Overnight, the situation at Fukushima Daiichi appears to have worsened. Yesterday, there were confident statements issued, particularly by the head of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who said that he had no doubt that the crisis would be ‘effectively overcome’. But today, Japanese Industry Minister Banri Kaieda has said that the situation is “extremely tough” and that it’s “difficult to say that things are showing progress”. Steam and smoke have continued to rise periodically from reactors 2 and 3 and spikes in radiation levels around the plant have meant that the workers who are struggling to repair the damaged reactors have had to pull back several times.
Perhaps even more worryingly, levels of radiation far above legal limits have now been discovered in the sea off Fukushima. The Japanese energy company that runs the Fukushima plant, Tepco, is investigating why the radiation has been found. Tepco will also have to compensate the farmers around the Fukushima plant for losses they will suffer as a result of the elevated radiation levels, which will effectively render their crops unsaleable.
So with the situation of the crippled nuclear plant at Fukushima still very uncertain, what has that meant to people’s attitudes to nuclear power here in the UK? Friends of the Earth commissioned Gkf NOP to carry out a telephone poll last weekend to discover how opinions were changing. Only 9% of people wanted investment in nuclear energy, with 75% preferring renewables or increased energy efficiency.
Overall, 35% of the people questioned would still support the replacement of our existing nuclear power stations, with 28% opposed. This differs considerably from the position in November 2010, when 47% of people supported nuclear power for the future, while 19% were against it.
The EU is committed to reducing its carbon emissions by 80-95% from 1990 levels by 2050. Without nuclear power in the mix, this will be more challenging. Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary has said that in the UK, we can achieve an 80% reduction without new nuclear power plants, but it would involve using carbon capture and storage and a much increased level of renewable energy. Carbon capture and storage technology is still being developed and is unlikely to be ready for large-scale use for at least 10 years.
So we do have something of a dilemma. There is no doubt our energy needs are going to be increasing and there is also no doubt that we should be reducing our carbon emissions if we want to have a hope of slowing climate change. So nuclear energy, as a carbon-free energy is a very likely candidate.
But what we haven’t discussed much recently in the media is what happens to the spent nuclear fuel, which remains dangerously radioactive for hundreds of years. Globally, there are around 270,000 tonnes of used fuel in storage, mostly at reactor sites. It is stored in cooling ponds for 40-50 years, by which time its radioactivity has fallen by 1,000 times. Cooling ponds are 7 metres deep and filled with water, so that spent fuel rods have at least 3 metres of water to shield and cool them. After 40-50 years the waste can be encapsulated and disposed of – generally in underground storage facilities. Here in the UK, as in France, Japan and Germany we reprocess our spent nuclear fuel, meaning that some of it can be re-used and separated from highly radioactive fission products, which must be disposed of.
So do we really want all this highly dangerous nuclear material being stored around the world? Against this, the nuclear industry is very highly regulated and safety is generally very good at nuclear plants. But when things go wrong, it’s really serious.
I’d love to see the UK push really hard for renewable energy. A survey last year found that over 70% of people in the UK would support the building of a wind farm near their homes, while 60% said they would oppose the building of a nuclear or coal-fired power station near them. That’s a great indicator of the feeling we have about our environment in the UK. The big question is – is a future that relies very heavily on renewables realistic, at least in the short term? I’d love to say it is, but I doubt it. It’s definitely what we should aspire to though and it will be possible in the future if the investment in renewables is made now.
Britons back away from nuclear power
Overnight, the situation at Fukushima Daiichi appears to have worsened. Yesterday, there were confident statements issued, particularly by the head of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who said that he had no doubt that the crisis would be ‘effectively overcome’. But today, Japanese Industry Minister Banri Kaieda has said that the situation is “extremely tough” and that it’s “difficult to say that things are showing progress”. Steam and smoke have continued to rise periodically from reactors 2 and 3 and spikes in radiation levels around the plant have meant that the workers who are struggling to repair the damaged reactors have had to pull back several times.
Perhaps even more worryingly, levels of radiation far above legal limits have now been discovered in the sea off Fukushima. The Japanese energy company that runs the Fukushima plant, Tepco, is investigating why the radiation has been found. Tepco will also have to compensate the farmers around the Fukushima plant for losses they will suffer as a result of the elevated radiation levels, which will effectively render their crops unsaleable.
So with the situation of the crippled nuclear plant at Fukushima still very uncertain, what has that meant to people’s attitudes to nuclear power here in the UK? Friends of the Earth commissioned Gkf NOP to carry out a telephone poll last weekend to discover how opinions were changing. Only 9% of people wanted investment in nuclear energy, with 75% preferring renewables or increased energy efficiency.
Overall, 35% of the people questioned would still support the replacement of our existing nuclear power stations, with 28% opposed. This differs considerably from the position in November 2010, when 47% of people supported nuclear power for the future, while 19% were against it.
The EU is committed to reducing its carbon emissions by 80-95% from 1990 levels by 2050. Without nuclear power in the mix, this will be more challenging. Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary has said that in the UK, we can achieve an 80% reduction without new nuclear power plants, but it would involve using carbon capture and storage and a much increased level of renewable energy. Carbon capture and storage technology is still being developed and is unlikely to be ready for large-scale use for at least 10 years.
So we do have something of a dilemma. There is no doubt our energy needs are going to be increasing and there is also no doubt that we should be reducing our carbon emissions if we want to have a hope of slowing climate change. So nuclear energy, as a carbon-free energy is a very likely candidate.
But what we haven’t discussed much recently in the media is what happens to the spent nuclear fuel, which remains dangerously radioactive for hundreds of years. Globally, there are around 270,000 tonnes of used fuel in storage, mostly at reactor sites. It is stored in cooling ponds for 40-50 years, by which time its radioactivity has fallen by 1,000 times. Cooling ponds are 7 metres deep and filled with water, so that spent fuel rods have at least 3 metres of water to shield and cool them. After 40-50 years the waste can be encapsulated and disposed of – generally in underground storage facilities. Here in the UK, as in France, Japan and Germany we reprocess our spent nuclear fuel, meaning that some of it can be re-used and separated from highly radioactive fission products, which must be disposed of.
So do we really want all this highly dangerous nuclear material being stored around the world? Against this, the nuclear industry is very highly regulated and safety is generally very good at nuclear plants. But when things go wrong, it’s really serious.
I’d love to see the UK push really hard for renewable energy. A survey last year found that over 70% of people in the UK would support the building of a wind farm near their homes, while 60% said they would oppose the building of a nuclear or coal-fired power station near them. That’s a great indicator of the feeling we have about our environment in the UK. The big question is – is a future that relies very heavily on renewables realistic, at least in the short term? I’d love to say it is, but I doubt it. It’s definitely what we should aspire to though and it will be possible in the future if the investment in renewables is made now.