Nuclear powered submarines

and defence alliances and multi-billion dollar contracts have all been in the news this week.

I don't know enough to comment on whether we should "go nuclear" with respect to the submarines. Breaking a contract is something that should not be done without good reason. Contracts law tells us that. Is there good reason? I don't know. 

What I do know is that we have never had a real debate about nuclear power in this country. Decisions were made about not having nuclear power many years ago. It was considered too dangerous, too potentially harmful to the environment and much more. 

That has not stopped us selling uranium to other countries. I am told we still have plenty of the stuff left in the ground too.

Those who oppose nuclear energy always seem to get plenty of publicity as well. Opposition to nuclear energy still seems to make headlines. Chernobyl is held up as an example of how dangerous it is to have nuclear power plants. At the same time those opposing nuclear power like to conveniently forget that there is actually a small nuclear reactor in the centre of the biggest city in the country. What they also don't like to mention is that this is used for medical purposes - and that they would almost certainly use the work done there if it meant saving their life or the life of someone they love. 

We are said to be lagging behind other countries with respect to climate targets. Yes, in one sense we are and of course we could do better. What those criticising us fail to recognise however are some of the issues which make it so difficult to even recognise those targets. There is going to have to be a huge improvement in the production and distribution of other sources of power before we can hope to reach the targets being set for us. How do you transport people and goods around an enormous country where the population lives mostly around the coastline? To give you an idea of size - one of the mining magnates has recently announced plans to explore a piece of land the size of Portugal. That's just one small mining project in this country. 

We have not yet developed an efficient or cost effective network of transport that does not rely on fossil fuels. We need effective cooling systems in summer and, in the south, people need effective heating systems in winter.  At the same time we are saying "no" to nuclear. There is no attempt to look at modern nuclear technology, smaller, cleaner, and more efficient technology that could perhaps help us make the great leap forward towards saving the environment from what looks like an inevitable catastrophe. No, to do that would open us up to nuclear accidents and terrorist actions.

And where do we store the waste? That's been another argument of late and the "NIMBY" (not in my back yard) crew have been shouting again. Others are saying that if we sell the stuff overseas then we should also take back their dangerous waste and store it. (We don't usually take responsibility for the waste our neighbours put out in this street each week.)

All things considered though I think we should have a debate about nuclear energy, a proper debate. Our scientists need to be talking about this, about the challenges involved, about the science, and the costs of doing it or not doing it. It may be that there will still be a decision not to do anything about it but at least we will have had a proper debate rather than just emotional statements in the media. 

After all, even New Zealand - so proudly non-nuclear - relies on Downunder to provide medical isotopes from that facility in the centre of the city.