Fukushima nuclear meltdown - one year later

GLOBAL TRENDS By MARTIN KHOR
 
As the world marks the first anniversary of Japan’s triple tragedy, lessons are still being drawn from the Fukushima nuclear accident and the dangers of nuclear power plants.

 IT’S been a full year since Japan’s triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown, and the reverberations are still being felt.

The tsunami on March 11, 2011, caused around 19,000 deaths (16,000 known dead, 3,000 missing) and 320,000 were made homeless.

The nuclear disaster alone created 100,000 nuclear evacuees.

The lesson, only partially learnt in Japan itself and hardly learnt in other countries, is that natural disasters can come in many unexpected forms and governments must put aside considerable resources and facilities to prepare for and manage them.



The lesson usually becomes obvious when a disaster occurs.

After that, a pledge is made to be better prepared and much of that is not implemented until the next disaster and the cycle begins again.

While the tsunami caused the most immediate damage, it was the nuclear incidents at the Fukushima power plant that were the most shocking and may have the most long-term repercussions.

The nuclear disaster blew away a lot of myths.We now know, again, that nuclear power plants are not safe.

The claim by Tepco – the Japanese company operating the Fukushima plant – that the reactors were fail-safe and could withstand earthquakes, was proven to be wrong.

The ability of the regulatory autho­rities to monitor and check for risks and ensure safety was near absent.
An independent commission, which was set up by the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation to investigate the nuclear incident, shows how close Japan came to a catastrophe.

Its chairman Yoichi Funabashi, in an article in last Saturday’s Financial Times, said that Japan was on the edge of an “existential crisis”.

As the tsunami knocked out the Fukushima plant’s cooling systems, the Tepco president indicated his company’s intention to abandon the plant and evacuate its workers.

Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan personally intervened, ordering the company not to abandon ship and form a “death squad” to continue the battle and inject water into the reactor vessels.

A worst case scenario, prepared for the prime minister by the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, envisioned a hydrogen explosion, a succession of meltdowns and such extensive radiation that the whole of Tokyo would have to be evacuated.

Funabashi said: “The truth is that the imagined ‘worst-case scenario’ was closer than anyone would wish to admit; but for the direction of the wind (towards the Pacific, not inland, in the four days after the earthquake); but for the manner in which the gate separating the reactor-well and the spent-fuel pool in Unit 4 broke (presumably facilitating the transfusion of water into the pool). Luck was undeniably on our side.”

Funabashi’s commission found that the nuclear industry had become ensnared in its twisted myth of “absolute safety”, propagated by interest groups seeking to gain broad acceptance of nuclear power.

He also found that “Japan’s nuclear safety regulatory regime was phoney. Regulators pretended to regulate; utilities pretended to be regulated. In reality, the latter were far more powerful in expertise and clout”. He offers two lessons to be learnt.

First, is the need to overcome the myth of “absolute safety”, shatter the taboo that surrounds the concept of risks in the nuclear energy business and the need to prepare for the unthinkable and unanticipated.

Second, is the need for an independent regulatory body.

A major fallout from the Fuku­shima accident is the blow it has dealt to the nuclear industry.

It highlighted the danger a country faces when something goes wrong.

Of its 52 nuclear plants, Japan has now shut down 50 plants. The remaining two may also be shut down next month.

Although the government may try to reopen some of them, the public revulsion against nuclear plants could mean that their days are numbered.

There has also been a global backlash, with Germany, Italy, Belgium and Switzerland declaring that they will phase out their nuclear plants.

The situation in Asia, however, is mixed. China has suspended the building of new nuclear plants pending changes in safety standards.
India, Vietnam and Korea are going ahead with their nuclear power programmes.

“If more nuclear power plants are built in developing countries with little experience of operating a reactor, or bordering a region where terrorism is a concern, or without sufficient financial resources to import state of the art technology, then the chance of a major nuclear accident hitting the developing world will loom large in the coming decades,” said Kevin Tu, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Meanwhile The Economist magazine, in its latest cover story, “Nuclear Energy: The dream that failed” is pessimistic about the future of the nuclear industry.

Nuclear plants are costly to build and operate. British studies put the overnight cost of new power plants at US$2,233 (RM6,720) for every kilowatt of capacity in 2004 and US$3,000 (RM9,028)/kw in 2008, according to The Economist.

Capacity fired by gas turbines cost less than one-fifth of that. The cost of renewable energy (wind and solar, in particular) is, however, getting cheaper every year.

Perhaps, the most intractable problem is nuclear waste. As The Economist noted, building a nuclear plant that can last 100 years is one thing, but creating waste that will be dangerous for 100 times as long is another.

So far, countries have failed to create a long-term repository for nuclear waste.

As the public has become intensely more aware of the dangers of radiation, the resistance to locating nuclear plants in their neighbourhood has grown fiercer.

No doubt the Fukushima meltdowns and its aftermath have contributed to increased awareness and to the bad name that nuclear power has acquired.

P/S:  We sympathize with Japan's sufferings from earthquake, tsunami caused by nature that resulted in Fukushima nuclear meltdown a year ago.

How Japan feels when we remember the victims of its Nanjing Massacre committed and occupied by Japanese troops on Dec 13, 1937, China's former capital city suffered a six-week massacre in which more than  300,000 Chinese were Killed, 20,000 Women Raped ... ?


Related posts:
Major nuclear accidents around the world, What ...

Japan's Nuclear Reactors threaten nuclear power's future!
World Energy Market Adjusting to Japan Nuclear Crisis    
New power line could cool Japanese reactors
Major nuclear accidents around the world,What relationship & causes earthquakes & Tsunamis? Water to cool reactor in Japan!
Nanjing Massacre remembered!  
Chinese Outraged by Denial of Nanjing Massacre by ... 
Japanese Occupation survivors tell their stories

World Energy Market Adjusting to Japan Nuclear Crisis

By Greg lakus | Houston

Tweet

Snow falls as rescue workers in Japan search for victims of earthquake and tsunami -Photo: AP 

The earthquake and tsunami disaster in Japan has disrupted that Asian nation's power plants, including nuclear facilities that are still threatening the area with radiation leaks. The crisis at Japan's nuclear plants has caused a re-assessment of nuclear power plants and projects worldwide and could cause an uptick in demand for other sources of energy including coal, petroleum and natural gas. But energy experts do not believe the Japanese crisis will cause a major upset in world energy markets or even a major pullback from nuclear energy.

The disaster in Japan will have some short-term effect on the world energy market, but energy experts say there is unlikely to be a strong long-term impact. Japan is the third largest economy in the world and it imports almost all of its energy, with nuclear plants, until now, providing around 27 percent of the country's electrical generation. The price of crude oil dipped in recent days on speculation that Japan's demand for oil will continue to be low for many months to come as a result of the catastrophe. Damage to ports and refineries in Japan as well as a lack of electrical power to run those facilities has already caused a sharp decrease in petroleum use.

But Ken Medlock, an energy analyst at Rice University's James Baker Institute for Public Policy, says Japan will be importing some of its oil in a different form. “That crude is going to be redirected to other refineries and Japan will, as soon as they can get things back up and running with some sense of normalcy, will be importing petroleum products instead of crude, likely from some of their Asian neighbors, possibly from the US as well because we have some slack in our refining capacity here,” he said.

Some economists have suggested that there may be a spike in crude oil prices in coming months as Japan imports more oil to use in its recovery and rebuilding effort.  But Medlock does not foresee that either, because he believes the Japanese will have to restrict much of their normal energy usage until they have fully recovered.

“There's a lot of people who will not be driving in their cars they way they were before the accident. Their power consumption patterns may not be the same and quite frankly, the Japanese have demonstrated in the past when they have crises that they are willing to ration electricity to their customer base. I suspect they will do that even as they start to rebuild,” he said.

Medlock does see some increase in Japan's use of coal and natural gas as the country repairs coal and gas-burning power plants damaged by the earthquake and perhaps uses those plants more than nuclear plants for electricity generation. Japan is already imports more coal than any other nation. But, Medlock notes, building new power plants will take a long time and the world market will have time to absorb the additional demand.

The picture for nuclear, however, is mixed. While the Japanese struggle to deal with their current problems it is too early to say what  impact this disaster will have there. But news reports about the disaster are seen around the world and many people are now rethinking their plans to use nuclear power.  Here in Texas plans for expansion of a nuclear plant south of Houston have been shelved. Germany  has shut down seven of its nuclear plants, France has increased inspect, but is continuing its extensive use of nuclear power and Italy remains committed to building its first nuclear power plant.

Robert Bryce, author of the book  “Power Hungry” is an energy expert who advocates more use of nuclear energy. But he concedes the fear kindled by images of the stricken plants in Japan will set back the industry in some countries.

“Regardless , I think, of what happens from now forward, the psychological effects, the political issues surrounding nuclear are going to be much more difficult for any country or any company that is proposing to build them, particularly in the West,” Bryce said.

But Bryce says developing nations are likely to continue their aggressive programs to build nuclear capacity. China, which accounts for around 40 percent of the world's planned nuclear reactors, has suspended approval of new plants because of the crisis in Japan, but once new safety measures are instituted, the projects will probably move forward.

Bryce says interest in nuclear will continue because countries hungry for more electrical power have few other options.“For India, for China, for a lot of other developing countries nuclear is going to continue to be their most attractiveoption simply because of basic physics and math. The power densities that you can get with nuclear are just not available anywhere else,” Bryce said.

Bryce also notes that the damaged reactors in Japan were built decades ago before the development of safer designs that address some of the problems the Japanese now face in containing radiation and preventing a reactor meltdown.

“This is an important accident, it is going to change the industry, but a lot of the reactors that are now being designed are this new Generation Three reactors, they use passive fueling designs that should be far safer than the boiling water reactors that are 40-years-old-plus that are now causing the problems in Japan,” Bryce said.

Some environmental groups and anti-nuclear activists have suggested that Japan should abandon its nuclear sector and opt for “green” energy projects like wind and solar. But, as Robert Bryce has long argued, such energy alternatives are no where close to being able to replace the energy generated by a nuclear plant. Both wind and solar produce intermittent energy, depending on when the wind blows and when the sun shines, and neither of them are yet capable of producing more than a small fraction of  the energy demanded by a nation like Japan. In order to recover and get its economy back on track, Japan will have to rely on what is left of its nuclear power sector and increase its use of coal, natural gas and oil.