Effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the transition to a sustainable energy system

Impact and relevance

The Fukushima accident had a great impact on the public opinion for a few months but it is now almost completely forgotten by mass media

Its impact on the crisis, energy policy and the transition to a low-carbon economy has been greatly understated:

swing of the public opinion

powerful challenge to nuclear power {

revision of energy policy in many states

not only «safer, cheaper and cleaner»

repositioning of the nuclear power lobby {

also «necessary to sustainability»

The final impact is still uncertain but certainly relevant for the transition:

in any case significant factor of cost inflation that interacts with the crisis

2

1. Introduction

2. Description of the accident

3. Reactions to the accident a): challenge to the future of nuclear power

4. Reactions to the accident b): the re-positioning of the nuclear lobby

and the likelihood of a new nuclear renaissance

5. Nuclear power generation: an intrinsically unreliable «critical process»

6. Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power generation: a post-

Fukushima reassessment

3

DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCIDENT

Section 2

4

1st Part

The Complex dynamics

of nuclear reactors

The nuclear plant Fukushima1

5

The magnitude 9.0 Tohoku earthquake that struck Japan on March 11 2011, was the largest quake to strike the country and the world's fourth-largest earthquake in recorded history

This was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl’s in 1986, the only one with Chernobyl to measure Level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale

The earthquake triggered a ”scram” shut down of the three active reactorsThe ensuing tsunami stopped the Fukushima I backup diesel generators, and caused a blackout:

the subsequent lack of cooling led to explosions and meltdowns at three of the six reactors and in one of the six spent fuel pools

only prompt salt water flooding of the reactors could have prevented meltdown: delayed because it would ruin the costly reactors permanentlycommenced too late only after the government ordered it

Description 1

6

Evacuation zone

On day one of the disaster nearly 134,000 people who lived between 3–20 km from the plant were evacuated. 4 days later an additional 354,000 who lived between 20–30 km from the plant were evacuated 7

Radiation deliberate venting to reduce gaseous pressureRadiation from { deliberate discharge of coolant water into the sea

accidental or uncontrolled explosions and meltdowns  The Japanese government estimates the total amount of radioactivity released into the atmosphere was

approximately one-tenth as much as was released during the Chernobyl disaster (revised up to ½ by recent studies)

butterflies captured near Fukushima have an unusual number of genetic mutations, and the deformities appear to increase through succeeding generations

According to a report published in October 2011 by the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, the emission of radioactivity into the sea is the most important ever observed

scientists monitoring sea life in the region have reported that a fish caught near the plant has radiation levels more than 2,500 times the limit established for seafood by the Japanese government

8

Nuclear fallout map

9

Radioactive Seawater Impact Map

10

Casualties

(the earthquake and subsequent tsunami caused about 20,000 casualties)

According to a June 2012 Stanford University study by John Ten Hoeve and Mark Jacobson, the radiation released could cause 180 cancer cases (the lower bound being 24 and the upper bound 1800), mostly in Japan;

there were no immediate deaths due to direct radiation exposures, but at least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses; radiation exposure to workers at the plant was projected to result in 2 to 12 deaths

An additional approximately 600 deaths have been reported due to plant-related non-radiological causes such as mandatory evacuations

due to the disruption of hospital operations, exacerbation of pre-existing health problems and the stress of dramatic changes in life

11

REACTIONS TO THE ACCIDENT 1

SECTION 3

12

Reactions to the accident – a swing of public opinion

Japan

Before most citizen favorable to an increasing share of nuclear power generation

After an Asahi Shimbun poll found that 74% wanted a nuclear-free Japan

USA

The growing acceptance of nuclear power in the US was eroded sharply: only 43 % of those polled after the accident said they would approve building new power plants

Germany

In March 2011, more than 200,000 people took part in anti-nuclear protests in four large German cities

Italy

The growing acceptance of nuclear power was dramatically reversed after the accident as confirmed by the referendum of June 2011: 94% of votes expressed against the construction of new plants

France

Opinion polls indicated that 55% of the population were still in favour of nuclear power just after the accident but 57% against it by the end of March

.

13

Reactions to the accident – a change of policy

Japan The incumbent Prime Minister Naoto Kan announced a dramatic change of direction in energy policy promising to make the country nuclear-free by the 2030s; in the meantime: no new nuclear power plant, 40-year lifetime limit on existing plants, tougher safety standards enforced by the new independent regulatory authority

Germany On the 6 Aug. the Government decided to shut down 8 reactors and to decommission the other 9 by the end of 2022

Merkel: "[ we do not] only want to renounce nuclear energy by 2022, we also want to reduce our CO2 emissions by 40 percent and double our share of renewable energies, from about 17 percent today to then 35 percent"

Italy After the 1987 referendum the government phased out existing plants

2008: the government approves the construction of 10 new plants

After the Referendum of June 2011 a new construction ban of new nuclear plants implemented by the government

 Switzerland and Spain have also banned the construction of new reactors14

REACTIONS TO THE ACCIDENT 2

SECTION 4

15

A new nuclear renaissance?Long-run cycle of fear (as in finance, see Minsky):

In the 1950s the fear was widespread because it was an untried technology evoking nuclear weapons but in the 1960 and 1970s the fear started to subside (apart from an active minority organizing impressive demonstrations)

The accidents of three Miles island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) rekindled widespread fear that relented in the late 1990s and the first decade of the century until Fukushima (Nuclear Renaissance)

Japan

The new Prime Minister Abe was elected on 26 December 2012 and immediately said he was in favor of building new nuclear reactors

UK

Trebling of total installed capacity by 2050

China

has 25 reactors under construction to be added to the 14 already in service, providing a fivefold increase in nuclear-power generation capacity by 2020

India

will proceed with plans to order as many as 21 nuclear reactors

16

OECD IEA: decarbonization

17

18

“even if renewable and clean-fossil technologies meet extremely optimistic assumptions, a global clean-energy revolution adequate to avert catastrophic climate change will require an enormous contribution from nuclear power and extensive realization of its worldwide growth potential”

(World Nuclear Association)

World Nuclear Association: the long-term vision

19

NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION: AN INTRINSICALLY UNRELIABLE «CRITICAL PROCESS»

SECTION 5

20

Typical BWR nuclear plant

21

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION:

A POST-FUKUSHIMA RE-ASSESSMENT

SECTION 6

22

Policy implications: arguments pro nuclear energy

a) safer: less casualties and radiation than with fossil fuels

Relatively { b) cheaper: less expensive than with renewables and

non-conventional fossil fuels

c) cleaner: GHGs emissions much less than fossil fuels and

similar to renewables’

23

Safer

24

Safer: deaths from energy-related accidents per unit of electricity

25

 source: Paul Scherrer Institut 1998, considering 1943 accidents with more than 5 fatalities.  One TW.yr is the amount of electricity used by the world in about 5 months.

Safer?

Correct stress on the heavy risks associated to the use of fossil fuel:

e.g.: over 30 thousand deaths have been attributed to US coal mining since the 1930's related to mining accidents and respiratory complications,

However, the belief in nuclear safety underestimates the number of casualties brought about by nuclear energy because:

-Difficult to establish the probabilistic cause-effect nexus even in the short run

-official estimates do not take into account the long-run effects of radiation on human health:

long latency: some cancers may take up to 40 years to develop

genetic consequences may become visible after many generations

-”exposure to radiation may disturb a number of other biological pathways: cardiovascular and immunological disorders…psychological disturbances: stress… depression and suicides…pathological changes in reproductive function…Down Syndrome” (EEA, 2013, p.5…)

26

Safer? Major incidents

Accidents under-reported and played down

Controversial UN agreement: IAEA has the right to veto any action by the WHO concerning health aspects of nuclear power (Karlsson, 2012, p.244)

Major nuclear incident =def one that either resulted in loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage (US federal government) 100 major nuclear power plant accidents have been recorded since 1952, totalling more than US$21 billion in property damages

Nuclear industry claims that new technology and improved oversight made nuclear plants much safer, but 57 major accidents occurred since 1986

It was claimed that these accidents occurred in badly managed old-fashioned nuclear plants as in Chernobyl (1986);

however two thirds of these accidents occurred in the US and the worst of all, the Fukushima1 disaster, in the technologically advanced Japan using American technology (General Electric reactors)

27

Cheaper?b) the favourable cost estimates are criticized for not taking full account of

- the entire life cycle of the plant

- the scarcity of the fuel similar to that of oil

- the external diseconomies

- the crucial role of an arbitrary high rate of discount

After each nuclear disaster, the bar is set higher for safety:

reactors built after the disasters at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986 cost 95 percent more than those built before

about the same occurred after Chernobyl and will happen after Fukushima

The cost of power generated in plants built after the Three Mile Island accident was 40 % higher, and after the Chernobyl accident it increased an additional 40 %

28

Cheaper?: scarcity of high-grade uranium

Reserves from existing uranium mines are being rapidly depleted, and one assessment from the IAEA showed that enough high-grade ore exists to supply the needs of the current reactor fleet for only 40–50 years

Expected shortfalls in available fuel threaten future plants and contribute to volatility of uranium prices at existing plants

Uranium fuel costs have escalated in recent years, which negatively impacts on the viability of nuclear projects

29

Cheaper? The construction costs of new plants already increasing before the Fukushima accident

30Source: Sokolski, 2010

Cheaper? The cost of renewables is decreasing

31

Security & safety of nuclear facilities

• Risk of major nuclear ‘incident’ is very low, but…– Terrorist groups consider nuclear facilities as potential targets– ‘Successful’ attack on high-level waste/ plutonium store could

be worse than Chernobyl– Even a ‘failed’ attack could cause major disruption

Nuclear waste

• Nuclear power creates radioactive waste which is (very) damaging to life

– High-level waste (HLW)

– Intermediate-level waste (ILW)

– Low-level waste (LLW)

– Also ‘spent’ fuel & plutonium/uranium stocks

• Much needs to be isolated from environment for 100,000+ years

Other concerns

• Inflexible, centralised energy source• Carbon emissions

– no savings before 2020– low emissions status may not last

• Uranium supplies – high-grade ore limited

• Skills shortages• Impacts of uranium ore mining • Climate change and sea-level rise• Other health and environment concerns

Alternatives

• Renewable energy– Wind– Bioenergy– Solar– Hydro– Wave– Tidal– Geothermal

• Energy efficiency– Combined heat &

power (CHP)– Building insulation– Efficient lighting– Efficient appliances– Efficient vehicles

• Controlling demand– Behaviour change

• Carbon capture and storage– ‘burial’ of carbon from

fossil fuels

Energy efficiency

• 30% of UK’s overall energy supply dumped as waste heat/ hot water from power stations– more than 10 times energy produced by nuclear power

• Combined heat & power (CHP)– UK: 7% of electricity– Netherlands: 30%– Denmark: 50%