What a disappointment Luxon is! Maybe there aren't many voters out there crying out for a politician with principle, maybe Luxon really believes what he's told to say, but whatever his reasoning we are stagnating and avoiding critical issues.
As an enthusiastic proponent of "nuclear free" in my 20s and on, now that I'm nearing 80 I'm reluctantly understanding that I'm going to have to think it through again and agree that we need the conversation(s). As you pointed out, much has changed in nuclear technology in the last 50 years and i'm prepared to be open to the possibility that nuclear power generation may be the least of the evils open to us.
Nuclear fission of uranium is a nightmare and serves only to provide weapons feedstock for the sociopath-industrial complex. The world could have gone with thorium instead for NPP in the 1950s, with no meltdown risk (but no plutonium production), and recyclable fission products - in contrast to uranium decay products extremely long-term storage requirements. We still lack the technology to deal with "accidents" and what clean-ups are possible are too expensive to measure. Fukushima blew up 3 fully loaded reactors, one being a non-permissioned MOX reactor, whereas Chernobyl reactor 4 was "only" a third loaded. But Fuku is memory-holed, and only one person died? A little suspicious surely. Nuke-powered ships and subs all very good, til someone blows one up. Look at the effect one radiotherapy cannister had on the Brazilian town of Goiania (currently on Netflix as Radiological Emergency). Carl Sagan's Paradox bears repeating. He doubted the existence of truly advanced civilisations in the universe as every developing world would eventually learn to split the atom and erase itself. Perhaps he should have added too the potential extinction events of slicing the genome, and of citizens abrogating governance to the political classes and the corrupting power of lobbyists. For once, I'm with Luxon, but for more nuanced reasons.
I agree but on slightly different grounds. I think the technology could be safely handled so we could have a safe steady supply of cheap energy. And we could import the uranium from Australia because they have that in abundance and mine it successfully.
My objection is the lack of competence at a ministrial and parliamentary level.
Fukushima was, at least in part, due to a failure of reactor surveillance and maintenance. They had a revolving door of personnel between their nuclear reactor inspectors and the nuclear reactor industry.
We have a similar lash up here with lawyers on the medical council that negotiated the Pfizer contract.
Until there is open transparent governance with no conflicts of interest in this country, better we park the ambitious projects no matter how worthy.
I recently had dinner with Prof William Happer while here doing his climate talks and that came up in conversation ,he was involved with it in the late fifties but it is highly corrosive and so live fuel changes were then and are still an issue. He did put forward why at the time they did not run with it.
However Copenhagen Atomics are working hard to be able to mass produce SMR's and I believe the Chinese have managed a Live fuel change recently. I imagine in the relatively near future it may be a technology that may fit, like you and David mention, with New Zealands requirements being it's, no meltdown characteristic. Getting that message to the general population may be a whole other subject given our current media situation.
Gosh that's interesting Dave. I suspect if the political and thus economic will had been there at the time the engineering challenges may have been dealt with. I'm delighted interest has been maintained. There is some hope if civilised humanity can get through its dangerous growing pains. Conversations like this are a part of that, but boy the debating space has deteriorated overall. I grew up with stimulating political debates, arts and science shows on UK TV in the 70s and early 80s. But the same channels hosted, and covered for Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris, and even some of those same politicians etc. There is still so much to wake up to and confront if we are truly to blossom as a shop window for life in the universe.
Terrific, I’ve been banging a drum about the use of small nuclear reactors to power small towns , large manufacturing complexes and data centres like the one proposed in Southland - (what’s the bet it uses Taiwan point power when that contract ends.)
And I usually get shut down. But we seem to behaving a nuclear moment in NZ so let’s at least have the discussion
Does any hospital equipment in New Zealand use nuclear power ?
"AI Overview Yes. While New Zealand is nuclear-free regarding power generation, its hospitals and clinics routinely use radioactive isotopes (often imported) for medical imaging, diagnosis, and cancer treatment.Common nuclear medicine applications include:PET/CT and SPECT Scans: Used to detect tumors, infections, and organ function. These machines rely on trace amounts of radioactive materials, such as Technetium-99m, extracted from portable medical generators.Radiation Therapy: Specialized teletherapy equipment (such as linear accelerators or historical Cobalt-60 machines) uses focused radiation to directly target and destroy cancer cells.These radioactive materials and treatments are highly regulated by the Ministry of Health to ensure patient and public safety.
Excellent essay. Mr Luxon is Woke right. There simply is no hope. Not having the discussion is purile and despicable cowardice. The unexamined life is a dead end.
Clearly, he doesn't have any problems on paying his electricity bills.
After the infamous Captain's call there is a hiatus and vulnerability in energy. Energy is a strategic necessity. Playing petty politics by stopping his ears for spin is not governing but Starmerism. Mr Luxon ought therefore to go and join Labour.
Surely nuclear energy, and access for nuclear powered ships, should be a discussion that New Zealanders should be trusted with? Harking back to the industrial revolution, the success of modern economies has been powered by low-cost, readily available energy. A mindset stuck in the 1980s, shivering under the threatening cloud of atmospheric nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll is something that is over 40 years old. Meanwhile energy costs continue to climb and availability falls. The world has moved on. So should we.
A excellent piece. Maybe not in my lifetime, but nuclear power will be adopted in NZ sooner or later. Wind and solar have their limits. NIMBYs veto hydro and oil-based energy will run out one day and is/was always flakey (Gosh, Golly, who woulda thought Iran could be a problem???) and new bewdy batteries are always just around the corner, of course ignoring some of the fundamental physics and electrochemistry that set the limits.
And of course, the true anti-nuclear folk happily ignore the massive reactor we are all critically dependent upon, yes that big yellow ball in the sky!
I hope Luxon is still alive when ship transportation becomes more nuclear powered, so that we can shower him with well-deserved contempt.
As you correctly point out Noel our power bills nationwide are unnecessary and outrageous. Designed to push householders off the grid and into an imported technology which is well suited for equatorial desert climes. Why buy a pig in a poke when we have time- proven poles and wires from Northland to Southland ? Price is the answer
Minister Penk is not the minister for energy. He's not really concerned about the question of whether we use nuclear energy or not.
He is only hoping to prepare us kiwis to accept NZ's participation in the war that US is planning against China. Secretary for War Hegseth said as much at the Shangri La meeting in Singapore.
Our Minister, being such a good boy scout and willing servant of the US empire, has straight way come out to the NZ public with this psy-op project and complete red herring discussion point......
Therefore, it's rather puzzling as to why you are not responding to the real underlying agenda....?
And let us also consider the question of why our own government ministers are working against the country's best interests, but furthering the project for direct military action against our largest trading partner and export market.
China has never in any sense threatened NZ. But the aforementioned hegemonic so-called superpower would dearly love to use and abuse us to assist with achieving their world damaging objectives, in order to maintain their own market dominant position.
Penk suggested a conversation. I have expanded the scope. Problem is that any suggestion of nuclear on New Zealand’s sacred shore prompts an emotive response. You are addressing defence issues. I am not.
Indeed, indeed. Luxon seems unwilling to do anything that requires courage. I guess he was 'trained' by John Key who also f***ed the country by focusing mostly on his own political security. Luxon, to use an appropriate phrase, is full of shivers looking for a spine to run up. Agreed, nuclear power is totally different than weapons. We have nuclear particles used in hospitals, low risk too. I went to school next to a nuclear plant in Germany and apart from an extra toe, I am still all good. But the Germans replaced them all with solar. And now they have to buy oil from Russia so they don't freeze. Bottom line: Woke will fuck you up. Honest conversations, as you aver, are most certainly needed.
An excellent commentary on a question that needs to be asked, thanks David. Small Nuclear Reactors (SMR's) are not yet available... still in testing and licencing mode in the USA and other "western" nations, although some smaller European states have placed orders for them. And China claims to have them operating? Not much evidence of reliable, widespread use though.
I still think this NZ government needs to be at least examining the options for nuclear generators (SMR's would be ideal). But the climate change scam has gone too far and we also ought to restore so-called "fossil" MODERN fuel powered generators to at least supplement intermittent, unreliable solar and wind. Even hydro can be unreliable at times.
What a disappointment Luxon is! Maybe there aren't many voters out there crying out for a politician with principle, maybe Luxon really believes what he's told to say, but whatever his reasoning we are stagnating and avoiding critical issues.
Thank you
A well reasoned essay. On an increasingly important subject for our prosperity, cheap abundant energy.
Hopefully the legal document to which you refer above, of few pages, written years ago, will not define or divide us.
Steve
As an enthusiastic proponent of "nuclear free" in my 20s and on, now that I'm nearing 80 I'm reluctantly understanding that I'm going to have to think it through again and agree that we need the conversation(s). As you pointed out, much has changed in nuclear technology in the last 50 years and i'm prepared to be open to the possibility that nuclear power generation may be the least of the evils open to us.
Nuclear fission of uranium is a nightmare and serves only to provide weapons feedstock for the sociopath-industrial complex. The world could have gone with thorium instead for NPP in the 1950s, with no meltdown risk (but no plutonium production), and recyclable fission products - in contrast to uranium decay products extremely long-term storage requirements. We still lack the technology to deal with "accidents" and what clean-ups are possible are too expensive to measure. Fukushima blew up 3 fully loaded reactors, one being a non-permissioned MOX reactor, whereas Chernobyl reactor 4 was "only" a third loaded. But Fuku is memory-holed, and only one person died? A little suspicious surely. Nuke-powered ships and subs all very good, til someone blows one up. Look at the effect one radiotherapy cannister had on the Brazilian town of Goiania (currently on Netflix as Radiological Emergency). Carl Sagan's Paradox bears repeating. He doubted the existence of truly advanced civilisations in the universe as every developing world would eventually learn to split the atom and erase itself. Perhaps he should have added too the potential extinction events of slicing the genome, and of citizens abrogating governance to the political classes and the corrupting power of lobbyists. For once, I'm with Luxon, but for more nuanced reasons.
With which I respectfully disagree. But that is what a conversation is about. Luxon would rather we not have it. But here we are.
It's nice to have genteel discussions and dance on the head of the proverbial however NZ has more pressing needs . More than I need to enumerate
Indeed. I object to Luxon trying to shut down a conversation
I agree but on slightly different grounds. I think the technology could be safely handled so we could have a safe steady supply of cheap energy. And we could import the uranium from Australia because they have that in abundance and mine it successfully.
My objection is the lack of competence at a ministrial and parliamentary level.
Fukushima was, at least in part, due to a failure of reactor surveillance and maintenance. They had a revolving door of personnel between their nuclear reactor inspectors and the nuclear reactor industry.
We have a similar lash up here with lawyers on the medical council that negotiated the Pfizer contract.
Until there is open transparent governance with no conflicts of interest in this country, better we park the ambitious projects no matter how worthy.
Interesting you bring up Thorium Matt
I recently had dinner with Prof William Happer while here doing his climate talks and that came up in conversation ,he was involved with it in the late fifties but it is highly corrosive and so live fuel changes were then and are still an issue. He did put forward why at the time they did not run with it.
However Copenhagen Atomics are working hard to be able to mass produce SMR's and I believe the Chinese have managed a Live fuel change recently. I imagine in the relatively near future it may be a technology that may fit, like you and David mention, with New Zealands requirements being it's, no meltdown characteristic. Getting that message to the general population may be a whole other subject given our current media situation.
Gosh that's interesting Dave. I suspect if the political and thus economic will had been there at the time the engineering challenges may have been dealt with. I'm delighted interest has been maintained. There is some hope if civilised humanity can get through its dangerous growing pains. Conversations like this are a part of that, but boy the debating space has deteriorated overall. I grew up with stimulating political debates, arts and science shows on UK TV in the 70s and early 80s. But the same channels hosted, and covered for Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris, and even some of those same politicians etc. There is still so much to wake up to and confront if we are truly to blossom as a shop window for life in the universe.
Terrific, I’ve been banging a drum about the use of small nuclear reactors to power small towns , large manufacturing complexes and data centres like the one proposed in Southland - (what’s the bet it uses Taiwan point power when that contract ends.)
And I usually get shut down. But we seem to behaving a nuclear moment in NZ so let’s at least have the discussion
Does any hospital equipment in New Zealand use nuclear power ?
"AI Overview Yes. While New Zealand is nuclear-free regarding power generation, its hospitals and clinics routinely use radioactive isotopes (often imported) for medical imaging, diagnosis, and cancer treatment.Common nuclear medicine applications include:PET/CT and SPECT Scans: Used to detect tumors, infections, and organ function. These machines rely on trace amounts of radioactive materials, such as Technetium-99m, extracted from portable medical generators.Radiation Therapy: Specialized teletherapy equipment (such as linear accelerators or historical Cobalt-60 machines) uses focused radiation to directly target and destroy cancer cells.These radioactive materials and treatments are highly regulated by the Ministry of Health to ensure patient and public safety.
Excellent essay. Mr Luxon is Woke right. There simply is no hope. Not having the discussion is purile and despicable cowardice. The unexamined life is a dead end.
Clearly, he doesn't have any problems on paying his electricity bills.
After the infamous Captain's call there is a hiatus and vulnerability in energy. Energy is a strategic necessity. Playing petty politics by stopping his ears for spin is not governing but Starmerism. Mr Luxon ought therefore to go and join Labour.
Surely nuclear energy, and access for nuclear powered ships, should be a discussion that New Zealanders should be trusted with? Harking back to the industrial revolution, the success of modern economies has been powered by low-cost, readily available energy. A mindset stuck in the 1980s, shivering under the threatening cloud of atmospheric nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll is something that is over 40 years old. Meanwhile energy costs continue to climb and availability falls. The world has moved on. So should we.
An excellent article
We live on a massive fault line. Let's not even go there.
so does Japan
My point exactly
It's not significant if we have those small SMRs....
An excellent article
A excellent piece. Maybe not in my lifetime, but nuclear power will be adopted in NZ sooner or later. Wind and solar have their limits. NIMBYs veto hydro and oil-based energy will run out one day and is/was always flakey (Gosh, Golly, who woulda thought Iran could be a problem???) and new bewdy batteries are always just around the corner, of course ignoring some of the fundamental physics and electrochemistry that set the limits.
And of course, the true anti-nuclear folk happily ignore the massive reactor we are all critically dependent upon, yes that big yellow ball in the sky!
I hope Luxon is still alive when ship transportation becomes more nuclear powered, so that we can shower him with well-deserved contempt.
As Seinfeld character Elaine famously once declared the answer is " politics. " More than that though;
Why take an unnecessary risk with nuclear generation?
NZ has so much surplus clean burning, no nasty residue, hydro electricity and the transmission lines to deliver it - why invest in a replacement??
Tell all of us that, if we have power cuts on a cold winters night
OR when we continue to face outrageous/unnecessary increases in our power bills
As you correctly point out Noel our power bills nationwide are unnecessary and outrageous. Designed to push householders off the grid and into an imported technology which is well suited for equatorial desert climes. Why buy a pig in a poke when we have time- proven poles and wires from Northland to Southland ? Price is the answer
Minister Penk is not the minister for energy. He's not really concerned about the question of whether we use nuclear energy or not.
He is only hoping to prepare us kiwis to accept NZ's participation in the war that US is planning against China. Secretary for War Hegseth said as much at the Shangri La meeting in Singapore.
Our Minister, being such a good boy scout and willing servant of the US empire, has straight way come out to the NZ public with this psy-op project and complete red herring discussion point......
Therefore, it's rather puzzling as to why you are not responding to the real underlying agenda....?
And let us also consider the question of why our own government ministers are working against the country's best interests, but furthering the project for direct military action against our largest trading partner and export market.
China has never in any sense threatened NZ. But the aforementioned hegemonic so-called superpower would dearly love to use and abuse us to assist with achieving their world damaging objectives, in order to maintain their own market dominant position.
Penk suggested a conversation. I have expanded the scope. Problem is that any suggestion of nuclear on New Zealand’s sacred shore prompts an emotive response. You are addressing defence issues. I am not.
Indeed, indeed. Luxon seems unwilling to do anything that requires courage. I guess he was 'trained' by John Key who also f***ed the country by focusing mostly on his own political security. Luxon, to use an appropriate phrase, is full of shivers looking for a spine to run up. Agreed, nuclear power is totally different than weapons. We have nuclear particles used in hospitals, low risk too. I went to school next to a nuclear plant in Germany and apart from an extra toe, I am still all good. But the Germans replaced them all with solar. And now they have to buy oil from Russia so they don't freeze. Bottom line: Woke will fuck you up. Honest conversations, as you aver, are most certainly needed.
An excellent commentary on a question that needs to be asked, thanks David. Small Nuclear Reactors (SMR's) are not yet available... still in testing and licencing mode in the USA and other "western" nations, although some smaller European states have placed orders for them. And China claims to have them operating? Not much evidence of reliable, widespread use though.
I still think this NZ government needs to be at least examining the options for nuclear generators (SMR's would be ideal). But the climate change scam has gone too far and we also ought to restore so-called "fossil" MODERN fuel powered generators to at least supplement intermittent, unreliable solar and wind. Even hydro can be unreliable at times.