NO ONE can accuse Japanese Premier Yoshihiko Noda of being
gutless. On Sunday, he pushed through the controversial restarting of the Oi
nuclear reactor in western Japan - more than a year after a tsunami damaged
reactors at Fukushima.
Following the Fukushima disaster, all the country's nuclear
reactors had been shut down amid popular opposition to nuclear po-wer.
On the surface, the prognosis for nuclear power is not good. Soon after the Fukushima disaster, Germany said it would
shut down half of its nuclear plants and abandon the use of nuclear power by
2022. Likewise, Switzerland said no new plants would be built, and that five
existing plants would be mothballed by 2034. In a recent special report titled The Dream That Failed, The
Economist magazine underscored the growing coolness towards nuclear power.
Does this mean the death of nuclear power? Not quite.
It is worth noting that before the Fukushima disaster,
nuclear power had enjoyed 25 years of safety after the 1986 crisis at
Chernobyl.
Widespread concerns about energy security and climate change
had also led to an alliance between environmentalists and advocates of nuclear
power. The strongest argument then - and now too - is that nuclear power
generates virtually no greenhouse gases. And compared to other non-carbon
sources of power, nuclear power is still the only viable large-scale
alternative to fossil fuels.
Future plans for the use of nuclear power validate this. In
a recent report, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) forecast that Japan
would still have 44.7 gigawatts (gw) of nuclear capacity in 2020 - marginally
lower than the 46.8gw in 2010. In a December report, the European Commission said that
nuclear energy remained an important option for decarbonising energy supplies. Around the world, 60 new reactors are being constructed in
14 countries, many located in Asia. China, for instance, is aiming to increase
the number of its reactors from 14 to 80 by 2030.
Mr Jitsuro Terashima, an official at Japan's Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry who is reviewing Japan's energy policies in the
wake of the Fukushima accident, said that nuclear energy should not be
discarded altogether, but used in tandem with renewable sources. The 'best mix', he told the EIU, should be 20 per cent of
energy from nuclear sources, 30 per cent from renewable sources and 40 per cent
from fossil fuels by 2030. This is different from Tokyo's earlier plan to stick
to a ratio of 50 per cent, 20 per cent and 30 per cent respectively.
'I am not 'pro-nuclear' (to the exclusion of other energy
sources). I was proposing renewable energy as early as the 1970s, and I intend
to help turn the wheel as much as possible towards renewable energy at this crossroads
for Japan's energy strategy,' he said.
Japan's realistic approach after Fukushima is laudable. Even
Germany's attempt at eradicating nuclear power in the long term has run into
problems. Recently, it was reported that it had to import energy due to supply
shortfalls.
This is not to say nuclear power is problem-free. The
disposal of nuclear waste is problematic, while the construction of reactors
can suffer from cost over-runs. And arguably, the word 'nuclear' has put a historical burden
on Japan. In 1945, it was the first country to be attacked by nuclear weapons.
The Fukushima disaster also meant that Japan became the first Asian country to
suffer from radiation fallout following a nuclear accident. In psychological terms, the Japanese are suffering from the
availability heuristic - that is, the nuclear crisis of last year has captured
so much attention that the risks of another nuclear accident have been
exaggerated.
Indeed, experts say that the impact on public health
resulting from accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are not as bad as
originally envisaged. Professor Gerry Thomas, the chair in molecular pathology at
Imperial College in London, said that the only public health effect caused by
the Chernobyl accident has been a large increase in thyroid cancer cases among
those who were children at the time of the accident. Of the 6,000 thyroid
cancer cases, only 15 had proved fatal by 2005. The predicted death rate going
forward is about 1 per cent, she said in an e-mail.
Over at Fukushima, the number of cancer-related deaths will
probably not increase, The Japan Times reported.
Said Prof Thomas: 'Personally, I do think that nuclear
energy is a safe option, providing we learn the lessons of past accidents and
are ready to put into place mitigating procedures as they did in Japan.'
Indeed, if Japan takes a realistic approach to nuclear
power, it could provide a model for other countries contemplating nuclear
power.
'I believe Japan must remain the symbol and exemplar of
countries that resist the temptation of nuclear militarisation and focus
instead on its peaceful use. Japan can help other countries that have the same
aim,' said Mr Terashima.
Therein lie two paths mapped out by Germany and Japan: The
former has opted for a little or no nuclear future, while the latter is moving
along a road with some nuclear power involved.
For countries like Singapore, which have indicated an
interest in nuclear power, the two futures constitute much food for thought.
Published on Jul 5, 2012
By William Choong
