A satellite image of Japan showing damage after an earthquake and tsunami at the Dai Ichi Power Plant in Fukushima, taken just three minutes after an explosion. (DigitalGlobe Photo)
The crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan is sending shockwaves through nuclear planning agencies around the world. Policy makers are asking for reviews of safety regulations, publics are expressing concern, and it appears likely that some of the planned construction will be curtailed. The politics of nuclear power is likely to be more contentious even in places where public support has been strong (or irrelevant). As a result, in the coming decade, nuclear power may make less of a contribution to the mitigation of carbon emissions than it otherwise might have, (though even before the current crisis its role in overcoming the climate change challenge was a minor one). Below are thumbnail sketches of how the discussion of nuclear energy is unfolding in key countries where plans for growth are most significant.
– Martin Malin, Executive Director, Project on Managing the Atom, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
China
Yun Zhou
Analysis by Yun Zhou, Nuclear Security Postdoctoral Fellow
The Fukushima tragedy really gave the Chinese a serious wake up call on the importance of nuclear safety. Currently, China has 13 reactor units in operation and 28 units under construction. Although the Chinese government quickly claimed China would not change its plan for developing nuclear power projects right after the Fukushima crisis began on 12th March, the latest news shows the Chinese government taking actions to strengthen its nuclear safety at reactors in operation and under construction. On 16 March, China decided to conduct a comprehensive safety inspection for every nuclear facility. In the meantime, China will update current nuclear safety regulations and guidelines based on the lessons learned in Fukushima accidents. Nuclear projects which do not comply with the new safety regulation and requirements will be suspended or terminated. In addition, China will adjust “its medium and long nuclear energy development plan” and stop approving new nuclear power projects before the updated nuclear safety regulation and guideline are released.
While the Chinese government emphasized its resolution to pursue a massive development of nuclear energy, the public is obviously worrying about the radiation from Japan and the nuclear safety culture in China. The general public has huge concerns on potential radiation hazards from Japan and, in some cities people have already started wearing paper face-masks for precautionary purposes. Internet users spent a lot of time blogging and in group forums discussing the Fukushima incident and its consequences. More and more people are just learning of China’s ambitious nuclear energy plan, which they did not pay much attention to before the Fukushima nuclear incident. Public concerns about nuclear safety could lead to questions about whether China can maintain sound nuclear safety culture and practices in light of on China’s poor construction safety record.
Russia
Simon Saradzhyan
Analysis by Simon Saradzhyan, Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and member of the U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism
Both the Russian public and political leadership have expressed sympathy for the tragedy unfolding in Japan. Russia offered to help Japan in the form of additional supplies of energy. Moscow has also offered to dispatch its nuclear specialists, including those who were involved in tackling the Chernobyl crisis.
As for Russia’s own response to the nuclear accidents in Japan, the Ministry of Emergency Situations has conducted exercises to manage the impact of a nuclear meltdown in Japan on Russia’s Far East while the Russian state nuclear energy corporation “Rosatom” issued a statement to assure residents of the region that their health would not be affected even in the case of reactor meltdowns in neighboring Japan. The Ministry of Defense has also designed plans to evacuate the population from the coastal areas in that region if needed. So far, the level of radiation has gone up only slightly in Russia’s Far East so, although the local population is concerned, they are not panicking. As important, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has ordered safety inspections at Russian nuclear facilities and checks and a review of nuclear industry development plans. But none of the latter have been suspended inside Russia and I don’t expect them to be reversed even if a nuclear meltdown does occur in Japan, primarily because Russia is not a liberal democracy and the reaction of the public does not have such a strong and immediate impact on political decision-making. However, some adjustment in the form of extra safety measures should be expected, especially given the upcoming federal elections (both the December 2011 elections to the federal parliament and the March 2012 presidential poll), which traditionally make the government more sensitive to public sentiments.
As for the Russian nuclear industry’s multi-billion dollar foreign contracts – these may indeed be affected. So far neither Turkey nor Armenia nor other countries, which have clinched deals with Russia to have Rosatom build nuclear power plants, show any inclination to walk away from them. But I do expect some of the nuclear power tenders, where Russia is competing, to be cancelled or put on hold until those in charge of procurement come up with new set of safety requirements for design, production, and maintenance.
South Korea
Sungyeol Choi
Analysis by Sungyeol Choi, Research Fellow, International Security Program/Project on Managing the Atom
South Korea, which is currently operating 21 nuclear power plants and constructing 5 more units, is not very likely to change its whole nuclear power policy in response to the unfolding crisis in Japan. Nuclear power is currently supplying almost 40% of national electricity, and there are no viable short- and mid-term alternatives. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak emphasized Korea’s nuclear safety and emergency planning in response to the Japanese nuclear accident. In a Congressional debate with the Deputy Minister of Education, Science and Technology on 14 March, members underlined that safety features in nuclear power plants must be improved to be sustained even in an extreme earthquake and tsunami. Some congressional members argued that nuclear regulation and safety culture, including a detailed action plan for contingencies beyond a design basis accident, should be thoroughly reviewed and improved.
Nevertheless, nuclear power will face harsh time in South Korea. There is great public concern already appearing in the news at several media outlets. The general public in South Korea is terrified enough by the nuclear accident in neighboring Japan. Some local residents at a potential site for a small modular reactor have begun to oppose the construction of the demonstration plant. Public opinion on nuclear issues could be a key factor in the 2012 South Korean presidential election. South Korea’s nuclear safety concerns also include nuclear programs in the United Arab Emirates where it has agreed to sell nuclear power plants, and in China and North Korea where accidents would directly impact South Korean people. The government may seek to strengthen nuclear safety cooperation with these countries.
India
Karthika Sasikumar
Analysis by Karthika Sasikumar, Nuclear Security Junior Faculty Fellow
India has 20 functioning nuclear plants—of which only two are aging General Electric Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) of the type that are in peril in Japan—supplying around 3 percent of the country’s energy needs. But demands for energy are soaring, along with India’s 8 percent annual GDP growth. Trying to overcome its dependence on oil imports, India turned to nuclear power, announcing that 20 GW of nuclear power generating capability would be added by 2020 and 63 GW by 2032.
The Japanese tragedy has prompted a renewed focus on nuclear safety, which had been somewhat marginalized until now in the rush to secure India’s entry into the commercial nuclear technology market.
Journalists crowded into a press conference in Mumbai on March 14, where the top brass of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) leaders assured them that Indian nuclear plants are safe.1 The Indian Parliament is in session, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who staked his government’s survival on the civil nuclear deal with the United States, was obliged to make a statement. He assured the nation that the safety features of the BWRs had been upgraded after recent safety audits. He promised an “immediate technical review of all safety systems” of Indian power plants, with a particular focus on dealing with earthquakes and tsunamis.2 Singh’s statement indicates that the emerging nuclear market in India will now face a few more hurdles. At Jaitapur in Maharashtra, on the Arabian Sea coast, a proposed 9900 MW plant reported to be the largest in the world received environmental clearances a few months ago.3 The Environment Minister yesterday suggested that these clearances will be reviewed.4
Anti-nuclear activists, whose voices have been enfeebled by the long decades of official secrecy (often justified by the weapons-related aspects of the nuclear power program) and public disinterest, see the Japanese disaster as a chance to make their case. “What has happened in Japan has only increased the determination of people to oppose the Jaitapur project. People across the board will now be asking questions citing the events that happened in Japan and Chernobyl,” said Vivek Monteiro of the Konkan Bachao Samiti, which has been leading the agitation against the Jaitapur plant.5 The opposition is not restricted to NGOs, either. The Communist parties and the rightist Bharatiya Janata Party both criticized the government’s embrace of nuclear power and called for more stringent standards.
In the past, nuclear plans have forged ahead in spite of qualms about safety. There has never been an organized “Green” opposition to nuclear power. India’s eastern coast was hard hit by the 2004 tsunami, but reactors at the Kalpakkam power plant were successfully shut down and restarted operations days later. However, the impact of the graphic images from Fukushima is being felt by the increasingly media-saturated urban elite. There will be concerns about technology and managerial systems that fail in a wealthy, technologically-advanced and orderly society like Japan.
After the radioactive dust settles, India will look to Japan for lessons learned. But the shortfall in energy availability will remain an issue that demands a speedy solution. Responding to the events, former Chairman of the AEC Anil Kakodkar stressed that nuclear and solar energy were India’s best options to overcome power scarcity. A greater investment in research and development in renewable energy sector may be the best outcome from the unfolding tragedy in Japan.
- http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article1538642.ece
- http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/india-nuclear-idUSSGE72E04Y20110315
- http://businesstoday.intoday.in/bt/story/jaitapur-nuclear-plant-falls-in-high-risk-seismic-zone/1/13947.html
- http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/jaitapur-power-plant-may-be-reviewed-jairam-ramesh/193683
- http://profit.ndtv.com/news/show/are-indian-nuclear-reactors-safe-enough-144642
Iran
Mahsa Rouhi
Analysis by Mahsa Rouhi, Nuclear Security Predoctoral Fellow
The explosions in Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant caused by earthquake and tsunami have provoked serious concerns about the safety of nuclear facilities in different countries. There have been extended controversies over nuclear safety in Iran. This issue has prompted reactions and responses from Iranian officials, media and general public, though since the issue is so politically sensitive, I think everyone is cautious in raising concerns now. Since Iran is an earthquake-prone country, there is a great deal of sympathy towards the tragic events in Japan as well as a widespread alarm and concern with regard to the safety measures in place at the Bushehr reactor should Iran face an earthquake of high magnitude.
President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have stated that the Bushehr reactor meets all necessary safety standards, and this has been confirmed by the IAEA on various occasions. The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, has also given assurances about the safety standards of Bushehr reactor. A technical response to the news from Japan was published on the Fars News Agency website explaining why Bushehr is different from Fukushima. Although Iran is an earthquake prone country, the geological studies of the Bushehr reactor site indicate that an 8.9 magnitude earthquake is unlikely to happen. Although the highest estimate would be in the range of a 4-5 magnitude earthquake, initial safety planning for Bushehr considers the possibility of up to a magnitude 7 earthquake. Moreover, it was the tsunami and not the earthquake that mainly caused the damage to Japan’s nuclear facilities and Iran has no oceanfront and thus is immune to the dangers of a tsunami.
It is notable that the majority of media responses argue that the current debate on the safety issue in Iran is more political than technical. Some websites such as Khabaronline raise public concern over this issue and ask for a more detailed response from officials. The Khabaronline piece also argues that although the situation in Japan shows that the costs of having nuclear energy are higher than expected given such risks, this does not to change the cost-benefit calculations for the development of nuclear energy in Iran in a foreseeable future. Therefore, it seems unlikely at this point that the officials will plan to revise the current plans for the Bushehr nuclear facility in the light of Japan’s experience.
The nuclear accident at Fukushima is a very sad event. However, Japanese historical sketches and reports mention huge waves been experienced along Japanese coastlines, causing huge devastation and loss of life. To have built the Fukushima nuclear in an exposed position along the Jpanese coastline was extremely imprudent planning, such that responsibility for the disaster lies at least to a certain extrent with the nuclear planners in Japan. The reactors could have been built in less exposed locations. For example, in Norway, the Halden research reactor is actually built into a mountain.
However, the Fukushima accident also raises a very major issue concerning chosen technology. Around the year 1950, the World had two potential routes for nucelar power: Uranium U235 technology, Thorium technology. Unfortunately the World chose the wrong route by Uranium U235 technology on account of the scramble to produce nuclear weapons for military purpose. The irony of the situation is that much of the Uranium U235 fissioned in US atomic reactors derives from decommissioned Russian nucelar weapons !
In short, if the reactors at Fukushima had been based on Thorium LFTR technology, the shutdown mechanisms would have been passive (via melt plugs to dump tanks) such that the problems experienced at Fukushima with Zirconia fuel rod casings and MOX fuel would never have arisen. Thorium LFTR technology is much much safer. As a further point in favour of Thorium LFTR technology, it produces only 1% of the nuclear waste in comparison to Uranium U235 technology, and the LFTR waste products only need to be stored for 300 years before being handled normally. Moreover, virtually all the Thorium can be transmuted via Protactinium and fissioned to generate power; in contradistinction, Uranium U235 atomic power technology produces waste (Actinides amongst others) which needs storing for thousands of years before being handled normally, and U235 solid-fuel rods have to be removed from reactors after only circa 5% of the Uranium is fissioned because U235 fission byproducts quell the nuclear reaction.
As a mis-guided attempt, Thorium is being used in solid-fuel form with contemporary Uranium U235 reactors. This is an absolutely stupid idea, because solid-fuel Thorium housed in Zirconia tubes provides little benefit in comparison to Uranium U235 fuel in a conventional atomic reactor. It is only when Thorium is employed in a LFTR configuration that enormous safety and operating benefits are derived. Most of the economic reports that have seen for Thorium all assume a solid-fuel context, and thus paint an unfavourable conclusion. A leading expert who has devoted his lifes efforts to Thorium LFTR technology himself says that solid-fuel Thorium is an utter waste of time and effort. He is of an opinion that Thorium LFTR must be directly pursued.
As a personal petition and plea, how many more Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents do we have to suffer before dum-witted nuclear planners realize that Thorium LFTR technology is much safer and much more cost effective than U235 technology, and has a further advantage of intrinsic passive shut-down mechanisms (i.e. safety melt plugs and melt expansion an elevated temperature which intrinsically reduced the rate of reaction) unavailable to contemporary U235 solid-fuel reactors.
A Thorium LFTR reactor was built and operated at Oak Ridge National Research Laboratory in the year 1952, namely before we had the benefit of all our computing power. If such a Thorium LFTR reactor could be made to work all those years ago, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot make this Thorium LFTR technology work today.
All Uranium U235 technology reactors should, in my view, be promptly decommissioned and all plans to build future such Uranium U235 reactors halted in favour of Thorium LFTR. How many times does this need to be shouted from the roof tops, lobbied to politicians (as I do) and written about before the alternative is taken seriously and the World made a better place.
Thank you for reading my contribution.
Pingback: Homeland Security Watch » Preventing the next meltdown
Thanks for the post on LFTR – The question is how to get the cleaner safer forms of nuclear power actually invested in and built, instead of the existing capital holding players continuing to support the legacy systems (in which they have a vested interest) this article demonstrates the need for nuclear energy but only hints there drastically different ways of doing it.
Most people and articles in the popular press don’t even know there are different forms of nuclear power, not to mention being able to debate which processes are the best cleanest, most productive and safest. Even the wikipedia articles are defacto skewed this way. ( and journalists often use it as source material verbatim )
we all need to fire a couple of friendly neutrons at a neighbor and sustain a chain reaction
I hope everyone reading this and bad mouthing nuclear power realize that the type of reactor that Fukushima was, namely a BWR, is not the same type of reactor used everywhere around the world. I suggest reading into CANDU reactors and how much safer they are compared to other reactors in the world. In Canada, we only use CANDU reactors, and in case anyone hasn’t already noticed, we’ve been operating these nuclear plants for 48 years with no melt downs or explosions. Compare that to other nuclear technologies around the world like the PWR (Three Mile), RBMK (Chernobyl) and BWR (Japan), I’d say that CANDU reactors are quite safe. I’ve researched this reactor technology a fair bit and noticed these have multiple safety systems to ensure that accidents which happened at other nuclear stations in the past, aren’t repeated.
The accident at Fukushima happened because the tsunami/earthquake knocked down power lines cutting off power to the nuclear stations and the tsunami knocked out the stations back-up generating capability so that all the station was left with was backup battery power which didn’t last very long. The temperature of the fuel bundles increased, and because of the loss of power they were unable to cool off the fuel with water. Here, if our grid goes down, we will still have back-up generators (because we are not in an earthquake zone and it would be pretty tough to have a tsunami on Lake Ontario). Even if we lose power, our passive safety systems shut the reactor down. First off they have neutron absorbing shut off rods suspended by electromagnets above the uranium fuel bundles. If the power cuts out, then the electromagnets would shut off, and assuming that gravity will act on these rods, which it will, the rods will drop absorbing all neutrons thereby stopping the reactor so it doesn’t overheat causing what happened in Japan. And secondly, they also have neutron absorbing solutions called Gadolinium Nitrate (SDS2), which use fail safe open valves, are held back from the fuel bundles with high pressure. Once the power shuts off, and basic physics! the solution will move from high pressure to low pressure absorbing neutrons stopping the reaction. By the way, CANDU reactors do not need power anyways to circulate the coolant after shutdown. They are designed to be able to thermosyphon the heat away or as a last resort crash cool.
The plant in Japan got hit by a massive tsunami, world record earthquake, power outage, hydrogen explosion, and a LOCA incident and it’s still not a danger to the public. I really don’t see why the media is being side tracked with what happened at Fukushima. You have a tsunami which killed thousands of people, yet all we’re concerned about is nuclear plant that isn’t a danger to anyone and hasn’t killed a single person. I guess that’s how the media works these days. They’re scared on subjects they aren’t educated on and put fear into the general public. They aren’t concerned about tsunamis and earthquake because we know how they work. People might also tell you that there’s no need to be concerned about them because they don’t happen that often. Oh really? Well in case you haven’t noticed neither do huge nuclear meltdowns like this. The first major one happened at Three Mile Island in 1979. Then came Chernobyl in 1986. Then the nuclear power industry finally decided to stop competing with nuclear power and formed WANO, to share nuclear info with sites around the world to make sure these accidents don’t happen again. And it wasn’t until now in 2011 that another accident happened. And it happened because of a huge earthquake causing a record tsunami. So it’s fair to say that huge nuclear incidents are fairly spread out, like tsunamis, but we’re uneducated on the subject or don’t want to be, so we worry about them more. It’s actually quite sad really.
Thank you to all who read my contribution.
I read with a lot of interest the pieces by the experts from Harvard. The comments by Dr.Norris and others were also enlightening. On LFTRS I did come across a piece by Dr. David Shiga where he highlights the various advantages of LFTRs but also states that the difficulty with fluoride salts, though, is that they are highly corrosive, hence special materials are needed to contain them. He also refers to Pavel Tsvetkov, a nuclear engineer at Texas A&M University in College Station, pointing out that many of the claimed safety advantages of LFTRs must still be proved in more detailed studies and that “safety research is yet to be done”.
For the full article please see: http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/thorium.doc
Working on renewables myself I admit that while the cost of renewables are declining it will be sometime before they become a competitive source of baseload power like nuclear. Until then some good will come out of incidents like Fukushima if governments share information on options and technologies available (including with the public), promote an open and healthy debate within their societies and most of all plan for all possible eventualities that nature or man may throw at us-the next incident could well be a terrorist or a meteorite strike however far-fetched it may seem now. An international conference on nuclear safety under UN or IAEA auspices with the results made publicly available in a manner understandable by the general public could is needed to clear the fogs of anxiety that understandably refuse to disperse in the aftermath of Fukushima.
Thank you for the comments above. It is absolutely true that more modern designs of nuclear reactors based on solid fuel are much much safer that the antiquated system at Fukushima, likewise Chernobyl. Sadly, I read this evening that Fukushima problems are being described as of comparable magnitude to Chernobyl, if not worse.
On the specific issue of LFTR corrosion, this is soluable by suitable material choice and the solutions are known. Adding Beryllium to the melt is highly beneficial. The corrosion issue is not a “show stopper” for Thorium LFTR technology.
The problem with contemporary nukes is the time taken for construction and commissioning. The fall off of oil and gas as we come past “peak oil” (a difficult concept in practice as the size of exploitable oil and gas reserves is a dynamic function of the price of oil and gas) is so severe that a massive programme of nuke construction and deployment is necessary. Moreover, the difficulty with many renewables such as wind and wave is that considerable material is employed in apparatus on account of the dispersed nature of sun-driven energy in the environment; the cost of manufacturing these materials increases as oil and gas become scarce; many of these renwables have an effective “low energy flux density” and intuitively should represent a retrograde step. However, one has to look at the total life cost of apparatus ; nukes are costly to construct (high tech) and also costly to decommission at the end of their life cycles (on account of the then highly radioactive nature). Nevertheless, to put matters into perspective, the fall-off of energy-per-capita will be so severe soon that decommissioning aspects are likely to be low down on our list of priorities as human society gradually decends into chaos. We need the anti-entropic nature of human creativity in advanced energy technologies to provide the driving motor to recreate order and structure within human society. These are the true dynamics of the situation and its associated existential problem presently facing us.
Thank you for reading my response.