Can Nuclear Power Be an Answer to India’s Electricity Needs?

Read in German, SpanishJapanese (日本語 )and French.

M. V. Ramana

The Indian government is engaged in discussions with the Japanese government aimed at concluding a bilateral nuclear cooperation pact; this would allow India to import nuclear reactor parts from Japan. The primary argument given for India’s plans to expand nuclear power is that the country already suffers electricity shortages and its electricity demand is fast growing.

There are at least three sad realities that underlie this discussion. The first, and perhaps most poignant, is that Japan, which is currently facing tremendous democratic opposition to restarting nuclear reactors within the country, is considering exporting nuclear reactor parts to a country where, again, there is significant opposition to nuclear power, especially at all the sites that have been selected for installing reactors imported from companies like Westinghouse, General Electric and Areva. Their reasons for such opposition are not difficult to discern. In the aftermath of 11 March 2011, people near an existing or proposed nuclear reactor can—and do—imagine themselves suffering a fate similar to those of the inhabitants of the areas around Fukushima. These nuclear reactors are also located in areas that support thousands of people living off farming, fishing, and other occupations, and these people see, quite correctly, the reactor as a major threat to their livelihoods. The Indian government’s response to the opposition has been a combination of coercion, bribery, and propaganda. Support for the Indian government’s nuclear efforts, therefore, cannot be considered respectful of democratic rights.… Continue reading

Sacrifice and Spiritual Law: Solutions for Fukushima

Japanese (日本語 ), German and French

by Akio Matsumura

“Thirty seconds into what may ultimately be regarded as one of the defining speeches of his career, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe slowly raised his hands chest high, then spread them out sideways in a gesture of confidence.
“Let me assure you,” he said, addressing members of the International Olympic Committee on Sept. 7. “The situation is under control.”
The prime minister was attempting to convince his audience in Buenos Aires that the multiple meltdowns at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, initiated by tsunami triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011, should not be a cause of concern for Tokyo hosting the Summer Olympic Games in 2020.
The nuclear accident, he said, “has never done and will never do any damage to Tokyo.” (Jun Hongo, The Japan Times)

Prime Minister Abe’s brash confidence is not supported by the news of flagging cleanup efforts at reactors 1, 2, 3, and 4. In fact, the volume of stories of unanticipated but ongoing mechanical failures and worker mistakes can be hard to follow. What do we do with figures like “400,000 becquerels per liter” or 1,533 spent fuel assemblies?  And any attempt at understanding is further complicated by the limited reliability of the information, an issue that could be resolved by true independent assessment on a wide range of technical issues, such as hydrology and mechanical and electrical engineering.

The fundamental question remains the same: what will be the outcome at Fukushima?… Continue reading

Needless Nuclear Reprocessing: The Bridge to Unnecessary Risk

Read in French and German

Introduction by Akio Matsumura

I decided to work full time on expanding the conversation on the Fukushima accident and cleanup process because of one reason:  nuclear power plant accidents have the ability to alter our land and society for tens of thousands years. We have seen major conflict over the last centuries, but even in the case of World War II, in which 60 million people died, our societies have proved resilient and recovered in a matter of decades, even if permanently altered. A full fuel pool fire would bring us a catastrophe like we’ve never seen.

The work of Frank von Hippel, a professor at Princeton University  and co-founder of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, has brought the issues of reprocessing spent fuel, another aspect of nuclear technology laden with risk, to my attention. Chris Cote, editor and contributor to this blog, summarizes a recent report by Frank von Hippel and Masafumi Takubo and describes the technology’s ability to be a bridge to further risk: the creation of plutonium, a nuclear weapon material. I’d like to thank Dr. von Hippel for his help in reviewing this summary for publication here.

 Needless Nuclear Reprocessing:

The Bridge to Unnecessary Risk

Chris Cote

Japan’s Other Nuclear Program

Irradiated water continues to flow into the Pacific Ocean from Fukushima Daiichi, three reactors remain radioactive and unapproachable, and a fourth loaded with spent fuel could collapse under its own weight. Amidst this disorder, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government has shifted attention away from the cleanup and at the same time is planning to expand Japan’s nuclear capabilities by opening the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant some 270 miles north of the Fukushima power plants.… Continue reading

Japan’s Fault: The Risks of Mt. Fuji’s Eruption and Nuclear Power

Read in Japanese (日本語), Spanish, German, and French.

by Akio Matsumura

 

Please see this response from Jorge Zanelli, theoretical physicist  and former head of a presidential commission to assess the nuclear option for Chile.

 

What if Mt. Fuji erupts? The question seems random and provocative, but it is one we should be asking.

The Great Tohoku Earthquake that caused the Fukushima nuclear power plants disaster in March 2011 has caused scientists to worry that Mt. Fuji could erupt in the next two years.

Several indicators – increased pressure in the magma chamber, receding lake water levels nearby, cracks in the crust – signal that the volcano, dormant for 300 years, has been affected by recent seismic activity (Japan Today). A study released July 27 by the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in Japan concluded that Mt. Fuji has erupted 43 times in total over the past 2,000 years, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported.

There is a strong precedent for large earthquakes (>M9.0) causing volcanic eruptions within three years:

  • December 26, 2004 at Sumatra, Indonesia. Earthquake M9.2 –Talang Volcano erupted April 12, 2005. And Tangkuban Perahu at West Java, Indonesia erupted March 13, 2005.
  • March 27, 1964 at Alaska, USA. Earthquake M9.2 – Redoubt Volcano erupted January 24, 1966.
  • May 22, 1960 at Valdivia, Chile. Earthquake M9.5 – Cordon Caulle erupted May 24, 1960.

 

No one can predict with accuracy when an eruption will occur, but to ignore the possibility that an eruption might occur — whether in 1, 5, 20, or 100 years — is dangerous and irresponsible.… Continue reading

Beyond Control: Our Loosening Grasp on Nuclear Security

Read in FrenchGerman, Japanese (日本語 ), and Spanish.

To most, nuclear security means Iran and North Korea. While these do present global security threats, the intersection of many under-discussed components of nuclear power, such as nuclear waste, reprocessing, and more power plants in the developing world, has the ability to cause major global crisis if not immediately prepared for by military and civilian leaders.

 

In early July, the UN International Atomic Energy Agency concluded a week long ministerial conference on nuclear security where analysts found, Bloomberg’s Jonathan Tirone reported, “Japan’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant, whose 2011 meltdowns dislocated 160,000 people, may provide a new blueprint for terrorists seeking to inflict mass disruption.”

 

The nuclear industry is burgeoning worldwide. Some 100 new reactors have been proposed to be constructed in coming years, bringing the world total near 600 reactors. This proliferation of nuclear power will tip the balance so the security risks outweigh the benefits and place the world’s people in harm’s way.

The big business opportunities that go with plant construction and the prestige that comes with being a nuclear power generator cause companies and countries to gloss over potential disaster and proliferation risks.

Many of these new plants will be in developing countries — first-time owners of nuclear power with relatively unstable governments, uncertain security capacities, and higher percentages of unskilled labor. Developed countries — with strong regulatory frameworks, good training programs, and competent engineers, managers, and scientists — have proven several times over that their plants are susceptible to human error or natural disaster.… Continue reading