Tim Probert, Power Engineering International
No amount of public relations spin can alter the fact: the disaster which struck the Fukushima Daiichi plant following an earthquake and subsequent tsunami was an absolute catastrophe for Japan and the nuclear power industry.
The knives are now being sharpened for the nuclear power industry. After Fukushima, public approval for nuclear power has reached a low not seen since 1986 and short-term prospects appear bleak.
Environmentalists were out in force to call for nuclear plants to be shut down. Politicians were quick to see the votes to be gained from being tough on nuclear power. Almost instantly, Switzerland placed a moratorium on plans to replace its fleet of reactors.
Chancellor Angela Merkel firstly delayed plans to extend the lifetimes of Germany’s reactors and then closed seven reactors built prior to 1980. Any dim flickers of hope that Germany would ever commence a programme of new build nuclear have surely now been extinguished.
Italy voted to close down its nuclear plants in 1987 following the Chernobyl incident. Ironically there is another nuclear referendum scheduled in June, planned well before Fukushima, and the accident seems certain to boost voter turnout for a national poll on Enel’s plans to build four of Areva’s EPR reactors.
The US nuclear industry, home to several boiling water reactors of similar design to the ill-fated Fukushima Daiichi plant, will be under pressure to fortify its aging fleet, particularly on the West Coast. The stuttering new build programme, which even before Fukushima had been rather half-hearted, may now grind to a halt due to a lack of political will to support it.
Southeast Asia, like Japan, is a region prone to geological instability where environmentalism is strong. Politicians in ecologically sensitive nations like Malaysia, which has plans to build two 1000 MW reactors by 2021, may now stand to gain greatly by opposing nuclear power in general elections, thus killing off new build plans.
Even authoritarian China, which tends to mould public opinion rather than follow it, announced that it would suspend approving new nuclear projects until new safety rules are ready. These measures may be mere politicking: many governments see the value of nuclear power and are playing for time while the understandable ‘moral panic’ subsides.
Reactor vendors will be under pressure to re-evaluate their latest, Generation III designs. Some of these reactors promise passive safety systems in the event of a reactor shutdown to keep the cooling system pumps operating. In reality, however, these reactors will still require back-up power to avoid the potential for core failure.
For utilities seeking to invest in nuclear there will, no doubt, be second thoughts. US utilities often talk about “betting the firm” to build nuclear plants. Costs for nuclear now seem certain to rise. The risks of a catastrophe which writes off valuable assets will have to be reconsidered, and the industry will watch with interest for any potential liability claims from irradiated persons in Japan.
Nuclear power stakeholders I spoke to immediately after the event were pretty angry that media coverage of Japan’s largest on-record earthquake initially focused on the Fukushima crisis and not the far greater death and devastation caused by the tsunami.
This point of view is understandable, but it is easy to see why television news, radio bulletins and newspapers chose to lead with the Fukushima incident. As horrific and deadly as they are, humans find it easier to comprehend the destructive waves of a tsunami than malfunctioning nuclear reactors.
Nuclear physics is complex. Radiation is invisible. Sensational headlines about ‘meltdowns’ and ‘fallout’ play to the layman’s deep, almost irrational fears about nuclear plants going south.
Coal plants, for example, throw far more radiation into the air than nuclear reactors, and coal mining kills and injures thousands every year. The 1984 explosion of the Union Carbide chemical works in Bhopal, India was more hazardous to human health and killed several thousands more than the Chernobyl accident two years later, yet it is the latter which no one forgets.
Nuclear power remains a mystery to most people. Despite its many advantages, poor PR has always blighted the nuclear power industry. Perhaps it always will. Nevertheless, the industry has done too little to put across the meticulously high safety standards to which nuclear plants adhere and the strong record of recent years.
Too late now. Just as the talk of a global nuclear renaissance was rapidly becoming reality, the industry has taken a huge blow that could set it back by several years. There can be no worse PR for nuclear power than live television images of not one, not two, but three reactor buildings exploding and mushroom clouds of smoke billowing into a clear blue Japanese sky.
It would be easy to abandon nuclear power. For most countries, however, that would be a mistake. Most nations do not suffer earthquakes and tsunamis on the scale of Japan and modern reactor technology promises greater safety. Nuclear power remains the most credible source of low-carbon generation offering baseload power and energy security.
March 25th, 2011 at 5:27 AM
This article is very good.
Perhaps the publicity given toward nuclear is a blessing to be leveraged by the profession and industry if handled properly.
Last Tuesday (3/22/11) the Northeastern Section of the American Nuclear Society held a meeting with Meredith Angwin of Vermont as speaker. Meredith spoke on her approach to nuclear advocacy. She and Howard Shaffer were featured in the February Nuclear News. Howard leads the ANS Vermont Initiative. Meredith\’s presentation would be useful to others supporting nuclear power. She is found online at the Ethan Allan Institute.
Also at the meeting was David Tropeik. David is a journalist, instructor at Harvard, and the author of \"How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don’t Always Match the Facts\" David suggests that facts will not be heard by non scientists /engineers because there are different parts of the brain that process facts and fears. He suggested a different approach to dealing with the fears of the public created by Fukushima Daiichi. I have not read his book but will. Based on David\’s comments at the ANS meeting, I think his book should be read and his advice considered by the nuclear industry PR people.
March 28th, 2011 at 10:16 PM
I am troubled that Mr. Probert\’s article - and Mr. Adams\’ response to it - have somehow sterilized and depersonalized their approach to the matter that they can fixate on the \"PR war\", as if the only issues here are those of opinion…as if they are debating the relative merits of different brands of beers.
A truly worthy and defendable human endeavor does not require \"PR\" to make it palatable; \"PR\" is only necessary to fool the consumer into making a choice they might not otherwise make…or to salve the consciences of those who peddle a dangerous device, and use \"spin\" as a form of willful ignorance of what could be at stake.
What gives you the right to decide what risks can be unilaterally imposed upon thousands, even millions of innocent persons living dozens, or even hundreds of miles down-wind from a nuclear power mishaps? That right does not exist if you cannot guarantee that no harm will come to them (you cannot), or can guarantee to make each of those persons 100% whole again following such a mishap (again, you cannot).
What gives you the right to declare that some arbitrary level of radioactive contamination is `acceptable\’ for other millions of people who must rely on plant or animal foods from areas tainted by radiation releases?
What gives you the right to decree that whole swaths of land may be rendered uninhabitable for generations by human folly or blunder or greed. What gives you the right to condemn future generations of entire family lines to the terror of not knowing whether- or when some cells in their bodies - or in the bodies of their children…or children\’s-children - will suddenly mutate & turn cancerous?.
And what gives you the right to decide that others should risk death by radiation-incepted cancer, as long as you can win your \"PR War\"? If you are so eager to witness what happens to human cells in the face of radiation, I’m sure TEPCO is short of volunteers to work at their `ground zero’. At least THAT would be risk of true choice.
You do not appear to have the wisdom to realize that just because mankind CAN tinker with forces beyond our true controlling, that we somehow have the right to TRY it, anyway - regardless of the potential consequences.
I recommend a (re)reading of Mary Shelley\’s \"Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus\".
April 13th, 2011 at 1:20 AM
I do aware on what was happened in Fukushima, But somehow i don’t understand why we have to argue things, I do believed that God is in control.
June 27th, 2011 at 6:30 PM
There are some benefits in using Nuclear Energy but do the advantages outweigh the catastrophic ending? We should all think about what\’s good for everybody and not just for a few group of people.