I tip my hat to cosmic debris whose excellent diary on this weekend's mass demonstrations against nuclear power linked me to an expert assessment of Fukushima that I felt deserved more in-depth discussion.
The experts are Mark Hibbs and James M Acton, senior associates in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Their remarks are in the form of a Q & A and I found a lot of pessimism in their outlook on a number of issues.
Consider their response to this question:
Are further releases of radioactivity expected?
Unfortunately, there is still a real possibility of further significant releases of radioactivity into the environment. The water being pumped into the reactors to cool the cores—about 500 tons a day—is accumulating in various underground structures around the site. If remedial action is not taken, Tepco estimates that this water will start to overflow into the Pacific Ocean on June 20.
To prevent this, Tepco hopes to start operating a French-built water treatment facility on June 15. This facility will be capable of processing about 1,200 tons of water a day—enough to prevent an overflow and to slowly reduce underground accumulations. But the schedule is clearly tight and almost any delay could lead to radioactive water spilling into the ocean. Tepco is also working to build a large underground tank for holding radioactive water, but this will not be completed until August.
So, the best case scenario is that they repeal Murphy's Law, the French get their plant fully operational and ready to run at least at 50% capacity by next week, and they can actually get at least 500 tons of water a day into the reprocessor from the "various underground structures around the site" where it has accumulated beneath three melted through reactor vessels.
But even if they achieve 100% success with this plan and establish a closed loop for recirculating adequate coolant, what have they really accomplished? Well, for one thing, they will create a store of a smaller volume but much more highly radioactive waste as the by-product of the French reprocessing system. Also, you have to figure that there must be a lot of jury rigged plumbing involved in pumping out the various voids in which it has accumulated. Personally, I expect some pretty bad discharges into the sea in the immediate future, even if every thing works as they plan, and possibly intermittent ones afterwards. Also, even if every thing works as they plan, they still have a system where they pump in 500 tons of water a day, it leaks here, there, everywhere, drips down in to these now flooded sub-structures and gets reclaimed for the French re-processor. OK. Now what. That doesn't really look sustainable, say, for instances, if there were another earthquake or tsunami, or freak storm, or accident, or error or breakdown or fill in the blank.
Their discussion of the question also pointedly omits any consideration of the consequences of further melt through from one or more of the three failed reactors. Of course, no one really knows what is going on in these melted reactor cores, lying somewhere in a hidden and largely unmeasured place, beneath the wreckage of the complex machinery that once upon a time held a semblance of control over the devil isotopes within. So, I suppose we can excuse good scientists for demurring to comment without facts.
Acton and Hibbs also addressed this:
How will Fukushima affect plans to build new nuclear reactors in the United States?
Even before Fukushima, very few new nuclear reactors were due to be built in the United States. Without a price on carbon to make nuclear power competitive with fossil fuels, few utilities were able to raise the capital for building new reactors at sufficiently attractive rates—even in spite of the offer of loan guarantees from the federal government. The Fukushima accident will likely make raising capital even harder. Notably, on April 19, the utility company NRG announced that it was suspending plans to build two new units in South Texas, because it could not “justify to [its] shareholders any further financial participation in the development.”
U.S. regulators can be expected to reconsider plans by some reactor owners to extend the lifetimes of older units, and to pay greater attention to how severe accidents should be managed and mitigated. Within two months after Fukushima, tornadoes and heavy storms in the United States caused temporary power outages at six nuclear power plants—serving as a warning that severe nuclear accidents can happen anywhere.
Sadly, no sign here of a real nuclear power change of course for the USA.
The authors also comment upon Germany's remarkable about face, and contrast that with China's quick tap on the breaks. Then comes the really bad news.
What about the rest of the world?
Elsewhere, a few countries—Peru, Switzerland, and perhaps Thailand—will be deterred from deploying new reactors after what happened at Fukushima. Others have reacted with caution because they have no alternative plans at this point for meeting the challenge of producing more electricity without increasing their carbon emissions.
There are also no dramatic changes to Japan’s plans for more nuclear power, but the true impact of Fukushima on the country’s nuclear program will be felt over the coming months and years. During this time, prefectural governors will decide whether the country’s power reactors are safe enough to continue routine operation and whether to give permission for the construction of new units.
Before Fukushima, as many as 50 countries worldwide—including many developing economies—had announced ambitious plans to deploy nuclear power reactors in the coming years. Nearly all of these countries remain steadfast in their resolve after the accident. But many of these plans deserve a rethink. The IAEA’s preliminary findings underscore concern that in a country without Japan’s extensive resources, decades of experience, technical know-how, and highly dedicated personnel, a similar accident could have had far graver consequences.
It bears emphasizing, however, that since Fukushima Daiichi is yet to be brought under control, it is probably too early to say anything definitive about the future of nuclear energy. Especially in Europe—but perhaps also in Asia—a great deal may depend on how long it takes Japan to successfully bring the Fukushima reactors to a stable state
There you have it folks. 50 countries "steadfast in their resolve after the accident." The authors disapprove, of course, diplomatically wagging their fingers, but the best hope they seem to offer us is that things will continue to go so badly at Fukushima that plans elsewhere will become derailed. Lovely.
Three months in and Fukushima's operators have a plan on a timetable that will avert ocean dumping of highly radioactive water in just the nick of time if everything works perfectly, at which point we are still up Shit Creek. That's a real place. You don't want to go there.
But somewhere in America some folks are headed there even though they don't know it. There are too many aging plants; too many fuel storage ponds; too many ways for something awful to go irretrievably wrong. Only then will an effective opposition to use of nuclear power for utility electric generation arise in the USA.