01/04 On nuclear power

Letters from our readers

On nuclear power

Apr 1st 2011, 11:45 by M.D. | London

As the crisis at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant continues (see our article in this week’s issue), readers have been sending in their thoughts on the future of nuclear energy. Responding to our briefing, Rob van Riet, who works at the World Future Council in London, calls attention to research conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which “reveals that 20% of the world’s 442 working nuclear-power stations are in areas of ‘significant’ seismic activity”. Mr van Riet thinks that “this is an unacceptable gamble”:

“Although I personally believe nuclear energy should be phased out entirely from the world’s energy infrastructure for a number of reasons, I propose we start doing it in the areas most prone to natural disasters. That would be a lesson well learnt.”

Our briefing also compared the safety record of nuclear power to the airline industry. Both are significantly better than their direct competitors, but when they fail they fail spectacularly. Frank Lowther, from Los Angeles, extends the comparison:

“The airlines have one advantage that nuclear power lacks: there is no plausible alternative. When someone wants to travel from, say, New York to Sydney, flying is the only option. With the highly limited exception of large navy vessels, nuclear power has no such captive market. As such, its future can and will be in jeopardy every time a disaster strikes, even when those occurrences are a quarter-century apart.”

Another of our articles remarked that “there is a trustworthy and transparent regulation, a clear distinction between operators and regulators and well enforced building codes” in the Western nuclear industry. But this statement reminded Hisao Tateishi, who lives in Tokyo, of assertions made about the financial industry in the West before the Lehman crisis:

“What happened then was the contamination of the financial markets on a global scale by financial companies. It took an earthquake and tsunami to cause a disaster at Fukushima. How many Western nuclear reactors could withstand an impact like that? What about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl?”

But Dale Fisher, who writes from Calgary, points out that,

“At Three Mile Island the safeguards caught the breakdown and the reactor was safely shut down with no loss of human life. It was not so fortunate at Chernobyl. That was a serious and ongoing tragedy. The Russians, however, were never licensed by the IAEA for nuclear reactors. Not having sanction and not having built the required safety requirements did not stop them form initiating the Chernobyl reactor. The results speak for themselves.

Chernobyl should not be used as a reason for halting all nuclear reactors. Chernobyl should never have been permitted to operate.”

Meanwhile, Adam Woodman from Canberra, read our recent leader on reducing the size of the state, which he thinks is bad timing for Japan right now. Mr Woodman believes that,

“The Japanese people are probably glad that the army and firefighters, all employees of the state, are helping with the nuclear emergency. Tokyo Electric Power Company, a private company, was unable to cope without state help. It would certainly be bankrupt from paying for the emergency work and fighting lawsuits from those seeking compensation for health or financial difficulties caused by this crisis.”