environmentalresearchweb blog

« Nuclear disconnect (Part 1) | Main | Urban density and fuel consumption »

Nuclear Disconnect Part 2

Within Europe, the wave of popular resistance to nuclear power seems to be unstoppable, with, as I reported in my last Blog, even France now joining in the debate about whether to phase it out completely. Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Norway, Portugal and now Italy are all non nuclear, while famously, Germany, along with Spain, Switzerland Sweden and Belgium all have, or had, phase out plans (Belgium’s was postponed but it currently has no functioning government to decide on what happens next, Sweden’s has been abandoned but no new plants are likely). That leaves the UK as something of an exception, at least within the western EU, Finland apart, although they are having major problems building their new EPR.

Although the UK government is still pushing ahead, depending on which poll you believe, opposition is now (narrowly) in the majority (51% according to IPSOS Mori), and it is far from clear if EDF, E.ON and especially RWE , will be willing to invests in UK nuclear projects, even given the government strong support. RWE npower said the Electricity Market Reform (which in effect proposes more support for ‘low carbon’ options like nuclear) ‘does not yet provide enough clarity for customers or investors’.

Outside of the EU, the collapse of support for nuclear is a bit less marked, with popular resistance perhaps less effective or viable in Russia, China, and also Vietnam, who are all still pressing ahead. Russia still aims to increase its nuclear share to around 25% within 10-15 years, from the current 16%. Vladimir Putin said its reactors were ‘the safest in the world’ and it needed ‘to produce as many units, I mean big units, as in the entire Soviet period,’ but added that that ‘our energy should be balanced; it should be based on several sources: nuclear, hydrocarbon, hydro power, wind, solar panels.’ China has been reviewing its nuclear programme but seems likely to continue with it, along side its much larger renewables programme, although at a reduced level. A review by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) put China’s likely 2020 nuclear capacity at 63 GWe, compared to the current target of 80 GWe. Vietnam has decided to continue push ahead with its plan for 14 nuclear plants by 2030.

There’s been plenty of resistance in India, but they too are still going ahead with their expansion programme- it wants 20GW by 2020 . Saudi Arabia is also still pushing ahead with its plans for 16 plants by 2030, in a $100bn programme. The UAE too is planning to build nuclear plants However Kuwait and the Philippines have now joined Malysia and Thailand, and backed off their nuclear plans. The Philippines government says it may ‘rechannel’ its £100m nuclear budget to renewables. South Korea is rethinking their nuclear expansion plans.

As well as abandoning plans for new plants, Japan is now talking of an ultimate phase out even of its existing plants, with in July Prime Minister Kan saying he believed ‘Japan should aim for building a society that is not dependent on nuclear power.’ He wanted to reduce the use of nuclear energy ‘in a planned and phased manner, so that future society will be sustained without it.’

This clearly rattled some nuclear apologists, with chief cabinet secretary Yukiyo Edano then clarifying the government’s position: ‘I think the prime minister’s announcement outlined a plan for the country to reduce its dependency on nuclear energy in stages. I understand that it is a starting point for launching a national debate on the issue.’

Kan has faced calls for his resignation after the Fukushima crisis and he has promised to resign once the Daiichi plant is stabilised and people could go home - whenever that is! Over 100,000 look like spending Christmas and beyond in enforced exile.

Globally much of the post-Fukushima landscape continues to be shaped by debates over safety and the impacts of radiation. The data on health impacts coming out of Fukushima is certainly sobering. Although the Japanese government did move quite quickly to limit exposure and administer iodate tablets, there could still be radiation linked deaths. www.irsn.fr/EN/news/Documents/IRSN-Fukushima-Report-DRPH-23052011.pdf

Longer term it is still not clear whether the fuel melt down was just caused by the lack of cooling following the loss of pumps and power after the tsunami, or whether internal cooling systems had been wrecked before then- by the earthquake. That is crucial since tsunamis may be rare but there are many reactors around the world in or near earthquake prone areas. If so, then it’s not just a matter of locating back-up pumps more carefully.

The International Atomic Energy Agency sent a team out to study the Fukushima wreck. UK nuclear consultant Dr John Large has taken them to task for not addressing the key issue of internal pre-tsunami damage in their report: ‘doubts from a number of usually well-informed sources about possible (pre-tsunami) seismic damage to the reactor coolant circuit, services and containments should warrant further and detailed investigation. This is because the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPPs were designed and (supposedly) maintained to the highest international seismic standards - seismic failure at Fukushima Dai-ichi has obvious implications for NPPs, not just elsewhere in Japan but for all plants located in seismic sensitive regions globally- surprising, therefore, that the IAEA have not expressed interest in this potential weakness of the nuclear safety regulatory standard’ http://www.largeassociates.com/3201%20IAEA%20Mission%20Statement/R3201-A1%20Final.pdf

The Japanese government’s report for the IAEA ministerial conference on nuclear safety also managed the blank out this issue: “Although damage to external power supply was caused by the earthquake, no damage caused by the earthquake to systems, equipment and devices important for nuclear reactor safety has been confirmed”. However, it did provide a let out: “further investigation should be conducted as the detailed status remains unknown.”

We await clarification. Meanwhile for a good account of what happened at Fukushima see: www.kit.edu/downloads/AnhangHintergrundinfo023AnalyseReaktorkatastrophe.pdf

What next? A Ipsos MORI opinion poll in May found that 62% of citizens in 24 countries across the world opposed the use of nuclear, with 38% in favour: 26% had changed their minds after Fukushima. The most anti-nuclear, at about 80% against, were Italy, Germany and Mexico. Only three of the 24 countries had majorities in favour: India (61%), Poland (57%) and the US (52%). www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-global- advisor-nuclear-power-june-2011.pdf

Other polls came up with different figures. For example, an ABCNews/Washington Post poll found that 64% of their US sample now opposed new nuclear. You do have to be careful with poll data- the results depend on the questions asked, But in does seem clear that nuclear is now much less popular in many countries. Moreover, it seems possible that as events at Fukushima continue to evolve and more information about what happened emerges, opposition around the world will grow.

There are of course other views and the nuclear lobby will naturally try to resist further shifts as best it can, especially in the UK. As the infamous leaked email from a staff member of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, put it, Fukushima, ‘has the potential to set the nuclear industry back globally. We need to ensure the anti-nuclear chaps and chapesses do not gain ground on this. We need to occupy the territory and hold it. We really need to show the safety of nuclear.’

Posted by Dave Elliott on July 23, 2011 11:41 PM | Permalink