JAPAN AND THE NUCLEAR POWER DEBATE

JAPAN IS STRUGGLING to deal with the after effects of the earthquake, the disastrous subsequent tsunami, and the ongoing battle to regain control of the nuclear power generation plant damaged by the earthquake. I am in constant admiration of the resilience of the the Japanese people and feel the dread of what this triplet of disasters may mean for the long-term well being of that beleaguered nation, already battling with a weak economy.

An incidental worldwide outcome is the renewed debate on the role of nuclear power generation. On the one side is the rising clamor of the 'told you so' folk telling us this course is fraught with evil consequences for the human race. They point to the Three Mile Island Incident (TMI), Chernobyl (undoubtedly a huge disaster), and all the nuclear waste lying about that we seem not to know what to do with. On the other side are the folk who think that nuclear power generation may be the true hope of mankind in world that is being smothered in greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels and who are increasingly dismayed at the turn this debate might take, given the difficulties presently experienced by the Japanese operators.

We humans are notably and curiously influenced by short lived disasters while continuing to be impervious to much worse prolonged conditions. We are shocked at the sudden death of hundreds in an airline crash (although we relatively rarely ride in aeroplanes) but happily drive around in motorcars despite the 42,000 or so (USA) motor fatalities per year. We are dismayed by reports of a dozen deaths from food poisoning but seen not to mind in the least eating 'fast foods' that form the basis of an epidemic of obesity and associated disease such as diabetes and which result in millions suffering premature death. We shudder at the risks being taken by those brave Japanese workers who are endeavoring to avert the release of radioactive materials into the atmosphere but easily forget deaths of hundreds of coal miners, the land degradation caused by mining coal, the thousands who suffer disease and die prematurely arising from emissions due to coal-powered generation of electricity. We like cheap power but seldom think about the attendant human costs.

All forms of generating electrical power have inherent risks. We learn from reviews of these disasters that cost cutting relating to safety in design and maintenance, in pursuit of maximizing profit or even just staying in business, can be more the cause of suffering and loss than inherent risk. Likewise, failure of the regulating authority also bears on this. Whistle blowers who draw attention to danger are most usually ignored and often ostracized.

I was an anti-nuclear power flag waver until I read what Dr. James Hansen has to say about the possible future role of nuclear power as the next generation of reactors become available. Sometimes called 'fast breeder' reactors, these are seen to be fail-safe in that they switch themselves off instead of allowing a runaway path to melt down. They are likely to be 99% efficient in using nuclear fuel (vs. 1% for present reactors) and to be able to 'burn' a wide range of fuels, including much of the current stockpile of nuclear wastes. These latter represent a power resource that may last 10,000 years. Anxiety in the US about nuclear power peaked after TMI, the film 'The China Syndrome' (a story about a disastrous meltdown at a nuclear power plan and a widely popular film) had been released only 12 days before. Long term reaction to these two events eventually influenced President Clinton to withdraw proposals to proceed with Generation Four reactor development.

So what to say about all this? We have coal reserves for perhaps 200 years, natural gas for maybe 20 years. Oil will become more difficult to mine, bio fuels tend to compete with food production (not an especially good thing in an increasingly hungry world) and the cost of energy, the fundamental basis of our economies, will likely rise very quickly over the next decade. Probably it is too late to avoid by any action the less severe effects of global warming due to energy production and it is difficult to estimate the onset of more serious effects. It seems to me that most climate scientists have given up on chances of effective action by humans to avert these consequences. I suppose that, driven by the rising cost of energy, increasing difficulty of meeting increasing demand, and enhanced awareness of the human costs associated with burning stuff to get energy, we may be forced to consider the nuclear alternative.

In the meantime, I doff my hat toward those brave few who seek to contain an impending disaster in Japan and hope that this will support a more reasoned approach to the problems of generating sufficient power and the role of nuclear power and along with geothermal approaches. And even if they fail.