The peaceful use of nuclear power to generate electricity is a key option for the world. The Kingdom itself is looking to add nuclear generation to its power mix. In the short to medium term, there is no doubting the advantages of atomic power in terms of minimal pollution against high upfront construction costs. The big issue is the decommissioning of old generating stations and, of no less importance, the careful disposal of spent nuclear fuel which will remain dangerous for hundreds of years.
By and large, the world has recognized the risks that go with nuclear power even to the danger that countries such as Iran will seek to weaponize their programs. Standard operating procedures for nuclear facilities are well established, even though there have been times when they have been ignored or mistakes have been made, such as at Three Mile Island in the US or more catastrophically Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union, now in Ukraine.
One of the basic concepts of a nuclear plant is that it cannot be built just anywhere. Major geological investigations are necessary to ensure the stability of the chosen site. Thus in the 1980s when the Russians were going to build a nuclear power plant near Alexandria, the Egyptians were furious when they wanted to move it 50 miles along the coast and the Russians said it would not be possible.
One of the greatest dangers for the integrity of a nuclear reactor is seismic activity. Japan, which sits on the earthquake-prone so-called Pacific Ring of Fire was always a high-risk environment. But the Japanese seemed to have mastered the art of building earthquake-resistant structures. Given a dearth of domestic natural resources and the rising cost of fossil fuel imports, nuclear was a sensible power choice.
But in March 2011, disaster struck. In response to a major offshore earthquake, the four reactors at the Fukushima plant shut down automatically. That should have made the nuclear station safe. But the reactors still needed to be cooled by emergency generators. However, these generators were knocked out by the massive quake-created tsunami that hit the plant. The reactors overheated and went into meltdown.
The first horror of this story is that no one, it seemed, had thought the risk of the loss of the secondary generators in a tidal wave to be significant. A 2012 enquiry found that the owner, Tokyo Electric Power Company, should have foreseen the dangers and should have done something to guard against them. The second horror, at least for many Japanese, is that despite the Fukushima disaster, the country is continuing with its nuclear power generation, having apparently taken steps to ensure that nothing like Fukushima could happen again.
Given the financial and economic imperatives, the government’s reactivation of nuclear power is understandable. However, given the extraordinary failure of anyone to anticipate the double whammy that was the quake and tsunami at Fukushima in 2011, the concerns of ordinary Japanese are equally comprehensible.
Japan is a crowded country. It simply cannot afford the loss of any land. Some 154,000 people are still evacuated from the areas surrounding Fukushima. This week another huge offshore quake threatened to hit the stricken plant with a further tidal wave. This second disaster did not actually occur. But this latest fright ought to be a sharp reminder of the huge risks that can be linked to this “clean” energy.
