1

Post Fukushima: is nuclear energy still a viable source of energy for the future?ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION NICHOLAS GIRARD

2

Case Study – Area of focus 1) What factors led to Japan’s decision to return to nuclear energy following Fukushima?

2) How has the Fukushima nuclear disaster impacted the international nuclear energy discourse?

3

Agenda I. Objectives of this roundtable discussion and introduction (1 minute)

II. Background on the Fukushima nuclear disaster (2 minutes)

III. High level ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of nuclear energy (1 minute)

IV. Media interpretative packages (1 minute)

V. Overview of what is known, and what is unknown following the events of Fukushima (3 minutes)

VI. Science / policy interface (2 minute)

VII. Roundtable discussion (10 minutes)

VIII. Final remarks and summary of objectives

4

Objectives of this roundtable discussion

Objectives

1. Provide the audience with a quick overview of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and its impacts on the nuclear energy debate.

2. Acquire input from the audience on how to refine the focus of the study.

3. Determine if this case study is relevant to the policy / science interface discussion.

5

Nuclear energy – Why it’s worth debating

Setting the stage

The global nuclear fleet is aging; few power plants have been built within the last two decades (Table 1).

Why is this relevant?

Prior to Fukushima, the nuclear energy policy discourse focused on two themes: • life extension of existing fleet• construction and replacement of additional reactors

In the aftermath of Fukushima, two global energy policy discourses emerged:

• Risk higher than the reward; countries withdraw political support for nuclear• Review safety measures, mitigate risks, and follow up with business as usual

Crossroads

• Countries are beginning to question the viability of nuclear power as a source of energy for the future; do the ‘pros’ outweigh the ‘cons’? Table 1 – Distribution of nuclear reactors worldwide: 78 out of 438 have reached or will

reach the end of their 40-year cycle, the majority in the United States (Glaser, 2011).

Glaser, 2011

6

‘Pros’ and ‘cons’ of nuclear energy Pros of nuclear energy Cons of nuclear energy Low fuel cost and high energy density – Nuclear energy requires very little fuel to operate and nuclear power efficiency is a thousand times more efficient than oil, gas, or coal energy.

Nuclear and radiation accidents – This is the biggest con of nuclear energy; three major accidents within the last 30 years (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima).

No GHGs/ air pollution – Nuclear energy does not produce any GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil (e.g. coal). Attractive source of cheap, clean and scalable source of energy.

Nuclear waste disposal – There is no full proof way to dispose of nuclear waste after it is used in the nuclear reactors. There are presently 430 locations around the world where radioactive materials are stored.

High load factor – Load factor for solar and wind energy ranges from 15-40%. Nuclear power on the other hand has a load factor of 85-90%, which is the highest in the energy industry.

Radioactivity bi-product from normal activity – nuclear power plants produce a large volume of low-level radiation waste.

Nuclear power provides 15% of the world’s electricity demands Nuclear proliferation – countries have used the ruse of nuclear energy programs to develop nuclear weapons.

Untapped potential – Nuclear energy holds more potential than the limited and peak features of alternative forms of energy.

Regulations – nuclear energy regulations are cumbersome due to risks of a failure of a nuclear reactor, thus driving the price up to generate nuclear energy.

Shah, 2011

7

Background on the Fukushima incident

Event • On March 11th, 2011 the east coast of Japan was hit by a trifecta of disastrous

events: an 9.0 earthquake, followed by a massive tsunami, and the critical failure of three nuclear reactors in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex and led to the release of radioactive materials into the environment (Katsuta, 2015).

• Second larges nuclear since Chernobyl (1986), scoring a level 7 event classification of the International Nuclear Event Scale (Butler, Parkhill & Pidgeon, 2011).

Response• Japan decided to temporarily shut down all 25 nuclear power plants (48

commercial reactors) and revaluate its nuclear safety standards.

• Four years later (August 2015), a nuclear power plant operated by Kyushu Electric Power in Sendai restarted its power plant (Brachmann, 2015).

•More power plants will become operational once they pass new safety measures

• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33858350

Citizens protesting the re-opening of the Sendai plant

8

What we know (1) •Prior to Fukushima, about 440 reactors in 30 countries have been operating for almost 25 years without any major incidents (Glaser, 2011).

•Nuclear energy is time-tasted, scalable, and a low carbon power generation source.

•Following the Fukushima incident, public opinion on nuclear energy is at an all time (Table 2).

•Countries are more prone to revise their nuclear energy policies following disastrous nuclear events (e.g. Germany considering an accelerated phase out of nuclear energy by 2022).

• People are more likely to be in favor of nuclear energy if they believe it will help in climate change mitigation.

•Value consensus on the safety and viability of nuclear energy has not been reached by society

Figure 1 – Nuclear energy public opinion poll: respondents were asked whether they (1) strongly or somewhat support nuclear energy or; (2) strongly or somewhat oppose nuclear. Poll was conducted between April 6-21, 2011. Sample size was weighted to 500 for each country. (Butler, Parkhill & Pidgeon, 2011)

9

Media coverage – what the ‘good’ guys are saying

Interpretative package Definition Media example

Progress frameDualistic notion; nuclear hold the power to do good (energy production) and bad (weaponry and destruction).

“The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design of poor design and corner cutting, Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation”

Energy independence Nuclear as a viable alternative energy source. Used in media rhetoric during the 1970s oil crisis.

“The recent disaster in Fukushima has set public confidence about nuclear energy to levels not seen since Chernobyl or Three Mile Island disasters. This is really a shame, because I believe that nuclear power, if the proper precautions are taken, could greatly lessen the current dependency for fossil fuels, something which is direly needed.”

Devil’s bargain Nuclear as a lesser of evils, capable of producing low carbon energy in the context of climate change and GHG mitigation.

“If we abandon nuclear, prepare for future of future of catastrophic global warming, imperilling the survival of civilization and much of the earth’s biosphere.”

Table 2 – Media Interpretative packages used to frame the nuclear energy debate (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989) and media extracts from news coverage (Butler, Parkhill & Pidgeon, 2011).

10

Media coverage – what the ‘bad guys’ are saying Interpretative package Definition Media example

Soft path

Critique of nuclear energy based on the burden it places on society (e.g. culture dependent on centralized technologies, and environmentally destructive).

“100% renewables (and geothermal is where we need to get to eventually—so why not seek to get there just as soon as possible without yet another disastrous foray into today’s nuclear cul-de-sac?”

Public accountabilityAnti-corporate greed outlook.

The Japanese are increasingly raising the possibility that a culture of complacency made the plant especially vulnerable to the natural disaster that struck the country on March 11.”

Cost effective Questions surrounding the economic benefits of nuclear. “Fukushima shows us the real cost of nuclear…The economics of nuclear power don’t add up—which is more reason to invest in renewable energy.”

Runaway Complacency as opposed to downright opposition, just ‘grin and bear it’.

“The twin natural disasters have also turned the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into Frankenstein’s monster, man-made object threatening man.”

Table 1 – Media Interpretative packages used to frame the nuclear energy debate (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989) and media extracts from news coverage (Butler, Parkhill & Pidgeon, 2011).

11

What we know (2) Japanese context •The Japanese public is now more strongly opposed the nuclear energy post Fukushima (Figure 2) • By shattering the government’s long-pitched safety myth

about nuclear power, the incident increased public awareness and the national energy debate almost overnight.

•The Japan Scientists’ Association formally opposes nuclear energy, and that its opposition is based upon scientific analysis of the incident in Fukushima and its impact.

•Very few cancers are expected to be contracted as a result of accumulated radiation exposure.

•Current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is pro nuclear: “Resuming nuclear energy – which supplied 1/3 of Japan’s energy demands pre-Fukushima – is key to lifting the economy out of two decades of anemic growth.” Figure 2 – Nuclear energy public opinion poll (continued): respondents who

were opposed to nuclear were then asked if they held this view previously or if Fukushima made them oppose nuclear Sample size was weighted to 500 for each country (Butler, Parkhill & Pidgeon, 2011)

12

What we don’t know •Uncertainty in the total volume of radioactive materials released into the environment.

•Uncertainty in the long-term persistency of chemical substances near the coastline and the geographical extent of contamination.

• Medium / long-term investments in nuclear energy and what the implications will be for global energy markets are still uncertain (nuclear energy policy post Fukushima: phase out vs business as usual).

• What are the long-term health impacts of the 160,000 people evacuated from the region? When will they be able to return? • Chernobyl as a case study – psychosomatic problems, including: radiophobia and fatalistic alcoholism.• How long will they be evacuated?

• Will Japan’s new safety guidelines be rigorous enough to prevent a future nuclear catastrophe?

(Butler, Parkhill & Pidgeon, 2011)

13

Japan’s return to nuclear – Interface of science and policy (1)

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is pushing for a return to nuclear power while polls show that most people are against the restart • Issue advocates: business and industry lobby groups • “we cannot afford to continue importing huge quantities of oil and natural gas, while the growing reliance on thermal

power generation has stalled Japan’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.

Competing values and perspectives on the safety of nuclear energy• Re-opening of Sendai plant • The Sendai ruling to re-open the plant based on the ‘latest scientific knowledge’ and Kyushu Electric power claims that chances of a similar natural disaster

from occurring are minimal. • Flip side: Sendai’s plant is located 50km away from one of Japan’s most active volcanoes; many volcanologists insist that it is scientifically impossible to

predict the eruption of volcanoes.

• Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) • New safety checks will prevent a repeat of a similar nuclear catastrophe for happening.• Sendai authorities have not devised a comprehensive evacuation plan for more than 200,000 people living within a 30km radius. • “The lengths to which safety issues have been ignored in the NRA’s review process for the Sendai plant restart shows how desperate the nuclear industry

and their government allies are”.

(Katsuta, 2015)

14

Japan’s return to nuclear - Science / Policy Interface (2)

Competing values and perspectives on the economic viability of nuclear energy

Pro nuclear

•According to industry, nuclear energy will help reduce electricity prices for consumers.

•Japan has to import large quantities of oil and coal to make up for the energy deficit which is costly; re-opening the plants will lift that burden.

Anti nuclear

• If you factor clean up costs if a disaster were to occur, the cost of nuclear energy far outweigh the economic benefits.

Image credit: BBC News, 2015

15

Discussion topics Opening the floor

1) Are you for or against nuclear energy? Do the benefits of nuclear outweigh the risks? Which interpretative package best suits you?

General feedback

2) Is this a relevant topic for the science-policy interface discussion? Why or why not?

3) Can the pursuit of more scientific knowledge lead to better decision-making in the nuclear energy context?

4) Polls show that the Japanese people are more opposed to nuclear energy. Why was the Sendai nuclear plant re-opened anyway?

5) Is there a specific topic within the case study worth exploring further? How can I refine my research?

6) Any other advice / input concerning the case study?

16

Bibliography •Glaser, A. (2011). After Fukushima: Preparing for a More Uncertain Future of Nuclear Power. The Electricity Journal, 24, 27-35.

•Shah, S. (2011, July 5). Nuclear Power Plants Pros and Cons: Europe Decides Cons too Disastrous . Retrieved September 29, 2015, from Green World Investor: http://www.greenworldinvestor.com/2011/07/05/nuclear-power-plants-pros- and-cons-europe-decides-cons-too-disastorous/

•Butler, C., Parkhill, K. A., & Pidgeon, N. (2011). Nuclear Power After Japan: The Social Dimensions. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53, 3-14.

•Brachmann, S. (2015, August 22). Four years after Fukushima, Japan Returns to nuclear power generation. IPWatchdog. Retrieved from http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/08/22/four-years-after-fukushima-japan-returns-to- nuclear-power-generation/id=60767/

•Katsuta, T. (2015, December 8). Why was the sendai nuclear power plant restarted?. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved from http://thebulletin.org/why-was-sendai- nuclear-power-plant-restarted8644

•Nestle, U. (2012). Does the use of nuclear power lead to lower electricity prices? An analysis of the debate in Germany with an international perspective. Energy Policy, 41, 152- 160.