After Japan’s atomic tsunami
As if a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and a murderous tsunami were not enough, Japan has for the last few weeks been contemplating an even scarier predicament. As the news unfolded on our television screens, the world watched in trepidation as Japan fought to prevent a nuclear meltdown at a series of reactors crippled by the events of March 9.
Ten-metre-high waves and then the ensuing explosions at the Fukushima Daichi reactor rendered the nuclear plant helpless. This has raised the spectre of nuclear catastrophe at a plant a mere 240 kilometres away from Tokyo, triggering a national crisis unseen since World War II as authorities desperately try to cool down the overheated fuel rods that are emitting increased levels of radiation and ultimately the probable scenario of a nuclear meltdown.
Beyond the evident tragedy that has struck Japan, the Fukushima incident has reignited the somewhat dormant controversy about the actual viability of nuclear power and its attendant risks to human life and the environment when things go horribly wrong. These concerns have radiated across the globe as many governments revisit their decisions to commission new energy capacity driven exclusively by nuclear energy.
Fukushima has resurrected the terrible memories of Chernobyl’s 1986 nuclear disaster where the Ukrainian nuclear reactor imploded with devastating consequences, spreading panic and radioactive waste across Europe and rendering the city of Prypiat a veritable ghost town.
Although only two workers died in the initial explosion, it is estimated that by 2006 it had claimed the lives of 9,000 people directly affected by the radiation. The history of civil nuclear energy has been unfortunately dogged by explosions, leaks and the occasional cover-up. The most significant incidents preceding Chernobyl were Windscale in Britain in 1957 and Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, United States in 1979. But nothing came anywhere close to the Ukrainian disaster! The event made many governments and people rethink the efficacy of this seemingly endless form of energy. For decades nuclear energy was considered as a pariah although this was increasingly tempered as fossil fuels and oil use in general spiked and its environmental costs counted.
Notwithstanding, over 400 nuclear plants are operating at this moment around the world. A total of 132 are in the US (some of which are bizarrely built in unlikely areas over well-documented fault lines in California). Well over 140 are in Europe. Germany alone has 59 nuclear reactors, 77 per cent of France’s electricity demand is generated by nuclear and Sweden generates 47 per cent of its demand in the same way. On the other hand our neighbours in Italy had decommissioned all reactors by the mid-1980s. But this was all about to change as the UK and Italy (among many others such as China and India) are embarking on a massive nuclear energy programme. Fukushima may yet change all this. It is still too early to be seen if the Japanese “apocalypse” will reverse things once again. It is highly unlikely that it will scupper plans for giants like China and India as energy demands rise exponentially. I suspect that the situation will be the same in mainland Europe.
There are two distinctly opposing camps when the nuclear power debate is discussed. Proponents of nuclear energy argue that nuclear power is sustainable, reduces carbon emissions, increases energy security and is a viable alternative to polluting fossil fuel. Nuclear power makes countries energy independent and proponents cite the latest technology as safe, reliable and relatively clean.
Diametrically opposing this view we find opponents of nuclear energy who insist that nuclear power poses too many risks. They insist that nuclear power generation is a complex process, very costly in its capital expenditure and the threats to human health and the environment through uranium mining and possible events such as Fukushima are immense. Rather than building reactors that have enormous and irresistible force, mankind should learn to live in a more sustainable, low-carbon lifestyle.
As in all controversies of this nature it is probable that both sides have valid economic and safety arguments. It remains a fact that nuclear plants are extremely complex, mechanical systems. Manufacturers of modern plants insist that much of this complexity has been made redundant and that new reactors are much safer, reliable and more efficient. At any rate I am not amazed that they would make such claims. Clearly nuclear power harnesses forces that when not under control may for manifold reasons present mankind with improbable challenges. Opponents of nuclear will cite natural disasters, human error and even terrorist attack as possible scenarios for regional or global disaster. Some experts continue to insist that new design guidelines are defective and that nuclear systems are much more likely to fail when unquantifiable events occur. Unfortunately, as in Japan, unforeseen events do happen.
The case for nuclear power remains strong and at the same time clearly worrying. Once again mankind faces a tough choice aided and abetted by its unquenchable demand for increased energy sources. Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner For Climate Action, may have made a terse comment that sums it all up: “We can say that if we do not want nuclear, we should have even more cheap fossil fuels to replace it, or we could say: Why not use this opportunity to address the necessity of moving towards a low-carbon emissions society? I think we should do that.”
Popular Stories
In Discussion
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Alex Ellul
Apr 2nd 2011, 22:41
It is so sad to see aleading Maltese scientist stoop low and try to use ridicule to counter someone else's opinion which happens not to be consonant with his. This is called ad hominem attacks. I appela to Prof. mallia to utioise his scientific and mental prowess in his endevour to nullify my opinion, which, I assure him is based on scientific knowledge, of which I am quite competent and I happen to keep abreast with emerging technologies and science as much as possible. I am sure that Prof. Mallia is very capable of a scientific discussion and thus I expect him to keep to the science.
Basing the following on the latest advances in nuclear science and technology: I assure him and everyone that the future of our civilisation, pending any direct hit from an asteroid, is quite secure due to the fact that the most important requirement, energy is abundant and safe. Nuclear power will be developed and it will energise humanity for many centuries to come. The power inside the atom is infinite.
Edward Mallia
Apr 2nd 2011, 21:10
This agonised wringing of hands everytime we have a nuclear accident, followed by invitations first to think again and then consider new, super safe designs of nuclear reactor we cannot possibly do without. On the way we have statements like "nuclear power makes countries energy independent" -- do they all have supplies of whatever nuclear fuel takes their fancy? or "the technology that has caused the least deaths, ironically, is nuclear". By now deaths directly attributable to Chernobyl in the Ukraine alone is close to 12,000. Not bad for a technology that has only been around for sixty years or so, always promising Complete Safety in our Time.
We have not heard the promise of cheap nuclear electricity this time, at least not yet, not even from Alex Ellul, the local gonfaloniere of nuclear energy. But we do have the confused promise that if some principle based on low energy nuclear reactions ( but nuclear reactors are low energy devices) is true, then this invention (true?) will knock out everything else. Unfortunately we need some short-term solutions until the nuclear millenium arrives.
Gerard Cassar
Apr 2nd 2011, 16:19
A thermonuclear world war could also see the end of humanity. Up to a billion could be victims. It will see the end of civilisation and could happen within 50 years and a strong probability that it could happen
The end could also happen through an artificial blackwhole that will swallow the whole earth. The entire population would be the victim and the world will disappear. When could this happen is unknown probability that it will happen nearly "nil"
There are other possibilities such as a cosmic explosion, a break down in the cosmic computer, uncontrolled genetic manipulations. Rebellion by the artificial intelligence this could happen in 50 years time probability that it will happen is unknown
A sudden acceleration climate warming, resulting in the disappearance of several species and a radical change in the mode of living. It could possibly happen within 100 years, but the probability that it will happen is not known.
A complete technological angry outburst. According to scientist Vernon Ving at the rate science is progressing it could happen that the world will fall victim of its own achievements that could not be controlled or expected. This could happen within40 years
cf. S & V
Alex Ellul
Apr 2nd 2011, 15:19
ONly last year,and in Denmark alone, 6-people died during maintenace of off-shore wind-turbines. All technology has its drawbacks. Coal-mine deaths run in the hundreds, if not thousands, anually, while oil transportation and drilling causes enviromental havoc. So, whichever way we go, there is always the risk of accident and death. The technology that has caused the least deaths, ironically, is nuclear, even though this generartes 15% of the total electrical power globally.
Nuclear IS the future, as WilfredCamilleri below has explained well, the more we go the safer it gets.
The next generation of nuclear power is Thorium. This is old technology really, but the powers chose uranium because this produced weapons-grade plutonium. Now, that the cold war is over and there is enough plutonium to destroy the planet 100 times over, the big countries, especially the emerging ones China and India are going for thorium reactors (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors).
But this may well be quickly abondoned if the following development, based on the principle of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, is true:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=6
This invention will kill all wind turbines, phtovoltaics, oil, gas and conventional nuclear... time will tell.
hatever way it goes, it will surely be nuclear.
Wilfred Camilleri
Apr 2nd 2011, 18:52
Agree. In the US there have been 40 wind turbine related deaths since wind turbines started appearing in comparison to 0 nuclear power related deaths. Not to mention the thousands of birds that are killed by wind turbines every year.
Gerard Cassar
Apr 2nd 2011, 15:15
The end may come from above. A 500 meter meteorite will splash on the earth killing hundreds of millions it will be the end of civilisation as we know it. This could happen in 100 000 years time and there is an average probability that it could happen.
Another possibility is the explosion of a super volcano. Its eruption will leave billions of victims. Humanity will return to the Stone Age or will be exterminated completely. When this could happen? Unknown Probability that it will happen is great.
More possibilities: a world epidemic that could kill tens or even thousands of millions. Its consequences: deep change in the society or even civilisation could disappear. When could this happen Unknown Probability of it happening unknown.
Noticing the current events the end of the world could be the result of a world revolution when millions will die and those still living would change civilisation radically. This could happen in about 100 years and the probability of it happening is average.
The end of the world could be caused by the action of man through the elimination of Chromosome Y. Result no more males. A world of irreplaceable females.
Ref. Science & Vie
Wilfred Camilleri
Apr 2nd 2011, 14:27
The Fukushima nuclear plant uses outdated technology and the plant itlsef had a history fo poor management and safety maintenance. Nuclear reactors like the Canadian Candu reactors are in another class when it comes to safety. The Candu reactor does not use enriched uranium like most others do and uses less nuclear fuel to generate the equivalent amount of energy. This makes these reactors the safest in the world. The CANDU system implements safety through both engineered redundancy and a passive design. The core has numerous triple-redundant detectors that feed to two logically, conceptually and physically separate shutdown systems. Each system is capable of shutting down the core within 2 seconds following a LOCA ("Loss-of-Coolant Accident"), without operator intervention. Criticality of CANDU fuel bundles in light water is impossible, avoiding one concern of severe accident analysis that light-water reactors must contend with. Not all nuclear reactors are created the same so nations using nuclear power must look at which system(s) provide the most safety instead of leaning towards home-groen but inherently less safe systems.
Please choose the reason of your report below: