– By M.L. Sharma
[The recent nuclear catastrophe that has hit post-tsunami Japan has raised world-wide concerns about the future of civil nuclear energy, especially at a time when many developing countries are eager to reap benefits of the nuclear energy in terms of socio-economic development. Chernobyl or Fukushima are warnings for us and existing and future programs should implement the lessons learnt from Japan disaster. Ed.]
The quake and tsunami’s resultant impact on Fukushima nuclear power complex north of Tokyo, has given rise to serious questions about the future of nuclear industry. Opposition to major nuclear expansion is growing in Europe and hurt a renaissance for the sector in the United States, which already has more than 100 reactors. The future of ambitious nuclear energy programs of many developing countries also seems to be in limbo.
Switzerland has reportedly put on hold the approvals process for three nuclear power stations so safety standards can be revisited after the crisis in Japan. Taiwan’s state-run Tai power also recently said it was studying plans to cut nuclear power output. Of Japan’s 54 reactors, 11 are shut down because of the quake. Following the crisis in Japan, Germany is also contemplating to suspend its earlier decision to extend the life of the country’s nuclear power stations.
The nuclear fall-out of the Japanese crisis has evoked mixed reactions. The US Senator Joe Lieberman, who chairs the US Senate’s homeland security panel, has urged the Obama Administration to ‘put the brakes on’ new nuclear power plants until the impact of the incident in Japan became clear.
Simon Powell, head of sustainable research at CLSA in Hong Kong said on 14 March this year: “I don’t think nuclear is going to be done away with but it is likely that people’s nuclear programs will be delayed as they question whether it is the right thing to do.” An executive at state-run utility Korea Electric Power Corp (KEPCO) said recently: “The nuclear power industry is likely to shrink due to Japan’s nuclear accident. Rising opposition is seen in developed countries, although developing countries may see less opposition due to their shortage of power unless they reside in earthquake zones.”1
Jennifer Liang, an analyst with KGI Asia, has opined that the Japan nuclear incident had strengthened the case for safer sources of renewable energy. While pointing to the current limitations of green energy, Liang says: “The solar or wind industry is still young and is unlikely to replace nuclear use in the near or medium term. How do you replace the base load power from nuclear?”
Asserting that the nuclear disaster in Japan could have nations re-thinking their strategies on atomic energy, Christof Ruehl, group chief economist and vice-president, BP Plc says: “This may not cause problems in the short term as the world has enough of gas and coal to deal with the situation. But the impact could be felt in the long term as countries assess the situation arising out of the Japanese experience and have a re-think on nuclear plants. Germany has already announced that it will have a re-look at nuclear energy, which could put pressure on fuel oil in the long run. There could be an impact on coal, natural gas, and fuel oil. But that needs to be distinguished into total impact into short, medium and long term.”2
The nuclear establishments of the major nuclear powers and their governments have responded to the events in Japan with apprehension and for the most part have not sought, wisely, to brush aside or dismiss their implications for the continuing use of and possible expansion of nuclear power. But it is possible that in the future there would be a serious temptation to characterise these events as solely a failure of the Japanese nuclear industry.
It is remarkable that the international community of nuclear experts and nuclear decision-makers have shown a curious bafflement, indecision and uncertainty in their comments on and evaluation of the crisis. For days, it now appears, that no one outside a section of the Japanese nuclear establishment has been properly briefed, while foreign nuclear agencies have speculated, often intemperately, regarding the situation at Fukushima. Despite several decades of existence of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it appears that the nuclear powers have no special role to play, at least in a manner visible in the public domain, in the event of a serious nuclear accident in a country that is a trusted signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. According to one opinion, “The precise mechanism for transparent and rapid exchange of scientific information and expertise in such a crisis is not clear. If no such adequate mechanism exists or is not functional, it is a sorry comment on the functioning of the IAEA.”3
Nuclear Industry in US
US Nuclear regulators insist that the 104 reactors in the United States have undergone extensive safety checks for natural disasters. In a recent memo sent to Capitol Hill, the NRC said: “U.S. nuclear power plants are built to withstand environmental hazards, including earthquakes and tsunamis. Even those plants that are located outside of areas with extensive seismic activity are designed for safety in the event of such a natural disaster. The NRC requires that safety-significant structures, systems and components be designed to take into account the most severe natural phenomena historically estimated for the site and surrounding area.”4
Recent months have seen nuclear proponents in US on something of a roller-coaster ride. Republicans campaigned in 2010 with big promises for the industry, and President Barack Obama said in his State of the Union speech earlier this year that he wanted nuclear power counted as part of a “clean energy” standard for the country. Even some outspoken industry opponents in Congress and the environmental community were saying nice things about nuclear power, if only to try to pass a global warming bill.
In the opinion of Richard Myers, vice president for policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute, it was inappropriate to make comparisons between the 1970s-era plant in Japan and the U.S. fleet of existing and new plants. He also dismissed suggestions the Japan disaster would dampen support for the industry among federal policymakers. He also added: “In terms of the impact on the nuclear power industry going forward in the United States, given our safety record in this country, given the robust regulatory infrastructure we have in place, given the defense in depth that governs operations and designs, given the differences between the U.S. and Japan seismologically, I’m not sure that we’re going to see a major impact.”5
In the U.S., nuclear power provides about 20 percent of the country’s electricity. Reactors at a dozen plants are now undergoing permit reviews to continue operating. And there are five reactors under construction, starting with the Tennessee Valley Authority’s new $2.5 billion unit that will be first to come online in 2012.
Nuclear power proponents have pushed back against the idea that the Japanese disaster would have lasting effects here. According to one opinion, it would be poor form for anyone to criticize the nuclear industry or pronounce the end of nuclear power because of a natural disaster that’s been a national tragedy for the Japanese people. According to Joshua Freed, director of the Clean Energy Initiative at Third Way, “What we’re seeing is a classic ready-fire-aim scenario, where various advocacy groups that had positions set before the disaster are now rushing ahead to use the same talking points they’d have used a week ago. It’s ridiculous and appalling that less than 48 hours after the earthquake and tsunami hit Japan that they’re trying to make political hay out of this and turn it into an American political debate.”
Impact on Europe
Japan’s nuclear disaster has quickly refueled debate in Europe over the risks associated with production of nuclear energy. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster in the Fukushima nuclear complex, Western nuclear experts still tried to pacify public worries. It was for instance argued that the accident involving failures of the cooling systems in several of Fukushima’s nuclear reactors, could in no way be compared with the disaster that earlier took place in Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union. Yet as events have rapidly unfolded in Japan, the debate over the wisdom of reliance on the nuclear sector has been resumed all over (Western) Europe. Even before high levels of radioactivity were registered outside the Fukushima nuclear complex, above the permitted maximum, – politicians both at the European and at national levels had already started drawing concrete consequences.
Outright dramatic were the reactions registered in Germany. Europe’s most powerful state is for an estimated 28 percent of its electricity supply dependent on nuclear energy, and has for long witnessed intense resistance against nuclear production. Thus even as public protests in other parts of Western Europe largely died down in the 1990s; German activists continued staging blockades and other forms of civil disobedience.
Germany’s current Chancellor, Angela Merckel, last year gave in to mounting pressure leveled by the nuclear lobby. But within days after the beginning of the disaster in Japan she has been forced to completely change gear! Given the speed with which Merckel has staged her turn-about, – it can safely be concluded that the disaster in Japan has foreclosed possibilities of a nuclear renaissance in Germany.
However, Germany is not the only country where controversies over nuclear production have been revived. Switzerland is for a reported 39 percent of its electricity supply dependent on nuclear energy. On 14 March, the Swiss Minister of the Environment, Doris Leuthard, announced that all procedures for permission to build three new nuclear plants stood suspended. This opens the possibility that Switzerland will not proceed with plans for the renewal of existing nuclear production facilities.
And a fierce controversy has also erupted in France, which is most, nuclear-dependent of all: nuclear energy provides as much as 79 percent of France’s total electricity supply. After France’s President Sarkozy came to power several years back, the government initiated a round-table with the country’s leading environmental organizations, notably focusing on ways to fight climate change. The round table contributed towards the drafting of new legislative measures, such as introduction of a carbon tax. But it reportedly failed to address the nuclear issue.
Yet according to France’s leading daily Le Monde, the country’s politicians now have started crossing swords over France’s overwhelming nuclear dependence. Thus, the French industry minister, Eric Besson, is being criticized for have stated on March 11, that the Japanese nuclear accident has ‘nothing in common with Chernobyl’. The renowned European Green leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit immediately took him to task for repeating past errors, stating that similar attempts had been made after Chernobyl to belittle the disaster and its consequences. Cohn-Bendit has demanded that France should hold a public referendum on staging a ‘nuclear exit’.
Lessons for India
In light of the Fukushima accident, the lesson for India is not necessarily a roll-back on the nuclear energy option. India needs to carry out a thorough-going review of the current status of nuclear safety, a review with independent scientific and technical expertise, drawn also from outside the ranks of the atomic energy establishment. Such a safety review clearly must go beyond the mere routine types of safety audit if it is to carry adequate credibility.
The government is currently promoting large nuclear reactor complexes that are similar to, if not larger than, the Fukushima complex. There is no question that such complexes cannot move ahead without credible study and assurances flowing from a detailed study of what transpired at Fukushima and its implications for India. But despite such studies, democratic norms require that the population be adequately convinced of its safety in the future.
According to one expert, there is an imperative need to allow for the unimagined very low probability event with high impact potential in safety analyses. Stating that the current paradigm and methodology of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PSA) may have to change once the details and the exact timeline of events at Fukushima become available, the expert says that notwithstanding the assurances given by the Department of Atomic Energy, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board — which needs to be empowered — must carry out a thorough technical safety review of all the nuclear power plants, including those on the import list. This must be done against new benchmarks, and regular safety audits of each plant must be done and the results made public. Transparency in matters of nuclear safety is required more than ever, post-Fukushima.
Notes
- Reuters, “Japan crisis hits global N-sector”, The Tribune, 15 March 2011.
- Sujay Mehdudia, “Japan disaster will make countries review nuclear energy, says economist”, The Hindu, 21 March 2011.
- T. Jayaraman, “Nuclear power after Fukushima”, The Hindu, 21 March 2011.
- Darren Samuelsohn, “Will nuclear industry feel fallout from Japan?”, 13 March 2011, available at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51182.html .
- Cited in ibid.
