Without a doubt, Japan’s recent nuclear crisis has had a devastating impact on the country’s economy, triggering a boomerang effect on the global markets. But to what extent has the disaster changed national governments’ perceptions of nuclear power as a reliable, secure and sustainable source of energy? Valeria Camerino finds out.

According to the first Clean Energy Progress Report, released last month by the International Energy Agency (IEA), while nuclear capacity has remained nearly flat for the past decade, countries are currently constructing 66 nuclear reactors that should add 60GW to the global nuclear output by 2015.

The Paris-based intergovernmental organisation also argues that the recent earthquake in Japan and resulting damage have led countries to review nuclear safety and investments across the board.  As a result, nuclear expansion is likely to be slower than planned, the report says.

“I think that in the wake of the Japan disaster there is a move to reassess nuclear power, and in Europe there is a long history of anti-nuclear sentiment, so this is part of the political game,” says Theodore Karasik, Director, Research and Development at Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis (INEGMA) and a speaker at the Nuclear Power World MENA 2011, held in Dubai at the end of May.

Nuclear energy, he says, provides immense sources of power for the host country.  It also provides an alternative to oil and gas based economies which are finite. 

“Nuclear energy is a viable energy source for the UAE and the rest of the region because it is a necessity”, INEGMA’s Karasik says, “Oil and gas will run out eventually and the Middle East markets are growing rapidly, and there needs to be power electrical generation.”

Experts also feel compelled to discuss the political aspects of nuclear energy. Karasik says: “We must not forget that there is a political angle to it; making sure Iran is just as transparent in its nuclear energy effort as the Arab Middle East.”

Adds Barbara Thomas Judge CBE, Chairman Emeritus at UK Atomic Energy Agency: “In Europe, unlike emerging economies like India, China or Turkey, nuclear energy has always been a political issue rather than an infrastructure issue. Some European countries were wavering even before Fukushima. They had just started reintroducing nuclear into their energy strategy when the Japanese disaster occurred.”

In Germany, which at the time of writing has announced that it will shut down all its nuclear plants by 2022, the green party has always been against nuclear, Lady Judge observes.

Anti-nuclear sentiment among the general public in countries like Italy has always been strong. So when the Fukushima happened, it was very unfortunate.

The green parties and all those opposing nuclear energy could finally argue they were right.

For Massimiliano Picciani, a nuclear engineer at Polytechnic University of Milan and a member of Société Française d’Énergie Nucléaire (SFEN), the French Nuclear Energy Society, the Japanese disaster has mainly affected public opinion about nuclear power, due to what he describes as “sometimes biased media coverage”.

“Some European governments changed their plans only for political reasons of consensus, rather than for economic, industrial and scientific evaluations,” he says.

Italy is one of them.

The nuclear energy plan that entailed the construction of eight to 12 reactors, in order to reach a 25% target of nuclear plant generated electricity, has been put on hold, as the Italian government feared a defeat in the next referendum on nuclear power.

“However, sooner or later, they will have to resume their nuclear plans,” Picciani emphasises.

For Tomoko Murakami, Leader, Nuclear Energy Group, at Japan’s Institute of Energy Economics (IEE), the reason why the emerging markets don’t change their aggressive development policies is due to their fast-increasing power requirements, which are far higher than those of mature economies.

“Advanced countries, such as Germany and Italy,” Murakami says, “have other sources of power – natural gas, renewable, etc – and they can save energy through their highly advanced technologies. Nuclear has never been selected for its technological sophistication but only for its abundant energy capacity. Safety concerns are just used as an excuse for phasing out nuclear power in political debates, not for a valid reason.”

With regard to nuclear safety, Karasik points out that, according to those in the know about the Japanese nuclear energy industry, there were a lot of shortcomings and shortcuts that helped ignite the disaster. “There are safer technologies available and governments will learn much from TEPCO’s mistakes,” Karasik says. Nuclear safety is not an oxymoron.  It is a reality, however, that human error must be eliminated.”

Lady Judge believes that the Fukushima Daiichi plant accident might have been avoided and it was partly the result of human error. “There have been rumours of a close relationship between the plant operator and the regulator,” she said.

“The operator had been warned of issues at the plant previous to the disaster, but it had delayed in doing anything to fix the problem.”

Furthermore, the plant was very old, which obviously increased the safety risk.

“What really triggered the tragedy wasn’t the earthquake,” Lady Judge says. “After the earthquake, the plant shut down as it was supposed to, but nobody could expect a tsunami of those proportions hitting off the coast one hour later.”

Murakami confirmed that the root cause of the accident was “the failure produced by a tsunami of extraordinary scale”.

However, at the end of May, TEPCO reportedly admitted that one of the critical cooling pipes at its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant’s reactor unit 3 might have been damaged during the earthquake.

The operator had earlier claimed that no major damage had occurred at the reactor until the massive tsunami hit, following the 9.7 magnitude quake.

The station blackout and the loss of the auxiliary cooling system were the fatal blows to the units 1 to 4. “The operator, TEPCO, had done its best to cope with the severe situation,” Murakami says. “What else could have been done by licensed operators, I wonder? If something was wrong, that would be the procedures themselves – licensed by the government.”

The Japanese nuclear researcher believes that the basis of a nuclear safety plan – shutdown, cooling and containment – along with other required measures were fully implemented. The reactors were shut down correctly soon after the earthquake, the emergency cooling system worked fine for a while, but the containment function was inadequate.

“Therefore, the key steps that should be taken in a future emergency are related to the diversification of the power source and the cooling system,” she says.

As Milan Polytechnic University’s Picciani explains, in the case of an earthquake, an operating reactor immediately shuts down. The nuclear chain reaction inside the reactor stops; however, some radioactive fission products continue to release heat that needs to be removed.

This is done by diesel engines that are specifically devoted to this task.

In the case of the Japanese nuclear disaster, after the main earthquake, all the plant’s safety measures were activated. The operating reactors shut down, and the diesel engines removed the residual heat, as required, Picciani says.

However, approximately 50 minutes after the plant shut down, the large tsunami waves swept away the diesel engines that were located outside the main reactor building. Thus, residual heat couldn’t be removed and the risk of nuclear fuel melting became extremely likely.

Protections against natural risks (earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.), Picciani continues, are based on historical data, and precautions against tsunamis were, of course, present, given that the Fukushima facility is close to the sea.

However, tsunami waves of the height reported on March 11 had never been recorded before. As a result, those precautions were calculated for slightly lower waves.

 “The Fukushima Daiichi accident is, therefore, a striking paradox for nuclear safety measures: they worked perfectly against the strongest earthquake, but they were not enough for the tsunami,” he says.

Picciani believes that it’s still too early to evaluate the way the emergency was dealt with in the first days, as data are still not fully available.

“At first, they have probably waited in order to try and save the power plant,” Picciani says. “In any case, Japanese nuclear technicians had to face a really catastrophic situation, as the whole surrounding area was severely hit by the tsunami. That means that initially they could only use onsite equipment to manage the crisis, as they were completely isolated.”

In line with other nuclear experts, he believes that avoiding the disaster could have been possible. Indeed, Japan has about 50 nuclear power plants, but only Fukushima Daiichi was severely damaged, as it was the oldest and, as a result, the most exposed to natural risks.

“The same sequence of events would most likely have caused no damages to newly designed reactors, such as EPR,” says Picciani.

Murakami believes that, in light of Fukushima disaster, the Japanese national energy plan must be reconsidered.

However, she argues, the main issue is to decide what percentage nuclear power should represent within a country’s energy mix.

“Too little capacity would lead us to a severe energy crisis and resulting economic recession,” she says. “A too aggressive target would be unrealistic.”

The Japanese government published its revised energy strategy in June 2010.

One of the key objectives of the plan is promoting nuclear power generation through the construction of nine new or additional nuclear plants by 2020 and more than 14 by 2030.

Additional steps include achieving long-term cycle operations and shortening operation suspensions for regular inspections, improving the power source location subsidy system, the development of “pluthermal” and fast breeder reactors and international cooperation for non-proliferation and nuclear safety.

In Lady Judge’s opinion, being totally transparent is one of the key steps to take in a nuclear emergency.

“People should know what’s going on, whereas the Japanese authorities didn’t release any specific information until a very late stage,” she says.

It is also important, she says, to employ the latest technologies and use modern reactors with modern safety features.

Recounts Murakami: “How safe is safe enough? someone said long time ago. Thirty years ago, when the TMI-2 accident occurred, the possibility of severe accidents were much higher than today. If you think nuclear is not safe enough, then you might stop using it. ‘How safe is safe enough?’ depends on how much you would like to use this technology.”

Murakami adds: “There is a risk comparison between various technologies assessed by “death ratio”, the number of deaths per million. The death ratio of civilians due to nuclear power is much lower than that of commercial airplanes, vehicles and even mining. It’s a matter of preference.”

Picciani points out that any country using or planning to use nuclear energy shares the same safety concerns, which are mainly dependant on building design.

However, higher safety measures are more expensive, so that emerging economies might prefer a lower degree of safety to reduce project costs, he observes.

“Generally speaking, industrialising economies are more concerned about economic development than environmental issues, like China has done for the past 20 years,” he argues.

He believes that current nuclear safety technologies are highly developed.

Nuclear-powered countries rely on well-designed nuclear waste disposal solutions, which are periodically checked by nuclear safety agencies, he says. These are independent bodies responsible for ensuring that safety standards are strictly adhered to.

“Nuclear energy doesn’t produce CO2 emissions, and the amount of nuclear waste that needs to be stored is low enough to be correctly managed” Picciani says. “Furthermore, nuclear experts are currently working towards further reducing this amount, mainly by recycling spent fuel. Generation IV reactors, for example, are based on the concept of ‘breeding reactors’: once fuel is loaded, it can be used for many years, as it is regenerated through nuclear reactions,” Picciani says. Also, the use of plutonium formerly employed to build nuclear weapons, can reduce the need for large amounts of uranium ores.”

Lady Judge believes that the UAE is the perfect example in nuclear best practices. “They have done all they can to ensure safety and minimise risks,” she says. “They selected the most suitable location, they have a very good regulator, good laws and they are using state-of-the-art technology. I have no doubt that they will go ahead with their nuclear plans.”

The UAE has plans to build a 5,600 MW plant, with four reactors slated between 2017 and 2020, in line with the UAE’s Civilian Nuclear Energy Programme.

In December 2009, the country entered a nuclear deal that established long-term cooperation in the civilian nuclear field with South Korea, when Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) awarded a contract for the construction of the four nuclear power plants to a consortium led by Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO).

The contract stipulates that the KEPCO team will design, build and operate the four nuclear power plants with a capacity of 1,400MW each. The value of the contract for building, operating and procuring nuclear fuel for the four plants is fixed at AED75 billion (US$20 billion) throughout the contract period.

The project will also explore ways to use nuclear energy for desalination purposes.

Among the four nuclear power plants currently planned, the first unit is scheduled to provide electricity to the grid in 2017 and will continue in operation until 2077, while the other three units will become operational by 2020.

In the long run, the country is also expecting to build additional nuclear power plants to meet the rapidly growing demand for electricity.

Unlike more mature markets, such as Germany, which put an end to its nuclear ambitions at the end of May, and Italy, which announced a one-year moratorium on nuclear power plant site selection and construction, Japan’s nuclear catastrophe doesn’t seem to have changed UAE’s nuclear future in the slightest.

This is what emerged from the debate on the contribution of nuclear energy for sustainable development, held at the inaugural Dubai Global Energy Forum (DGEF), which took place at Dubai World Trade Centre from April 17 to 19.

The event, organised by Dubai Supreme Council of Energy, gathered energy experts from across the globe to discuss and exchange views on current energy challenges and opportunities, with a particular focus on sustainability.

Speaking at a session titled: ‘Nuclear for the UAE: viable energy option?’ David Scott, Executive Director of Economic Affairs at Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation(ENEC), emphasised that diversifying the energy portfolio is paramount to the current 10 to 15 GW UAE energy deficit.

“Nuclear energy is not the solution,” he says, “but it is part of the solution. Nuclear energy is very efficient to meet base load, but it’s not good to meet peak load.”

IEE’s Murakami points out that nuclear power is technically feasible to meet peak loads but not financially convenient. “The most economical use of nuclear power is the supply of base load energy,” she says.

Indeed, the UAE, whose high summer temperatures are responsible for the electricity peaks produced by the intensive use of air conditioning over the hottest months, would need to integrate nuclear energy with renewable energy sources.

Water desalination puts additional strain on the country’s energy resources. Scott observes, “There is a need to improve water desalination technologies through more sustainable methods, such as reverse osmosis.”

For Murakami, employing nuclear reactors as a source of power and heat in desert areas is one of the feasible options, if there aren’t any other cost-effective alternatives.

However, inherent risks need also to be taken into account.

Scott also praises the economic benefits of nuclear technology claiming that, not only it is far cheaper than any renewable energy source, but it also has a stabilising effect on the economy.

When prices are indexed to oil, like in the UAE, inflationary increases have a negative effect on the economy.

However, in the case of a nuclear plant, where fuel accounts for only five per cent of the total plant costs, exposure to the fluctuating prices of oil is minimal, said Scott says.

Indeed, the construction of a nuclear power plant requires an approximate 80% upfront investment cost, while in a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant on the other hand, upfront capital only accounts for 20% of the total cost.

A way to achieve further cost optimisation is multi-plant development, which has already been successfully implemented in a few Asian countries.

However, IEE’s Murakami begs to differ. “Nuclear power is not the most cost-competitive source of energy among low-carbon technologies,” she says.

“In some area, onshore wind is already cheaper than nuclear (or rather, some nuclear power plants are more expensive than onshore wind farms). However, nuclear is still the cheapest low-carbon source in most developing countries – mainly due to lower and unstable power grid capacity,” Murakami points out, explaining that stable power grid transmission systems and highly trained grid operators would be necessary to connect renewable power sources such as wind and solar. Given that such infrastructures are yet to be introduced in the majority of developing countries, to date nuclear remains the most cost-effective clean energy option.

She backs up her thesis quoting a report published in April 2010 by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), ‘Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010’, which compared costs of various power sources, including renewables and nuclear.

Scott claims that “nuclear power guarantees 95% availability and it is also highly dispatchable compared to other energy sources.”

He points out that with regard to CO2, SOX, NOX and PMT emissions, nuclear energy has also achieved exceptional performance, although he concedes that nuclear waste still represents a problematic issue.

But Lady Judge points out that there are a number of modern technologies, such as Deep Geological Repository and Dry Cask Storage, which are very effective in safely storing and disposing of contaminated waste.

“Uranium is a very stable material, and the cost is very low, she says. “The key steps to nuclear safety are building design, strong and effective regulation, as well as human error reduction.”

She is fully convinced that the Fukushima disaster shouldn’t stop nations from building nuclear plants.

Russia has announced plans to start construction of two new units each year, which has been achieved for the last three years. This is expected to continue, although some of this new capacity will be offset by retiring older plants before 2020.

India has to date largely relied on its indigenous nuclear designs, and plans have often suffered delays. Nuclear agreements with the United States and other countries in the last few years mean that India is now able to import nuclear technology more easily, having agreed to place much of its nuclear programme under international safeguards. More rapid expansion of its nuclear capacity is now expected, but plans are still taking shape.

Of the 66 units under construction at the end of 2010, 27 were in China, according to the IEA report. In contrast, China had only three units under construction at the end of 2005 (all now in operation). Most of the Chinese units now under construction are the established CPR-1 000 design. The next phase of expansion is expected to be based on the more advanced AP-1 000 design, the first of which are now under construction in the country. Current plans are for more than 30 additional units, beyond those now under construction, to start building in the next few years.

South Korea plans to continue its domestic expansion, with at least four additional units beyond those now under construction.

France has announced that it will start construction of a new unit in 2012, and Finland is also actively planning for a further new unit in addition to the one presently under construction.

New nuclear construction in the United States after a 30-year hiatus would be a significant development. License applications for 17 units have been submitted, and plans are being developed for over 30 new units, the report says.

However, some of these may be put on hold given the increase in recoverable gas reserves in recent years. Nevertheless, government incentives seem set to ensure the construction of at least a few new units before 2020. One long-suspended construction project was reactivated in 2007, to come on-line in 2013. The first government loan guarantee for a nuclear plant was awarded in 2010; site works are already well advanced, and the plant should be online by 2017.

At the time of writing, US federal regulators ordered an in-depth inspection at a nuclear power plant run by the Tennessee Valley Authority in Alabama after deciding the failure of an emergency cooling system there could have been a serious safety problem.

The United Kingdom has one of the oldest nuclear fleets, based on gas-cooled reactors that have proved to have shorter operating lives than water-cooled reactors, used elsewhere. As a result, many of its early plants have already closed, and most of the others will follow by 2020 or soon after. The government is now encouraging electricity companies to invest in several new nuclear units to be in operation by 2020 but is committed to avoid any public subsidy. At present, siting and licensing activities are underway.

Like what’s happening in the US, the UK regulator has been asked to write a post-Fukushima report to evaluate nuclear energy risks “But, assuming that nothing new is found,” Lady Judge says. “I believe they will go forward [with their nuclear plans].”