millions of dollars that would be spend in nuclear would instead be in insulation and hot solar water system, there wouldn't be any need for new power plant in the first place. Look for Mike Reynolds, this american managed to build self-sufficient houses out of rubbish! The technology is there, politicians just don't want you to be self-sufficient as companies wouldn't make money on your back.