Independent Advice

A leading independent investigation of nuclear power, physics professor Dr H.W. Kendall, told the New Zealand Energy Conference in May 1974 that it would be inprudent for a nation to move to nuclear power until all feasible alternative means of providing exploited energy are exploited, energy management and conservation implemented fully, and finally, a compelling need shown to exist.

None of the suggested conditions are being met in New Zealand.

Alternative energy sources are being neglected, notably solar energy conversion of several types, direct use of Main gas at double the efficiency compared with making electricity and geothermal steam.

Energy conservation has also been neglected, notably in building codes which require better insulation.

A compelling need? Earlier statements in this article strongly challenge that such a need exists.

On the basis that the NZED state there is a need for nuclear power in New Zealand, do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Advantages

1.	Lack of Smoke - no visible air pollution.
2.	Saving of land - no inundation of large areas of land as happens in cases of hydro power.
3.	Low fuel prices - but price of uranium is increasing rapidly as resources become depleted.
4.	Nuclear power a substitute for fossil fuels (i.e. oil, coal, gas) sparing them for other uses.

Disadvantages

1.	For a given electric power, a current nuclear power station wastes at least 50% more heat into water than do other thermal power stations.
2.	Fuel cycle hazards - a nuclear reactor cannot be operated in functional isolation.
3.	Nuclear reactors could have accidents leading to the release of dangerous quantities of radio activity. From R. Mann (biochemistry lecturer at Auckland University) in 'N.Z. Environment' Oct. '76. We just do not know the probabilities of major accidents in nuclear power plants, and if such a disaster occurs people will not be helped by the prior claims of the nuclear industry that the event was 'highly improbable'. New Zealanders may choose, therefore, to exclude from their land the potential for such severe, long-lasting damage.
4.	Decommissioning - the plants have design lives of only about 25-35 years. They will then become extremely radioactive white elephants. Burial may be acceptable.
5.	Long-lived radioactive wastes - no way is known to guarantee exclusion from the human environment of the high-level wastes which as presently produced, cause a Million-year danger.
6.	High capitals costs plus unreliability - although the running costs can look lower than those for, say oil-burning generating, the American nuclear plants are very unrelieable, and the capital costs are high.
7.	Safeguarding wastes - plutonium can be used to manufacture A-bombs. What is the risk of hijacking or mishaps?

Would it not be wise, on the basis of the pro and contra arguments stated, to acknowledge that nuclear power is not a logical "energy step' for New Zealand to take?

Will a minority in high places answer the question for you.