In collaboration with

Dangers of nuclear energy

^{A satellite image of Japan showing damage after an earthquake and tsunami at the Dai Ichi Power Plant. Photo: DigitalGlobe-Imagery / Flickr.com (Creative Commons).}

The series of events, that followed the destructive earthquake and tsunami in Japan last week, has led to what will surely be viewed as one of the worst nuclear disasters in history. The combined effect of the two natural disasters made the four reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant extremely vulnerable to devastating accidents.

The first disaster was seen on Saturday 12 March when the roof and walls of reactor number one were blown away in an explosion. Nuclear cores generate large amounts of heat even when not operational, and need to be cooled continuously. The first explosion was most likely a result of rising pressure inside the building.

The situation seemed to be under control momentarily as engineers desperately tried to cool down the cores by pumping seawater into the plants. In a sudden turn of events, however, the water levels dwindled exposing the fuel rods in reactor number two, which led to a very volatile situation that could result in a full meltdown.

The exact details of the ensuing events have only been guessed at. Radiation levels have been on the rise, and there have been two subsequent explosions and a fire, both of unclear causes. All of the plant’s four reactors are in a critical state, as of now.

The incident is likely to have lasting ramifications on the global energy industry. At the time, it was easy to dismiss the Chernobyl disaster as a consequence of a fading communist society, but the world will now have to come to terms with the fact that a nuclear catastrophe is just as possible in the western world. Despite having been well prepared for an earthquake, the Fukushima plant simply wasn’t strong enough to withstand two substantial disruptions.

In the future, of course, nuclear power plant models will take into account the flaws and weaknesses exposed by what happened in Fukushima. Nuclear energy production has been increasing, with countries like India looking to vastly expand their share. According to the Economic Times, India is planning on increasing its nuclear energy production tenfold in the next twenty years.

It is easy to dismiss the events in Japan as unique: similar earthquakes are extremely rare, especially when it comes to other parts of the world. The consequences, however, are so severe, that these wholly unpredictable events should somehow be taken into account. The duration of the effects of a nuclear catastrophe, like the one in Chernobyl, are measured in decades.

The episode may also have an impact on the whole energy industry: the rising costs of fossil fuels since the beginning of the century, and the implementation of greenhouse gas emission limits will not only drive the world towards a greener future, but also a more expensive one, as the costs of producing energy are on the rise.

Independent of how the events in Fukushima unfold, the energy industry will most likely be forced to consider alternate energy sources, and focus on creating more sustainable approaches to energy production.

Citizens of Japan and the entire world will soon be asking themselves, how close to a nuclear facility are they prepared to live. Ten kilometres? One hundred kilometres? The answers will influence the future of nuclear energy production.

Toni Kaario is a second year student at Aalto University School of Science and Technology. He loves reading non-fiction books, and has a knack for asking the right questions.

Comments [2]

1. If we don’t build Nuclear Energy we waste the best chance of humankind.

   The accident at Japan was due to several reasons.

   1. Poor electrical systems.
   I was shocked how poor the backup electrical systems were. For example in Olkiluoto nuclear reactors here in Finland we have much better backup power. Olkiluoto reactors normally produce the energy needed for cooling system and if for example reactor 1 must be cooled the reactor 2 can produce the energy needed for it. Also if both reactors have to be cooled we have connection to national grid and the areas own grid. If the national grid fails then there is a backup gas turbine plant what can be connected to areas own grid. Then there is also four diesel generators for both reactors and if i understood right only one of these generators can supply all the power reactors cooling needs. (Fukushima has also four per reactor)

   2. Too low security measures.
   For example in Olkiluoto we have multiple cooling systems to ensure that the reactors get cooled. If the cooling fails there’s a 2800m2 condensing pool where we can blow the pressure from the reactor. We also have nitrogen atmosphere which is used to prevent hydrogen explosions which happened in Fukushima. All these security measures and great earthquakes and tsunamis aren’t even possible in Finland because we have very stable ground and Baltic Sea is so small. Japan may have to think again its security rules…
   3. Old reactor
   Newer reactors have much more advanced security measures. A new reactor would have probably survived the cooling systems fail without a big radiation leak. For example new reactors like Olkiluoto 3 (under construction) have a core catcher which cathces the melted core if it melts itself through the reactors base.
   How we could prevent future disasters? We should replace the old reactors whit new safer ones and create international standards for safety systems.
   Nuclear energy is the best hope in the fight against global warming. It would be madness not use it.

   Sorry for the possible typos or clerical errors. I wrote this in a hurry. :)
   Source: http://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/article593197.ece (in finnish)

   — Qwasd · 16. March 2011 · #

2. I agree with most of what you said, and it is clear that even if nuclear power has its risks, we do not have any better means at our disposal yet.

   My point is simply that we must take the risks seriously and that the incident might cause the public to view additional nuclear plants in a negative light.

   We simply cannot be prepared for every kind of possible accident, and therefore should keep on searching for a better solution.

   — Toni Kaario · 22. March 2011 · #