The legacy of Fukushima

The raw facts about Fukushima are disturbing:

• There were six nuclear reactors, three of which melted down following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
• The accident rated 7 (on a scale 0-7) on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) meaning ‘an accident causing widespread contamination with serious health and environmental effects’.  (Prior to Fukushima, the Chernobyl disaster was the only level 7 accident on record, while the Three Mile Island accident was a level 5 accident).
• The damage to the plant requires the constant pumping of water to cool the reactors - a process which creates an extra 400 tonnes of contaminated water every day.

 There is no end in sight; no quick fix; not even a slow fix. The incident is almost beyond anyone’s control. The latest idea is to create a wall of frozen earth around the reactors using pipes filled with coolant to prevent groundwater coming into contact with contaminated water being used to cool fuel rods.

 Source: Tepco/Reuters

This is the sort of solution you put in place for a short sharp repair it cannot make sense as a long-term plan. Imagine the energy required operating these cooling systems running this month, next month, next year next decade and ‒ it seems odd to suggest ‒ next century.

The debate over nuclear power in Europe rumbles on, in response to demands for carbon dioxide emission reductions. Policy makers are drawn into thinking about the short-term; and with a stroke of the policy pen politicians can take a chunk of carbon dioxide out of the equation by authorising new nuclear power. There will be all the safeguards that an advanced economy can provide, so safety should be assured. But wait a minute; Japan was one of the most technically advanced and stable countries in the world. Before Fukushima you would have judged Japan as one of the safest places on the planet to build and operate nuclear power stations. Japan is no more corrupt, badly managed or backward than many countries in Europe. It is possible that a set of unusual and unexpected circumstances arises in Europe for another Level 7 incident in Europe over the next decade, or two. We had Chernobyl and it would be naïve to assume there will not be another.

Putting to one side safety concerns, and looking purely at the financial case, the debate over nuclear power is finely balanced. Would the huge investment be better deployed on renewable energy infrastructure? Here again, it depends on whether you take a short or a long view. The short view would favour nuclear power but taking the long view ‒ including the costs that will be incurred by future generations ‒ it is not a good investment. The legacy of Fukushima should be to close the debate and direct all available investment into energy efficiency measures (first priority) and renewable energy infrastructure.

It is unfortunate that Japan should again provide a showcase of what is possible. The legacy of Fukushima could be as solid as the terrible experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which showed the world the awful truth about nuclear weapons. We now have graphic evidence of the awful truth about what is possible with nuclear reactors. Research into nuclear fusion should continue in the hunt for the elusive prize of clean nuclear power; meanwhile, in the language of the economist, nuclear reactors are liabilities not investments.