Fukushima Year Three: Global Anti-Nuke Sentiment

Fukushima Year Three: Global Anti-Nuke Sentiment
United Daily News editorial
(Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 11, 2014

Summary: Over the past three years, nations relying on nuclear power have thoroughly reviewed the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Contrast this with Taiwan. The nuclear vs. non-nuclear debate resulted in scorched earth confrontations. No thorough, practical review or reform has been implemented. This is a far more serious man-made disaster.

Full text below:

Three years have elapsed since the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Over the past year, Japan has made little progress reconstructing the stricken areas. Meanwhile, domestic anti-nuclear sentiment has undergone surprising changes. Conditional acceptance of nuclear power plant development has increased. Germany once vowed that it would be a nuclear free nation by 2022. But the high cost of renewable energy and over-reliance on natural gas from Russia have engendered unprecedented skepticism. After evaluating the Fukushima disaster, most nuclear nations have decided to continue using of nuclear power.

Fukushima disaster victims have returned home. But reconstruction is apparently far more difficult than expected. The obstacles are insurmountable. Nearly 25 million tons of radioactive contaminants must be removed. So far there has been no progress. The government says they are "in temporary storage." But the public thinks the current storage site will be the final storage site. Radiation-contaminated soil must be replaced with new soil. But new soil cannot be found, and no place on earth is willing to accept the contaminated soil. Many intractable problems remain.

Anti-nuclear sentiment is changing with the times. Sign Number One. Pro-nuclear Prime Minister Shinzo Abe supported Masuzoe's election as Governor of Tokyo. Masuzoe defeated former Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa and Junichiro Koizumi, who advocated a nuclear-free homeland. Sign Number Two. The Abe Cabinet recently conducted an opinion poll. It asked 157 local governments within 30 km of nuclear power plants "Do you wish to restart the nuclear power plants?" Thirty percent answered "yes" or "conditionally yes." This matched the number who answered "no." Immediately following the disaster hardly any local government answered "yes" to restarting nuclear power plants. Clearly there has been a significant change.

The atmosphere has gradually changed, for several reasons. One. The complete shutdown of nuclear power plants on Japan harmed the economy and the peoples livelihood. The burden was greater than the public could bear. Nuclear power plant shut down meant natural gas had to be imported to fill the energy gap. Three years later, total expenditures have amounted to 220 billion USD. This approximates Japan's trade deficit over the same period. Energy shortages forced many companies to cut production. This led to incalculable losses in their overseas markets.

Two. Japan's Diet formed an independent commission to investigate the accident and to publish a report. It determined that the cause of the Fukushima disaster was not an earthquake, a tsunami, or any other natural disaster, but rather human error. Tokyo Electric Power Company, to which Fukushima belongs, ignored the recommendations of nuclear regulatory authorities for 30 years. It failed to respond to international recommendations to make nuclear security updates. It allowed the problem to fester. "The Tohoku Electric Power Company's Onagawa nuclear power plant was closer to the epicenter. Why was it perfectly safe? Because it updated its nuclear safety measures." The commission will classify the nuclear disaster not as a natural disaster, but as a man-made one. It has convinced people there is room for improvement.

In Germany, three years of promoting a "nuclear free homeland" has led to considerable progress. But now it appears to have run into a brick wall. Domestically, renewable energy has met only one quarter of its target. The price, meanwhile, has steadily increased. It is now about four times the price in Taiwan. Every kilowatt hour costs $12NT. This year it will increase 20 percent. Rising electricity prices are a public burden. Motivated by election considerations, the Bundestag has censured the Merkel government.

Now take external factors. The main concern is sources of natural gas. These have made the problem much more difficult. Nearly 40 percent of Germany's natural gas comes from Russia. The two countries have signed a cooperation agreement to construct a pipeline. But heavy dependence on Russia is highly controversial. Recently the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has intensified. Unfortunately the gas pipeline to Germany goes through Ukrainian territory. If the Russian gas supply is reduced or even halted as a result of war, Germany will mpt be able to cope.

The United States nuclear power industry has advanced nuclear safety measures. It has long been a major users of nuclear power. It is second only to France in the percentage of nuclear power generation. The Fukushima disaster forced a review of the design of nuclear power plants and nuclear safety control measures. Intensive public opinion polls have accurately gauged public sentiment. The public supports the continued development of nuclear power. The U.S. has five new plants under construction. Fourteen more plant applications are under review. Meanwhile, the number of power generation plants being built has increased. These are proceeding concurrently. The US is not hesitating to seek a "nuclear power windfall."

The United States is also developing small modular reactors (SMR). These are estimated to go online in 2024. Small modular reactors enable flexible power supply. They also distribute the risk. The choice of power plant depends entirely on cost, U.S. shale gas mining technology breakthroughs, coupled with high density inland gas pipelines, and lower natural gas prices. The closing of the old coal-fired plants is inevitable. For new plants, the choice of nuclear energy or gas is optional.

On the European continent, nations besides Germany, Italy, and Switzerland have decided to go the non-nuclear route. France, Britain and even Sweden, which announced the phasing out of nuclear power generation, nevertheless continue to develop nuclear power. Economics is a factor. So is carbon reduction. Mainland China, India, South Africa, Brazil, and other emerging industrial countries have never slowed the development of nuclear power. In fact, they are increasing the number of nuclear power plants.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster was unprecedented. It was certain to provoke a global nuclear vs. non-nuclear debate. But an even more critical issue is how to move forward. Over the past three years, nations relying on nuclear power have thoroughly reviewed the Fukushima nuclear disaster. They have examined the water shortages, electricity shortages, and blackouts. They have thoroughly reformed their software and hardware disaster prevention measures. Contrast this with Taiwan. The nuclear vs. non-nuclear debate resulted in scorched earth confrontations. No thorough, practical review or reform has been implemented. This is a far more serious man-made disaster.

福島三周年 全球非核風怎麼吹
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.03.11 02:24 am

福島核災屆滿三年。過去一年，日本在災區的重建進度有限，但其國內非核、反核的氛圍已微妙變化，朝有條件重啟核電廠的方向發展。當時率先宣布二○二二無核家園的德國，也因再生能源代價極高，替代的天然氣又過度依賴俄國，質疑聲浪空前。其他核電國家經過「福島省思」後，多半亦繼續發展核電。

福島災區雖已同意若干災民返回家園，但重建難度顯然遠超過預期，無法克服。近兩千五百萬噸輻射汙染垃圾的移除，至今毫無進度，政府說「現地暫時儲存」，但民眾普遍認為現地是「終極儲存場」。遭輻射汙染的土壤需客土替代，但既找不到新土，汙染土方也沒地方願意收容。類似難解的問題一大堆，棘手之極。

儘管如此，隨著時間變化，非核氣氛卻逐漸發生變化。跡象一，擁核派首相安倍晉三支持的舛添要一當選東京都知事，擊敗鼓吹無核家園的前首相細川護熙及小泉純一郎聯盟；跡象二，安倍內閣最近針對核電廠周圍卅公里內的一五七個地方政府進行「是否同意重啟核電廠」的問卷調查，結果近三成「同意」或「有條件同意」，與「不同意重啟」旗鼓相當。這與災後幾乎沒有任何地方政府同意重啟核電廠，已有顯著變化。

氛圍之所以逐漸變化，原因包括：其一，核電廠全面關閉對日本經濟和民生的傷害，超出了人民的承受力。關閉核電廠後，能源缺口以進口天然氣填補，災後三年總計支出達兩千兩百億美元；這個數字，和近三年日本的貿易逆差值相當。此外，因能源短缺而導致若干企業縮小生產規模，也造成海外市場流失；這部分尚無法量化計算。

其二，日本眾議院組織獨立調查委員會提出事故報告，定位福島災變不是地震、海嘯等天災，而是人禍。福島所屬的東電公司，三十多年不理會核管部門的建議，長時間忽視國際核安應對更新，因而釀禍；「離震央更近，東北電力公司的女川核電廠為什麼安然無恙？因為他們同步更新核安措施。」委員會將核災定位為人禍、不是天災，說服民眾有改善餘地。

德國方面，三年來全力推動「非核」雖有相當進展，但似乎進入「撞牆期」。其內部因素是，目前再生能源的生產僅達目標的四分之一，但電價已連續調高，約為台灣的四倍、每度電合台幣十二元，今年還要再調高二十％。電價連漲使得民眾負擔沉重，基於選票考量，國會議員對梅克爾政府已多所責難。

外部因素方面，主要是天然氣來源成為隱憂，使問題更棘手。德國天然氣近四成來自俄羅斯，雖然兩國簽有合作埋管供氣的協定，但對俄羅斯依賴太深一直深受爭議。最近俄國與烏克蘭衝突加劇，不巧的是輸德的供氣管線穿越烏克蘭境內，萬一俄國因戰爭減壓供氣甚或停供，德國將措手不及。

美國以其核電工業及核安前瞻地位，一直是核電大國，核電比重僅次於法國。福島災後，重新檢討核電廠設計及核安管制措施，並以密集民調精準掌握民眾想法後，繼續發展核電。目前美國有五座新廠興建中、十四個機組申請建廠；另方面，增加發電功率的電廠升載、延役同步進行，毫不猶疑地繼續領取「核電紅利」。

美國也同步開發小容量核電機組，預計二○二四即可併聯商轉。小機組讓電力調度靈活，也可分散風險。值得注意的是，電廠種類選擇完全取決於成本，由於美國頁岩氣開採技術突破，加上內陸輸氣管線密度極高，天然氣價格走低，關老燃煤電廠是必然走向。至於新建電廠，核能或燃氣的選擇彈性很大。

歐陸諸國除了德、義、瑞士確定非核路線，法、英乃至曾宣布廢核的瑞典等國都繼續發展核電；其中，除了經濟因素外，減碳的壓力也是重要考慮。至於中國、印度、南非、巴西等新興工業國，則從未減緩發展核電，還進一步擴充核電廠。

福島核災確屬空前，引發全球「核電／非核」論辯也屬必然，但論辯之外，更關鍵的是如何向前走。三年下來，全球核電國家對福島成災的無水、無電、應對延宕的「電廠全黑」危機徹底檢討，做了從軟、硬體，到防災決策觀念的徹底改革。對照台灣，「核電／非核」仍處於焦土對峙，卻無任何徹底務實的檢討與改革，這毋寧是更大的人禍。