Despite being an isolated island nation devoid of great natural resource wealth, Japan ranks third globally in national energy production. As industrialization in Japan increased exponentially after World War II, the nation gradually diversified its energy sources. A key component of this diversification was the incorporation of nuclear power; before the disaster at the Fukushima Plant, 30% of Japan’s energy came from nuclear sources. In comparison, the United States receives roughly 8% of its energy from nuclear power. Nuclear power is the largest single source of energy in Japan, and has had an enormous role in its quest for energy independence.
Before the Fukushima disaster, the Japanese government had declared its intention to source 50% of its energy from nuclear power. An article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists extends the safety issues precipitated by Fukushima to a broader question: if Japan were to continue with its development of nuclear power, how would its energy infrastructure recoup from a subsequent disaster? Japan is extraordinarily vulnerable to earthquakes, and the greater the number of plants, the more likely it is that any given earthquake will have an effect. My colleague Alastair Su is right to note, “It required both heavy tremors and the tsunami for the reactor’s coolant system to fail.” Another freak accident on this scale, however, isn’t out of the question in a place as geologically volatile as Japan.
I don’t disagree with Alastair’s contention that nuclear power can fill a massive gap in energy production, but the expansion of nuclear power now can have deleterious effects in the future. The gravest aspect of the Fukushima crisis relates to the spent fuel rods in storage pools within the individual reactors. The rods sit in pools of water, with the goal of cooling the rods after use. The fuel rod issue is revelatory, and echoes one of the foremost concerns about nuclear power on a global scale. Nuclear plants have a lifespan of between 40 and 60 years. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates the cost of decommissioning a single plant at $300 million, an effort made more difficult by the question of waste disposal.
Nuclear energy is often touted as a semi-renewable resource. Nuclear plants emit very little, but they are incumbent on uranium mining. The Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD reports that current estimates indicate there is enough uranium to fuel consumption rates for “at least a century.” The NEA believes that uranium resources are sufficient to meet current expansion plans. Among the top ten producers of uranium are Kazakhstan, Namibia, Russia, and Niger. The geopolitical aspects of nuclear power must be considered alongside questions of low emissions.
A major point of contention in nuclear power expansion is the licensing of civilian nuclear power. This issue was at the forefront of the 123 Agreement between the United States and India, in which the United States altered domestic law to allow India to place civil nuclear facilities under the auspices of the IAEA. Similar agreements may be necessary for other major energy consumers to develop nuclear infrastructure.
The debate over nuclear power is extensive and by no means superfluous. The longitudinal effects of nuclear power expansion, however, must be of eminent consideration.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons