The disaster at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, has forced all countries to reconsider their energy plans. Simon Wilson reports.
How has the world reacted to the Fukushima crisis?
Some countries have already scaled back their nuclear plans. For example, Germany, a country where a similar proportion of electricity is generated by nuclear power as in Japan (25% compared to 29%), has shut down seven of its nuclear power plants – those with reactors built before 1980 – while it reconsiders its nuclear strategy. Citing safety fears, Chancellor Angela Merkel also slapped a three-month moratorium on her decision, announced last year, to extend the life of Germany’s 17 existing power plants by 12 years. Meanwhile, the European Union has also reached agreement on ‘stress tests’ for all the EU nuclear facilities.
Is Germany’s reaction typical?
No. The renaissance in nuclear power over the past decade or so has been driven by the need of governments in every country to meet the demands of fast-growing electricity consumption, while at the same time cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases, principally carbon dioxide. That hasn’t changed. As the Guardian put it this week in an editorial on nuclear energy post-earthquake, “the fundamentals of the difficult decisions ahead have not moved with the Earth”. Britain, for example, is working with the EU on its stress tests, but otherwise not rushing to judgement. The government, which has well-advanced plans to build up to 11 new reactors over the next 15 years, has asked its chief nuclear inspector to prepare a report on the implications of the Japanese situation and study any lessons for the UK. America and France have taken a similar line.
Does Fukushima bolster the case against nuclear power?
On the face of it, absolutely. After all, safety fears form the principal argument against nuclear energy. The other main arguments are that nuclear power won’t help cut carbon emissions quickly enough since new plants take decades to build. And that it doesn’t offer a long-term solution since uranium – just like conventional fossil fuels – is a finite resource, which could run out within decades. But a counter-argument advanced this week is that once the initial shock has subsided and more is known about the detail of what has happened at Fukushima, public opinion will move not against nuclear power, but in favour. Sue Ions, a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering involved in nuclear decommissioning suggested this week that “rather than undermine public faith in nuclear energy, this incident should highlight its safety.”
Why would it do that?
The situation in Japan is still developing. But assuming a full-blown meltdown is avoided and the reactor cores remain intact, the essential safety features of these 40-year old reactors will have worked well. And perhaps more to the point, more modern reactors deal better with the problems currently facing the Fukushima reactors. These are vulnerable to problems with electricity supply and pumping because water has to be actively pumped in to cool the core. However, the new generation of reactors have passive safety systems that rely on gravity and natural convection to dissipate heat.
So is the industry damaged in the long run?
There are arguments to be made on both sides (see below). In Japan itself, plans to increase the proportion of electricity produced by nuclear from 29% to 40% by 2017 may well be shelved. Globally, there are 442 nuclear reactors, supplying 15% of the world’s electricity, according to the London-based World Nuclear Association. A quarter of these are in America, the world’s biggest producer of nuclear power. In addition, there are plans to build a further 155, mostly in Asia, of which 65 are already under construction. “The industry will argue that modern reactors have safety features that could have prevented Fukushima, said nuclear physicist James Acton of the Carnegie Foundation this week. “I strongly suspect that claim is correct. I also think it is going to be difficult to sell to the public.”
Should nuclear power be abandoned?
Yes
1. If such disasters are possible in Japan, which is a safety-conscious, high-tech culture, then who knows what could happen elsewhere?
2. Germany’s strong reaction is a taste of things to come, as the world turns away from nuclear power. The remaining industry will have to be too “safe” to be economic. Investors and bankers instinctively sense this, which is why nuclear energy stocks and the uranium price have tanked.
3. Public opinion may turn heavily against nuclear.
No
1. The combination of events in Japan would be virtually impossible to repeat both in terms of the size of the natural disaster that triggered the problem and the age of the nuclear technology under threat.
2. Japan may yet demonstrate how safe the technology actually is if it weathers recent events without a significant radiation leak.
3. The nuclear sector will rely heavily for its expansion on Asia. For now, China says it is revising safety standards, but plans to press on with its nuclear plans.