An underlying question that Australia, and New Zealand have in common, concerns how open both countries want to be when it comes to accepting technological change.
Dutton’s proposal to build seven nuclear power plants by the mid-2030s has reignited Australia’s long-simmering nuclear debate. It is a bold vision, promising reliable, zero-emissions baseload power to support the country’s growing energy needs and climate commitments.
However, Dutton’s plan faces formidable obstacles: costs in the billions, complex regulatory hurdles and optimistic timelines that have drawn scepticism from experts and criticism from political opponents.
While Dutton’s plan may be controversial in Australia, it would be unthinkable in New Zealand. New Zealand’s anti-nuclear sentiment runs so deep that the country willingly sacrificed its security pact with the United States to maintain it.
New Zealand’s nuclear-free stance is a point of national identity for many Kiwis. It also exemplifies a broader national scepticism towards technological progress. That scepticism may be hindering the country from reaching its economic potential.
The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals that 52% of New Zealanders reject artificial intelligence (AI) as a significant innovation. That contrasts with just 35% globally.
These figures reflect a widespread tech-wariness that extends well beyond AI and nuclear power. It is also reflected in the country’s stringent anti-GMO policies and its paltry investment in research and development. At just about 1.4% of GDP, it is well below the OECD average and far behind tech innovation leaders like Finland (3%) and Israel (5.6%).
The roots of this reluctance are complex. It stems partly from New Zealand’s success in marketing itself as an unspoiled natural wonderland. The “100% Pure New Zealand” campaign has become deeply intertwined with the national identity.
When your brand is built on pristine landscapes and Hobbiton tourism, embracing AI and robotics might seem off-message. But has New Zealand inadvertently shackled its potential in clinging to its clean, green image?
This is not to say New Zealand is a complete technological laggard. The country has produced notable success stories like accounting software firm Xero, space innovator Rocket Lab and the real-time GDP forecasting tool GDPLive. These examples prove that New Zealand has the talent and creativity to compete on the global tech stage. However, these remain exceptions rather than the rule.
It is ironic that New Zealand could combine its clean-and-green image with new technology if it was willing to leverage artificial intelligence. That is because the country’s geothermal resources offer a perfect synthesis of environmental stewardship and technological progress.
With over 17% of its electricity already generated from geothermal sources and capacity for much more, New Zealand could position itself as a prime location for the burgeoning data centre industry. The country’s geothermal fields, particularly in the Taupo volcanic zone, represent one of the world’s most significant and accessible geothermal resources.
Meanwhile, the global artificial intelligence boom is driving an unprecedented surge in demand for these energy-hungry facilities. The International Energy Agency projects that global data centre electricity consumption could double by 2026, reaching levels equivalent to Japan’s current electricity usage.
New Zealand’s abundant geothermal energy and cool climate would make it an ideal host for such operations. Such a development could bring billions in investment and create thousands of high-paying tech jobs, significantly boosting New Zealand’s economy.
So, what is stopping a Kiwi geothermal boom from happening on a larger scale?
The challenge lies not just in the technical aspects of geothermal development but in convincing a sceptical public of its merits.
For many New Zealanders, the idea of expanding energy production primarily to power data centres for AI – a technology they neither fully understand nor trust – will be a hard sell. There is a disconnect between the country’s clean, green self-image and the perceived intrusiveness of large-scale tech infrastructure.
A general wariness of rapid technological change compounds this resistance. And may fear that embracing AI and big tech could fundamentally alter the character of their country, potentially eroding the qualities that make New Zealand unique.
Overcoming this cultural inertia requires not just policy changes, but a shift in the national narrative – one that reconciles technological progress with environmental stewardship.
The country runs a complex consenting process, governed by multiple statutes. Regional councils wield primary authority over geothermal resource allocation, leading to inconsistent policies across regions and uncertainty for developers. Environmental concerns, stemming from past geothermal developments that caused adverse impacts further complicate the picture.
Moreover, much of New Zealand’s geothermal potential lies under Māori-owned land. While consultation with indigenous landowners is crucial for equitable development, it can lead to lengthy negotiation processes.
Economic barriers further compound these challenges. There are substantial upfront costs associated with exploration and drilling. It is also difficult to secure long-term power purchase agreements in New Zealand’s electricity market.
The path forward requires a cultural shift towards embracing technological change. Policy reforms are also needed to streamline geothermal development while maintaining strong environmental protections and respect for Māori rights. Indeed, it would present a great opportunity for Māori to benefit from the resulting investment.
The stakes in this energy debate are high for both Australia and New Zealand. Australia’s nuclear ambitions, if realised, could reshape its energy landscape.
For its part, if New Zealand can overcome its cultural aversion to innovative technology, it has the potential to become a model for sustainable innovation in the AI age, powered by the heat beneath its feet.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
8 comments:
THE ANTI NUCLEAR BRIGADE never fail to amaze me as they generally do not realise that geo thermal and nuclear generated electricity are almost identical , ie the energy of steam to drive the spinning turbine to make electricity with the cooling towers emitting clouds of steam ( not smoke) as often photographed and lied about. THEN
The Anti Nuclear brigade cruise the waterways of Europe , visit France for World Rugby Cup and the Olympics, the Paris Accord Climate summit , ther normal business and tourism and mix and mingle in one of the largest Nuclear electricity producers in the world .
When they come back to NZ not a word of the nuclear risk or all the other anti nuclear rhetoric just silence , until a brave person says we should have a small nuclear rector in NZ and all of the nation could halve their power bill as they have in Scandanavia where theirs have been reduced by 75%.
Imagine if a NZ power bill could be halved 12 times a year. OH NO NOT nuclear in NZ , Pitiful Idiots.
.
Well, that is a rather disparaging bunch of insults to throw at the general population. Then again, is it a surprise. I wonder if they feel such insults can be returned, let's give it a try. The NZ Initiative thinks it is full of far superior minds than the general population and should be taken leaders to take us down the correct path. That, if we would just give up our freedom of choice, they will lead us to the promised utopian world where all is good. And they just happen to have more riches and power than others. They come across as having a disproportionate belief in how right they are. Sadly they have Luxon in their pocket. A personal puppet for them to play with.
Even raise the topic of nuclear power, and then so many stick their fingers in their ears and loudly say NO !
Truly intransigent ignorant and their stubborn refusal to listen to the nuclear science means that it will be impossible to implement this very clean green energy source in NZ.
No unfortunately cxh it shows just how behind we are, and in case you had not noticed, although it takes real stupidity to defend it, we are falling further behind in pretty much everything.
To turn this country around is going to take a monumental effort and luxon has more competence than all the last lot put together.
I think what basil w. is saying is that there are a lot of hypocrisy ( a trait of the left) around these discussions.
Sorry to burst your bubble Oliver but NZ Geothermal asserts are nearly all tapped out. We have capacity to grow geothermal about 30 percent more and that’s it.
The fields are only capable of producing so much energy before they decline.
Then you have the really vexed question of putting all your geothermal assets in one’s highly risky seismic zone. One good earthquake’s and it’s lights out NZ.
The answer is Small Nuclear Reactors but NZ are so backward they can’t see it.
To think the father of nuclear energy comes from NZ, Rutherford.
The ironic thing is we export the best ideas and the World benefits meanwhile NZ stays stuck in the past.
Anon at 11.52. Yes we are falling behind on most metrics. The only one we are world leaders in, a position fully supported by the NZ Initiative, is low skilled immigration.
As for Luxon, you are correct. He is competent, but is he a leader. He gives the impression of one of those unmemorable people that quietly gets promoted up the ladder, more for the waves he never makes than leadership.
Competency will not save us from ourselves. We need a leader with convictions and the strength to push them through for the good of all. A type that seems to have shunned politics, replaced by those that are only interested instroking their own ego. Or so inept they shouldn't be there.
I'd need to see a lot more information before hanging our hopes on geothermal for the reasons mentioned above, and not least if the geothermal resource were ever to be deemed a taonga?
As for the "nuclear-free" stance, I don't recall it ever being put to a referendum and, even if it had been, things have now changed with the purported climate emergency, which might well change the stance of the 'average' NZer?
But that aside, I am a great believer in the adage "necessity is the mother of invention" and it will only take a few major power outages and I think the aversion to nuclear might well be overcome, particularly when the cost/benefit analysis of all the options are reviewed.
As for our PM, he may be a safe pair of hands, but he's not a leader, leastwise certainly not the one this country so desperately needs.
To cxh@1.55
I went to nationals campaign prob 9 months ago to listen to Chris Luxon and talk to him (if possible). The place was packed, standing room only. What I heard was a breath of fresh air compared to the other parties I listened to.
After it was over I then muscled my way to the front and (nicely) confronted the PM in waiting. I fired a couple of well chosen questions at him and his answers were what I wanted to hear as had he been bullsh$%%ing he would have answered differently.
I totally rate him. Shame the media and others don't, we need to give him a fighting chance imo.
All the best
Post a Comment