Ten years on from Fukushima: Are we asking the right questions about nuclear energy?

 NOTE: This is a repost of a blog I wrote for the Centre for International Policy Studies. See the original here (it comes along with a video version!): https://www.cips-cepi.ca/2021/03/15/ten-years-on-from-fukushima-are-we-asking-the-right-questions-about-nuclear-energy/

On March 11, 2011, an earthquake and tsunami originating near Tōhoku, Japan, caused inordinate damage to communities across Japan’s Eastern coastline. It also triggered a meltdown at the Fukushima Daīchi Nuclear Power Plant.

Today – a decade later – the post-disaster clean-up and rebuilding process outside of Fukushima Prefecture is mostly complete, meeting the Japan Reconstruction Agency’s 10-year timeline for earthquake and tsunami restoration. However, the post-meltdown recovery in Fukushima itself is slated to take much longer. A large swath of land surrounding the power plant was contaminated with radiation, and some 70,000 workers continue with daily decontamination efforts. 

The recovery workload within the contaminated areas is beyond comprehension: paved surfaces need to be pressure-washed, roofs wiped down, topsoil cleared, and even leaves cleared from the forest floor! Over 320,000 truckloads of contaminated topsoil have been removed from the exclusion zone thus far. Much of it is destined for an interim storage facility in the region, but where it will go after that is a matter of political debate. As contaminated soil awaits the trip to the facility, much of it sits in orderly stacks of large plastic bags located throughout the countryside. 

The villages and towns in the exclusion zone serve as an eerie reminder that a different kind of disaster happened there. Even areas that have been deemed safe for the return of human inhabitants are only lightly populated. The result is a smattering of ghost towns with abandoned and overgrown buildings adjacent to semi-vacant safe zones, where a much smaller (and older) population now resides. It seems many families with young children are not keen to return to the area. 

The economic costs of the disaster are also hard to comprehend. The earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown together caused $211 billion USD in direct losses. Further, over the last decade, the government has budgeted 31.3 trillion yen (US$288 billion) for the rebuilding effort.

One estimate of the total cost of the disaster throughout the expected 40-year recovery period is $1 trillion USD, with 80% related to the meltdown. Pandemic aside, life in many parts of Japan has returned to “normal.” But parts of Fukushima may not see a return to “normal” for many generations.

What are the short- and long-term risks to society posed by the construction, operation, (re)fuelling, refurbishment, and eventual decommissioning of nuclear power plants? What are the short- and long-term benefits to society derived from this relatively low-carbon source of steady ‘baseload’ power? Do the social, ecological and economic benefits outweigh the risks or vice versa? These are the fundamental questions we need to be asking about civilian nuclear energy projects everywhere. Yet my research finds that these questions receive inadequate public attention – at least not by the nuclear industry or civilian nuclear societies promoting nuclear energy as a low carbon energy source.

My research into nuclear energy was prompted by the emergence of the “Climate First” movement – a major shift within environmentalist circles regarding its stance on nuclear energy. For decades nuclear energy was one of the foremost targets of the environmental movement; to be an environmentalist in the 20^th Century was to be anti-nuclear. But with the environmental movement’s shifting attention to climate change near the turn of the Century, some environmentalists had a change of heart.

To their credit, many individuals within the Climate First fold have engaged in a comprehensive discussion about the risk-benefit trade-offs of nuclear energy. In my recent article, I reviewed a dozen pro-nuclear books written by individual nuclear proponents and scored them according to their willingness to disclose risks; all of them scored a ‘5’ – the highest level of risk disclosure. All the authors admitted that there are risks associated with nuclear energy, but claimed these are manageable, and more importantly, the hazards are relatively minor compared to the perils of runaway climate change. They thus argued that we need to massively scale-up nuclear energy now in order to save humanity from the far greater scourge of anthropogenic climate change. 

Some Climate First proponents even came to this conclusion after the Fukushima disaster. For them, the calculus has largely come down to the comparatively low death toll of the meltdown compared to the natural disasters which caused it. The numbers are still a bit murky – but whereas there were nearly 16,000 deaths as a result of the tsunami, there were reportedly zero deaths caused by radiation poisoning during the meltdown (that officially changed in 2018 when the government linked the lung cancer death of a Fukushima worker to the meltdown, though even that single death’s connection to the meltdown is disputed by some). Meanwhile, the stress of evacuating the area during the meltdown is associated with the deaths of between 573 and 2,304 people.

Comparative assessments of the relatively low death toll from radiation associated with nuclear accidents are just one (crude) method of debating whether nuclear power qualifies as a “safe” and “clean” source of energy. There is a wide range of other social, ecological and economic risks associated with the technology, including uranium mining, transporting nuclear fuel and waste, the construction and operation of power plants, and the long-term storage of nuclear waste. 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the nuclear industry and governmental agencies are reluctant to participate in nuanced discussions about these risks. When I reviewed the official statements and public materials disseminated by the industry-led Nuclear 4 Climate (N4C) initiative, I found it consistently avoided activating “risk frames” (scoring between 1.1 and 2.2 on the 5-point risk disclosure scale, meaning that they barely mentioned risks at all).

From a strategic communications point of view, it makes perfect sense to avoid highlighting risk in public discourse, particularly if the goal is to draw positive conceptual associations between “nuclear energy” and “clean energy.” Recent research into the way societies interpret nuclear risk suggests that for most people, most of the time, their perspectives will be shaped by passive, affective thought processes – quick, subconscious thoughts influenced by imagery, phrasing, and emotional and ideological connections.

In order to change an individual’s perspective about nuclear energy, one would need to tap into their rational thought process, but that’s difficult to do without time to think. So, if you’re setting up a display booth at a UN Climate Conference trying to promote nuclear as a low carbon energy source to passersby, the last thing you want to do is show imagery of the Fukushima meltdown and try to make a nuanced argument about how relatively low was the death toll (the mere mention of ‘Fukushima’ would have already turned off the audience)!

Herein lies an ethical dilemma for Climate First proponents: They urgently want to promote a major scale-up of nuclear energy, seeing it as a key tool to fight climate change. And yet, by talking about nuclear in an open way – debating the risks and benefits across society, the economy and the environment – they could slow down the pace of development, even turn people away from the very technology they seek to promote! 

Yet in reflecting on the Fukushima disaster ten years on, we should nevertheless welcome such thorough and honest conversations about nuclear energy – and be open to the possibility that our preconceptions about the technology may not be informed by the latest science. We should look closely at the legacy of Fukushima – not to try to justify pre-existing positions for or against nuclear energy – but rather as an important visual question for polities seeking to benefit from the steady low-carbon power it provides: Are we willing to accept the risk that a similar fate may befall us all?

The Nuclear Renaissance is Dead… Did Canada Miss the Memo?

Here's my latest post for the Centre for International Policy Studies Blog, available here.

Since the early 2000s, there has been much talk about the “nuclear renaissance” — the expected revival and expansion of the civilian nuclear energy industry. The idea has largely been kept afloat by industry efforts to promote nuclear energy as a necessary part of global climate change mitigation efforts, as well as the ambitious plans made by certain countries to greatly expand nuclear power (China, notably).

The problem is that hard facts show no evidence of a revival… at all! In fact, nuclear energy’s heyday was way back in the mid-1980s, when the world saw net gains of between 20 and 30 reactors each year. In comparison, in the last five years there has only been an average net gain of 4.5 reactors per year. In terms of global electricity production, nuclear energy peaked in 2006, at 2,660 TWh — today nuclear is producing 7% less electricity! The story for nuclear’s share of global electricity production is even worse. That figure peaked in 1996 at 17.5%; today nuclear only provides 10.5% of the world’s electricity — a decline of 40%! Clearly, there is no renaissance. If anything, the long-term trends show early signs of decline.

These are some of the key messages of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2017 (WNISR) — launched in Canada last week at the University of Ottawa, in an event co-sponsored by the Centre for International Policy Studiesand Smart Prosperity Institute. The event featured keynote speaker Mycle Schneider, Lead Convening Author and Publisher of the WNISR, with two discussants who contextualized these trends for Canada’s energy and climate policies — Ralph Torrie of Torrie Smith Associates, and Catherine Abreu of Climate Action Network Canada.

Schneider spoke of how nuclear energy is exceptionally expensive (relative, in particular, to renewables), how nuclear projects are prone to cost overruns and eventual abandonment, and how most “nuclear nations” have long ago seen the peak of nuclear production (including Canada, which today does not produce as much as it did in 1994). Further, the argument that nuclear energy is a necessary component of climate mitigation was thoroughly debunked by all three speakers, in part because reactor construction projects are so notoriously slow (it takes, on average, ten years for a reactor to be built) and expensive, that a much cheaper, quicker solution with free fuel is readily available in renewables.You would be forgiven for wondering whether this is all just a manifestation of the “Fukushima effect” — a sudden but temporary downturn since the 2011 meltdown in Japan. But you would be wrong. Although the industry’s lead lobby organization, the World Nuclear Association, paints an image of growth, particularly since 2011, nuclear’s slide in global output began over a decade ago. Just look at the financial situation of a number of global nuclear giants — including Japan-based TEPCO (operator of Fukushima-Daiichi) and Toshiba, German-based RWE and E.ON, and French-based EDR and AREVA. Many of these companies are facing crippling debts or bankruptcies, but most importantly their share prices started to plummet back in 2007/08 — yearsbefore the Fukushima disaster. While global investment in nuclear energy has ranged between $10 and $50 billion US (per year) over the last five years, investment in renewables has ranged between $240–$310 billion US (per year) over the same period.

You would also be forgiven for wondering whether nuclear’s fortunes were about to rebound once all this talk of “Small Modular Reactors” (or SMRs) — supposedly safer and cheaper fission reactors — becomes a reality. But you’d be wrong again. Despite billions spent on developing SMRs, the industry has not yet had one functional SMR come online. More importantly, investors are starting to jump ship after realizing that there is just no market for such expensive electricity when much cheaper alternatives are available. The talk of SMRs is reminiscent of the old fusion joke in nuclear circles — it’s always been just ten years away! As WNISR 2017 concludes, “there is no sign at this point that SMRs could play any major role in tomorrow’s electricity generating business.”

Finally, you would also have been forgiven for thinking that nuclear development — however expensive or slow — is nevertheless needed as a counterpoint to renewables for those times when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. This argument has been made by many pro-nuclear environmentalists, who lament how the shuttering of nuclear power plants leads to more gas-fired plants. But yet again, the speakers at the WNISR launch were unanimous in suggesting that this idea too is wrongheaded. Unlike the 20^th century, where the model was based on a few large utilities cranking out tons of baseload power at all hours of the day to satiate wanton consumption — for the 21^st century, we are working on smart grids, smart generation, and energy efficiency. Tomorrow’s model is thus diffuse and decentralized, with countless nodes of generation and storage located all throughout the network, and it is “responsive” — in generating (or releasing, from batteries) electricity when and where it is needed. The irony in the pro-nuclear argument is that technological innovation is touted as the best way to make nuclear safer, cheaper, and quicker to build, yet brushed aside for the problems of energy storage and grid transformation.

The WNISR launch was certainly enlightening, but it sure left many audience members confused about another report launched the same week — the Government of Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP). Despite its decades-old nuclear power plants, Ontario is spending billions of dollars refurbishing them over the next two decades. According to one independent assessment, these expenditures on nuclear have caused Ontario’s electricity prices to skyrocket. Meanwhile, another report from 2016 discusses the significant economic benefits to be gained from decommissioning Ontario’s nuclear power plants today. As Canada’s main driver of nuclear development, Ontario seems to be headed in the wrong direction. If Ontario truly wants an affordable, low-carbon, flexible electricity grid, it may be time to jump off the nuclear renaissance bandwagon.

CIPS Blogpost on Nuclear Energy Debate After Chernobyl/Fukushima

The following was originally posted on the Centre for International Policy Studies' Blog.

Despite the “Never Again” Attitude of Chernobyl Commemorations, Nuclear Gets Boost from Unlikely Source

By Ryan Katz-Rosene
May 10, 2016

This spring has marked two painful anniversaries. April 26 was the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986, the worst nuclear accident in history. Chernobyl was a complete disaster, from planning and design to emergency preparedness and response management. It was also a tragedy resulting in over 40 direct deaths (occurring within months of the meltdown), and further exposing an additional 4,000 people to unsafe levels of radiation (or 40,000 — depending on who you read). Not to mention the social dislocation experienced by the 115,000 people evacuated from the area.

March 11 marked the 5th anniversary of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown. Unlike Chernobyl, the accident was not triggered by human mistakes, but it was similar to the Soviet-era disaster in relation to failures of design, response, and human impacts. It caused between zero and 60 directlyrelated deaths from radiation exposure in the aftermath of the explosions (again, depending on the assessment), and between zero and 5,000 indirect radiation-related deaths. At Fukushima there were some 100,000 people evacuated, a chaotic process which itself is said to have caused over 1,500 deaths.

While these two incidents have left an indelible mark on global impressions about the safety risks of nuclear energy, fuelling a “never again” attitude towards the industry, it would be a mistake to take this as a sign of nuclear power’s global decline. In fact, nuclear power has grown over the years, and with reactors in over 30 countries, it provides 11% of the global electricity supply (18% in OECD nations). While Germany and Italy have both vowed to go nuclear free in the wake of Fukushima, numerous other countries (China, France, the UK, Poland, for instance) have renewed nuclear intentions, making 2014 the year with the most nuclear start-ups in 25 years.

From an industry perspective, nuclear is making a comeback (though as with all nuclear issues this point is hotly contested). There are presently some 65 reactors under construction around the world with another 173 officially planned. Most remarkably, the pro-nuclear movement is receiving a boost from an unlikely group of supporters, the very crowd that has played an instrumental role in raising awareness about the dangers of nuclear energy — environmentalists!

As Cohen and McKillop (2012) claim, “once upon a time, all self-respecting environmentalists hated nuclear power,” yet in recent decades growing attention to climate change has completely “reversed green politics” (42). Now, a number of globally renowned environmentalists point to nuclear energy as a “climate fix.” This includes eminent environmental thinkers like Gaia theorist James Lovelock, environmental columnist George Monbiot, editor of the Whole Earth Catalogue Stewart Brand, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency Carol Browner, co-founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore — the list goes on.

For such “ecomodernist” proponents of nuclear power, the threat of runaway climate change is far more severe — and far more likely to materialize — than the risks posed by a localized meltdown, leakage of radioactive waste, or even a terrorist dirty bomb. In their eyes, the low-carbon electricity produced by nuclear power is necessary to minimize the risks posed to hundreds of millions of people from rising sea levels, increased severe weather, and the intensified drought, heat waves, wildfires, and flooding associated with climate change. Nuclear power, they argue, has already saved lives and could save millions more.

One of the best-known environmentalists to come out as a major proponent of nuclear energy is James Hansen, the former Director of the NASA Goddard Institute, who has received numerous awards and accolades as one of the world’s leading thinkers on climate change. In the wake of the 2015 Paris Climate Talks, Hansen and three colleagues wrote an op-ed calling for a major scale-up of nuclear power (in conjunction with investments in renewable). This was, they said, the only feasible means to obtain the Paris objectives of limiting the Earth’s warming  to 2°C: “Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them,” they concluded.

Not everyone is convinced, however. This shift in attitudes about nuclear energy has led to a genuine rift in the global environmental movement. The “never again” mantra regarding nuclear is thus being interpreted in two main ways. There’s the “cold turkey” approach, where the only way to avoid another Chernobyl or Fukushima is to phase out nuclear power altogether and find some other way of decarbonizing the electricity market. This would be through renewables like solar and wind, with biomass to cover the “intermittency problem” of producing baseload electricity when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. Or, there’s the “necessary evil” approach, where nuclear energy, despite its inherent risks, is ultimately a required tool in the climate-change-mitigation fight. The only way to avoid another Chernobyl or Fukushima, in this view, is to pair the nuclear scale-up with technological innovations (safer types of nuclear reactors) and strong regulations to enhance safety practices and mitigate other risks posed by radioactive waste, terrorism, and proliferation.

This rift has left many nations — and environmentalists — contemplating the trade-offs between energy and investment policies today and the way they might influence various global security risks of the future. It also leaves them hedging bets about how electricity will be generated and stored in the coming years, and feeling pressure to make decisions now based on the trajectories of technological development and costs of alternatives such as renewables.

Canada, with the world’s second largest uranium reserves, and with plans to show global leadership in addressing global warming, has an important role to play in such discussions.

Ryan Katz-Rosene is a SSHRC Post-doctoral Fellow at the University of Ottawa’s School of Political Studies, and a Board Member of the Environmental Studies Association of Canada. In November 2015, his talk at CIPS was entitled Between “Doomsday Machine” and “Climate Fix”: The Ecological Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in Canada. He lives on a small family farm in Cantley, Quebec.