"What [PM Luxon] does not appear to understand is that the nuclear issue reaches well beyond the Bomb. Nor does he seem aware of the actual limits of New Zealand’s 'anti-nuclear' legislation, which does not prohibit the peaceful use of nuclear energy at all. But the more troubling thing is the arrogance of trying to close a conversation down.
"This article challenges that dismissal — a dismissal aimed squarely at the modest proposal of his own Defence Minister, Chris Penk [who suggested it would help to distinguish nuclear propulsion from nuclear weapons when we think about our nuclear-free position]. It may well fail to change the Prime Minister’s mind. But if he reads it, he might at least be better informed. ...
"What the law actually says
"The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 does three principal things: it bans nuclear weapons, it bars nuclear-armed and nuclear-propelled vessels and aircraft from our territorial zone, and it forbids the dumping of radioactive waste at sea.
"What it does not do — and never did — is outlaw land-based nuclear power, nuclear research, or the use of radioactive isotopes ... [for] nuclear medicine ...
"The safety story we got wrong"[I]t is the fear that has driven the policy. Most people’s sense of nuclear risk is anchored to three events — Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima — and in each case the popular memory is worse than the record.
"No one died from radiation at Three Mile Island. At Fukushima the reactor releases have been linked to a single confirmed radiation death, with the overwhelming majority of that disaster’s toll caused by the earthquake, the tsunami and the chaos of a panicked evacuation.
"Chernobyl was a genuine catastrophe — but it was the product of a uniquely flawed Soviet design operated with its safety systems switched off, a machine and a culture no modern regulator would permit.
"When you stop reasoning from headlines and start counting bodies per unit of energy, the picture inverts. Oxford’s 'Our World in Data' project, drawing on peer-reviewed modelling, puts nuclear power at roughly 0.03 deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity once Chernobyl and Fukushima are included — comparable to wind and solar, and on the order of hundreds of times safer than coal, which kills around 25 people per terawatt-hour, mostly through everyday air pollution that never makes the news.
"Put differently, nuclear causes something like 99.8 per cent fewer deaths than coal and around 97 per cent fewer than natural gas. The source we have feared most turns out to be among the safest we have ever built. The deaths we don’t count — the steady toll of fossil combustion — are the ones that should frighten us. ...
"The demand that changes the math
"For years the nuclear debate could be treated as a luxury argument, a matter of preference among abundant options. That era is ending, and the reason is electricity demand of a kind the grid has not seen in a generation. Artificial intelligence and the data centres that run it are the most visible driver....
"[T]he policy direction is now broad and international. ... Global nuclear generation reached an all-time high of about 2,667 terawatt-hours in 2024. The major energy-modelling bodies — the IEA, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the IPCC — broadly agree that reaching net zero by mid-century is harder and costlier without a substantial expansion of nuclear, not easier. Treating nuclear as the enemy of climate action gets the physics exactly backwards.
"Why this time can be different: Small Modular Reactors
"The strongest historical objection to nuclear is not safety but cost: the giant bespoke plants of the past ran years late and billions over budget. The most promising answer is a change of strategy — building reactors small, standardised and in factories rather than enormous and custom-built on site. Small Modular Reactors aim to turn nuclear construction from a series of one-off megaprojects into something closer to manufacturing, with the cost discipline that repetition brings. ... Small Modular Reactors will not, on their own, meet all the new demand — honest advocates concede as much — but they reopen the door that cost overruns had slammed shut. ...
"Have the conversation
"[T]he Prime Minister ... should be willing to think, and to let the country think alongside him. ...
"We would be Luddites to turn our backs on the nuclear [energy] option without so much as examining it. Chris Penk asked for a conversation. The adult answer is to have one."
