Japan’s multiple disaster has been spilling into our living rooms on a scale that is difficult to take on board. After watching surreal images of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami sweeping across the land it felt like an aftershock to learn of the damage to Fukushima nuclear power plant.
Since the beginning of the year there have been 19 strong (magnitude 6.5 and above) quakes around the world, according to the US Geological Survey. In the past week alone there have been 523 magnitude 4.5-plus quakes, mostly in nations around the Pacific.
The Japanese quake is the biggest ever for the nation, which holds a world record for tsunamis, averaging one every six or seven years.
After the first tsunami wave, others can follow anywhere from five to 90 minutes later, in what is known as a wave train.
Earthquakes below magnitude 7.5 do not usually trigger tsunamis. Only quakes which cause vertical shifting can set off a tsunami, as horizontal shifting of the seabed does not displace any seawater.
It was the combined action of earthquake and tsunami that damaged the Fukushima power plant on Honshu Island. In 1896 and 1933, tsunamis hit in the same area.
Questions linger over why the 40-year-old plant, which was due for decommissioning, was built at a site known to be prone to tsunamis over time.
Electricity supply to the plant was severed during the quake, at which point it went into automatic shutdown. Back-up diesel generators, designed to start up after losing off-site power, began providing electricity to pumps circulating coolant to the nuclear reactors.
Then, shortly after the quake, a large tsunami washed over the reactor site, knocking out the back-up generators. While some batteries remained operable, the entire site lost the ability to maintain proper reactor cooling and water circulation functions.
Radiation levels at Fukushima have already been found to be higher than those experienced at the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania, US. Cleaning up after that event cost $975 million and took 14 years to complete.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has been giving daily updates on the condition of the Japanese plant. Some 45,000 people have been affected by evacuation orders due to radiation.
Initially rated at Level 4 on the international nuclear event scale, a series of explosions upgraded Fukushima to Level 5, equivalent to the 1979 Three Mile Island accident.
France’s authority for nuclear safety feared the alert may rise to Level 6, with the US-based Institute for Science and International Security apprehensive that the alert could be raised to Level 7.
There has only ever been one Level 7 nuclear accident before now – and that was Chernobyl.
In a reaction to the Japanese emergency, Angela Merkel announced that Germany would speed up transition. A temporary shutdown of Germany’s seven oldest nuclear reactors for safety checks resulted in at least one mothballed for good.
“We cannot and should not just go back to business as usual,” Chancellor Merkel told the German parliament. “We want to reach the age of renewable energy as soon as possible. That is our goal.”
Merkel, a former environment minister, called for a “measured exit” from nuclear power, and announced a three-month study to consider the future of energy policy in Germany.
Sceptical Greens and Social Democrats were concerned that the moratorium would be no more than a brief delay in the country’s nuclear progress.
The future of nuclear reactors which fail the European Commission’s promised stress tests is up in the air, after EU energy ministers confirmed last Tuesday that participation in the tests would not be binding, and ultimate responsibility for nuclear policy would remain at national level.
An assessment of national European action plans for renewable energy has earmarked wind power in top position over solar, biogas and other technologies.
Yet, fears are growing within Europe’s wind industry about European Commission plans to put nuclear power on a par with renewable energies in the post-2020 low-carbon environment.
A 2050 roadmap launched this month points Europe in the direction of low-carbon targets which could include nuclear power and carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Observers trace the disappearance of the ‘renewables’ language after 2020 back to the nuclear and the CCS lobby.
While the low-carbon credentials of nuclear power are beyond question, it depends what is meant by ‘low’, and compared to what.
A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reveals that carbon emissions from nuclear power facilities clock up between 100 and 200 grams of carbon emissions per kilowatt hour. Wind turbines emit no carbon whatsoever when producing electricity.
Steve Sawyer, secretary-general of the Global Wind Energy Council, told a European Wind Association conference held earlier this month in Brussels: “Nuclear power is generally the most expensive, complicated and dangerous means ever devised by human beings to boil water.
“Why anyone would want to use it to generate electricity is beyond me, unless they were interested – as most European states were in the early days of nuclear history – in what comes out the other end, which is fissionable material for nuclear weapons.”
An EU assessment of Malta’s national renewable energy action plans has emerged this month. Among other obstacles, the report highlights that it can take “many years” to get a permit to construct a renewable energy plant in Malta.
The Maltese plan is also criticised for not committing to a minimum renewable energy contribution for heating and cooling in new buildings, while responsibility for abiding by the law is left to the discretion of the contracting architect.