Nuclear Fault Lines

Concerns about the potential for a meltdown continue in Japan since the 8.9 magnitude earthquake last Friday have caused explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. As the thirst for nuclear energy has increased over the past decade, the question is how will the Japan crisis affect what has been a global resurgence for nuclear energy.

Over the past decade, an increasing energy demand coupled with concerns over climate change and a dependence on overseas supplies of fossil fuels have led many to make the case for increasing use of nuclear power. Most of this increase (over 80%) will be in countries which already use nuclear power. India for example is planning to add 20-30 new reactors by 2020 while China has more than 25 plants under construction with additional reactors planned for a ten-fold expansion in nuclear capacity over the next decades. According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), 60 reactors are being built around the world today, with another 150 or more planned to become operational during the next decade and another 200 further in the pipeline. Approximately 25 countries are considering or already decided to become new nuclear energy states.

This ‘nuclear renaissance’ has been elevated by claims that the atom is a source of ‘zero-emission energy’ and carbon-free. While nuclear fission in the reactor itself emits no carbon di­oxide or other greenhouse gasses; it is the only part of the overall nuclear fuel process which is otherwise heavily carbon-intensive. Not only completely dependent on oil for the heavy machinery required for extracting uranium, the nuclear cycle is also highly water-intensive for fuel extraction, refining, cooling and processing, and includes the use of other carbon-intensive processes such as coal-power refineries and other industrial processes which consume electricity, fossil fuels and chemicals. One forecast suggests that within 60 years, the energy to mine, mill, enrich and fabricate one metric ton of uranium will be the same as the energy it can make and by 2050 that nuclear power could generate as much CO2 as a gas-fired station. (1) Moreover, the crisis in Japan cautions that it’s not just carbon emissions that are the challenge: one may survive the earthquake and the tsunami, but what about the cancer?

The world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl in 1986 released large quantities of radioactive isotopes into the environment, exposing 77,000 square miles and as many as five million people in Europe and the former Soviet Union to radioactive fallout with almost 2,000 cases of thyroid cancer counted fifteen years later. A study in 2004 was the first to note a statistical correlation between fallout from Chernobyl and an increase in the number of cancer cases in Sweden. Starting with the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979 and intensified by Chernobyl, tens of thousands protested in Europe against nuclear energy (and nuclear weapons) throughout the 1980s – in effect stalling further plant building plans; but only temporarily.

Today, 195 nuclear power plant units are in operation and another 19 under construction in Europe. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovenia and Turkey are already constructing or have plans to build new power plants while Sweden, Hungary, Slovakia and Spain have been planning to extend the life of existing plants. Poland, Estonia and Latvia are considering developing nuclear programmes while the UK in 2008 noted plans to build up to ten new reactors and France, with a total of 58 power plants – Europe’s largest concentration –agreed in January on a two-year study to assess the feasibility for underwater nuclear stations off its coast. Russia’s nuclear programme is also expanding and some are even proposing floating nuclear power plants (NPP) in the sensitive Arctic.

Italy has revived its scrapped nuclear programme and, despite its long history of earthquakes and the Japan crisis, Italy’s government says it is still forging ahead with its nuclear energy plan. Germany however has suspended its (politically unpopular) 2010 decision to extend the years of its 17 aging nuclear power stations. Similarly, the Swiss have also suspended nuclear plans while the EU called an emergency meeting on Tuesday to review the safety measures at all nuclear reactors across Europe – a review that will have to address environmental and public health and safety concerns for today and the future.

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s document “Basic Safety Principles for Nuclear Power Plants,” suggests that a plant can be protected from earthquakes by sitting them away from areas of active faulting and by designing physical barriers and safety systems that can bear “the vibratory loads associated with the most severe earthquake that could be expected to occur in its vicinity….” The challenge however is to assess the seismic and unknown destructive potential for earthquakes which is a highly complex problem. The Ignalina NPP in Lithuania for example was originally built for the lowest seismic risk conditions, which were re-evaluated when a magnitude 5.0 earthquake hit Kaliningrad in 2004. The majority of earthquakes in Europe have generally been minor, apart from the 6.3 magnitude quake in Italy in 2009. They do however raise cautionary tales for the industry and the continent as a whole, particularly when considering that a 3.6 tremor in the UK in December 2010 was located in an area which has been picked for storing decades-worth of nuclear waste.

The European dialogue on nuclear safety therefore has to openly address not only the carbon issue but the radiation risk – a process that has to overcome the industry’s lack of transparency. Writing on the upcoming 25th anniversary of Chernobyl, Mikhail Gorbachev highlighted the problem: “The closed nature and secrecy of the nuclear power industry, which had already experienced some 150 significant radiation leaks at nuclear power stations throughout the world before the Chernobyl fire, greatly contributed to the accident and response difficulties. We need full transparency and public oversight and regulation of the nuclear power industry today, along with complete emergency preparedness and response mechanisms.”

Coupled with the potential for the dual-use application of nuclear science for military purposes, nuclear fault lines run deep. The events in Japan remind us that nuclear power and its waste legacy require an unprecedented scientific, professional, open and public review of the long-term viability of Europe’s nuclear safety and security policy. Without it, we risk remaining on shaky ground.

____________________

(1) Storm van Leeuwen, “CO2 Emissions from Nuclear Power,” in Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security and Global Warming, Frank Barnaby and James Kemp eds, (London: Oxford Research Group), March 2007.