Nuclear's Uncertain Future

17 Mar 2011 – Jeff Erikson

As Japan begins the long process of recovering from the devastating earthquake and tsunami that occurred on March 11, the drama of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant continues to unfold. Questions abound about the immediate impacts of the damage to the plant: How much radiation has been released? What levels of radiation are harmful? How many people have been exposed to harmful levels? How big is the risk of meltdown and catastrophic release of radiation?

The explosions at the power plant have also re-ignited the debate about nuclear’s role in the future of energy: Is nuclear power safe? Is it “sustainable”? Is it a necessary component of a low-carbon future, or does it take resources away from more sustainable alternatives? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Should governments subsidize the development of nuclear power or phase it out?

Though the ultimate impact of the damaged plant on human health is unknown, it is clear that policy-makers, investors and some heretofore supporters of nuclear power are having a rethink about the future of the industry. The New York Times reports that “the fragile bipartisan consensus that nuclear power offers a big piece of the answer to America’s energy and global warming challenges may have evaporated as quickly as confidence in Japan’s crippled nuclear reactors.”

While I have not seen a credible scenario for remaining below the 2°C threshold that does not include a significant increase in nuclear power, I find myself questioning my own belief that nuclear power is a critical element of a low-carbon future. I have previously looked at the risk/reward equation and sided with the argument that the risk of harm from climate change on human health and well-being is greater than the risk of harm from nuclear power. Severe weather events such as hurricanes, droughts, floods and heat waves (made more frequent and more severe by global warming) have killed and will kill many more people than nuclear power has/will.

But perhaps the nukes-or-warming choice is a false one. As one of my colleagues pointed out to me, there is no certainty that more nuclear power will prevent catastrophic climate change. So we could end up with the negative consequences of nuclear power AND severe warming. There is much evidence to suggest that without government subsidies, nuclear power is not a cost-competitive source of electricity. If the money spent on subsidizing nuclear power is instead spent on energy efficiency, renewables and R&D, we can realize substantive greenhouse gas emissions reductions without the triple-threat of nuclear power: accidents, proliferation and waste.

The Fukushima Daiichi incident may have exposed to the public that the likelihood of a nuclear accident is greater than previously believed. Facilities are built to design standards which make assumptions about the magnitude, location and timing of specific events. Unfortunately, nature doesn’t always comply with those assumptions. The more complex the technology or combination of technologies, the more likely it is for things to go wrong. And as we have seen from Deepwater Horizon, the Upper Big Branch coal mine disaster, Three Mile Island and countless other accidents, operating practices are not always consistent with design intent.

But even when risks are well understood, difficult choices must be made about how and where to apply resources. Michael Golay, a nuclear scientist and professor at MIT, led a study several years ago for Tokyo Electric Power (the owner of the Fukushima Daiichi plant) on the nuclear hazards of strong earthquakes. The study addressed whether TEPCO should focus its efforts on protecting the public specifically from nuclear risks or on the direct effects of an earthquake. The study concluded that any earthquake strong enough to damage a reactor and expose the public to harmful radiation would be more dangerous to the public in its direct effects, and that there would be more benefit to more people to apply resources to general preparedness.

While there are innumerable uncertainties regarding nuclear power, one thing we do know is that it is at present a significant element of our electricity mix. 14% of global electricity generation derives from 441 operating nuclear power plants. In France it’s 75%, Germany 40%, Japan 29%, US 20%. Pulling the plug, so to speak, on existing generating plants, even if done over time, would put severe pressure on electricity supply. If replaced by natural gas or coal-fired plants, carbon emissions would increase dramatically. Russia, India and China have all declared that it’s “full speed ahead” on their plans for nuclear, and the Obama administration has cautiously indicated their continued support for the growth of nuclear power.

So, like it or not, nuclear power will be with us for a long time. Rather than cast it as either “good” or “bad”, we should be asking the key questions that must be addressed by governments, energy companies and civil society:

• What actions should be taken to ensure that the risks associated with nuclear power are minimized?
• Should nuclear power be considered an essential element of a low-carbon future, and should industry be supported accordingly, or should we require nuclear power to compete with other sources of power generation without subsidies (which would likely make it uneconomical)?

I don’t know the answers to these questions, and I suspect we’ll never have consensus on what the right answers are. But we’d love to hear from others on how to address the challenges of nuclear power. Tell us what you think.