Nuclear fallout
THREE OF Japan’s senior nuclear energy officials are
being replaced, five months after reactors exploded at Fukushima
following the earthquake and tsunami which devastated the east of Japan.
Banri Kaida, minister in charge of the industry, has also said he will
step down.
On 3 August, The Guardian reported that lethal
levels of radiation are still being found at the plant. Tokyo Electric
Power admitted that radiation exceeding 10,000 millisieverts (mSv) per
hour has been detected. Workers are allowed to be exposed to a maximum
of 250 mSv a year. The way Tokyo Electric Power and the government of
Naoto Kan mishandled the catastrophe led to mass anger erupting onto the
streets. Kan, whose public approval rating is below 20%, has promised to
leave office, too, though he has not said when.
David Pilling reported in the Financial Times (1
August) from a town-hall meeting in Fukushima where local people met
with government bureaucrats from Tokyo. Anger mounted at the evasive
answers to their questions. The meeting ended with members of the
audience chasing the officials with vials of urine, demanding that their
children’s urine is tested for levels of radiation. There is deep anger
at out-of-touch establishment politicians who seem willing to test beef
for radiation, primarily to protect agribusiness interests, while
ignoring the health concerns and needs of people.
Japan’s nuclear power industry has been completely
unaccountable and has acted with impunity. Lacking fossil-fuel
resources, nuclear energy has been prioritised to drive Japan’s huge
industrial sector. But the Fukushima near-miss (so far) testifies to the
potential dangers of this policy.
Thirty-eight of Japan’s 54 reactors are currently
shut down, mostly for routine inspections. Under pressure, however,
local governments have refused to reopen them. It is conceivable that by
next March all 54 could be out of action as there are inspections every
13 months. That would strip Japan of nearly a third of its pre-11 March
power-generation capacity.
Kaida further enraged people with his announcement
that most of the reactors are safe, without giving any indication on how
he made that judgment. People are demanding that the government explains
the risks openly, instead of issuing bland, blanket assurances: "So sour
is the prevailing mood that this really might put a nail in the nuclear
coffin". (Economist, 24 June)
The new wave of protest and struggle has echoes of
the 1970s, when community groups were instrumental in changing
government policy on the environment, pressing for improvements in air
and water quality. Japan’s entire energy policy is under scrutiny, as
are the levels of compensation for evacuees, and wider issues such as
devolving more political power from Tokyo.
Obvious, but ominous and unanswerable, questions
were posed by Dieter Helm, professor of energy policy at Oxford
University: "How could a sophisticated country like Japan put its
back-up generators in the path of a large wave? The question is: what
else hasn’t been checked?" (Financial Times, 7 June) About 440 nuclear
power reactors are in operation around the world. Another 60 are under
construction and 493 more are planned or proposed. Many of these are in
countries with far inferior infrastructural and technological
development than Japan.
Less than five months before the catastrophe in
Japan, German chancellor, Angela Merkel, pushed through her plan to
extend the lifetime of Germany’s nuclear plants to 2036 from 2022. This
immediately ignited protests. The Fukushima disaster saw this mood
explode in massive demonstrations. Such was the level of anger that
Merkel was forced into a complete u-turn on 30 May.
Her right-wing Christian Democratic Party had
suffered defeats in five regional elections, notably coming behind the
Social Democrats and Greens in Baden-Wurttemberg in May for the first time at state
level. Buffeted by the eurozone crisis, and with federal elections on
the horizon in 2013, Merkel is desperately hoping for a political
revival. She is now a zealous convert to non-nuclear energy, claiming
that her ‘energy switch’ is akin to the reunification of East and West
Germany following the dismantling of the Berlin wall – consciously using
language reminiscent of that time.
The eight oldest nuclear plants are to be shut down
by the end of this year. Another six will close between 2015 and the end
of 2021, the last three by the end of 2022. The government claims that
nuclear power, which produces 23% of the nation’s electricity, will be
replaced mainly with renewable energy, whose proportion of electricity
production is targeted to reach 35% by 2020. (In 2000, 30% of
electricity came from nuclear. Since then, renewables have expanded
their share from 6.6% to 16.5%.)
There is a long way to go to achieve this. The
Financial Times pointed out (3 July) that Germany has only one working
commercial offshore wind farm and one near completion. They will
generate 92 megawatts (MW) – a tenth of that from a typical nuclear
plant. In comparison, Britain has about 1,300MW. Much of Germany’s
coastline is a national park, forcing plants into deep water. Of the
3,500km (2,175 miles) of transmission lines needed to carry renewable
power from northern sources to the south and west, just 90km have been
built. It is clear, nonetheless, that a section of German manufacturing
is looking to capitalise on today’s favourable circumstances by
investing in the sustainable energy market.
The chief short-to-medium term beneficiary, however,
will be natural gas. Merkel’s ‘energy switch’ plan says that fossil
fuel-burning power stations could replace about half of the 20,000MW of
nuclear capacity that will be taken out by 2022. But the government says
it will need another 10,000MW in capacity to make sure Germany does not
suffer power outages or have to resort to importing electricity from
France or Czech Republic, which would be nuclear generated.
The Swiss parliament also voted against renewing the
country’s nuclear reactors. This followed mass demonstrations, including
a 20,000-strong protest on 28 May. As in Germany, the decision was a
180° turn. As recently as this spring, new reactors were being
considered.
In Italy, just two weeks after Silvio Berlusconi’s
coalition was hammered in Italy’s local elections, referendums rejected
legislation on nuclear energy, the privatisation of water utilities and
legal immunity for government ministers. This was a protest which linked
issues raised by Fukushima with a general rejection of Berlusconi’s
rule. It was the first time since 1995 that the turnout in a referendum
had reached the required limit to be binding. Now Italy’s Enel and
France’s EDF have to scrap plans to build Italy’s first nuclear power
plants since a 1987 referendum mothballed existing reactors.
Thailand has halted the construction of five nuclear
plants. And Malaysia, which had planned to start up its first nuclear
station in 2021, has put its programme on hold.
The Fukushima shockwave also reached the US.
Officials had claimed that reactors in the US would be safe from such
disasters because of their stronger venting systems. But Tokyo Electric
Power Company has released documents showing that Fukushima Daiichi
installed the same vents years ago. (New York Times, 17 May) They detail
the growing desperation at the plant as workers struggled in vain to
manually open the safety valves. As a result, three of the reactors
exploded in succession.
The venting system had first been introduced in the
US in the late 1980s. This was part of a ‘safety enhancement programme’
for boiling-water reactors of the Mark I containment type, designed by
General Electric in the 1960s. Between 1998 and 2001, it was brought
into Fukushima Daiichi, where five of six reactors use the Mark I
system.
Clearly, there is a global rejection of nuclear
power. However, the argument, increasingly endorsed by many
environmentalists, is that nuclear power is necessary to avoid the
world’s energy demand being met by fossil fuels, in spite of its
dangers. But this is a position of resignation, based on the false
assumption that capitalism is the only economic system possible.
Generally speaking, research, development and
investment in renewable energy has been minimal. Japan, for instance, is
the second-largest manufacturer of solar panels, behind China, with
companies like Toshiba, Panasonic and Sharp to the fore. Yet, according
to government data, in 2007 Japan generated just 6% of its primary
energy from renewable sources, including hydropower, virtually unchanged
since 1973. In Britain, despite coalition government hype, investment in
renewables fell by 70% in 2010. (Financial Times, 19 May)
Profit-driven capitalism is locked onto short-term,
stop-gap measures. The exploitation of shale gas is just the latest in a
long line of spurious ‘solutions’ (see box). Here too, however, mass
pressure has had an effect. The French government awarded permits to
major oil companies with little or no public consultation or
information. This provoked a huge backlash, with hundreds of anti-shale
groups organising protests and rallies. These have led to a moratorium
on the industry.
Despite the claims, shale gas will cause untold
damage to land, water and air. It will ensure the continued use of
fossil fuels into the future. This is at a time when the International
Energy Agency estimates that greenhouse gas emissions reached a new
record, with 30.6 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide poured into the
atmosphere last year, a rise of 1.6Gt on 2009. (Guardian, 30 May)
The IEA calculated that if the world is to escape
the most damaging effects of global warming, annual energy-related
emissions should be no more than 32Gt by 2020. If this year’s emissions
rise by as much as they did in 2010, that limit will be exceeded nine
years ahead of schedule, making it all but impossible to keep warming to
a manageable level, on the basis of the gas-guzzling capitalist system.
Manny Thain
The dangers of fracking shale
GAS COMPANIES are pushing shale gas as the best
way to meet rising demand for power and cut emissions. Shale gas is
produced by a process of fracking, which involves pumping water,
sand and chemicals deep underground into horizontal gas wells at
extremely high pressure to break apart hard, hydrocarbon-rich shale
and extract natural gas.
Britain’s coalition government is keen. A report
from the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee of MPs argued
that shale gas could boost domestic gas production and enhance
energy security. It said that there was no evidence that fracking
was unsafe or that it posed a risk to water supplies. (Guardian, 13
June) Maybe the MPs had not seen last year’s Oscar-nominated
documentary, Gasland, which famously showed water so contaminated
that residents in Pennsylvania were able to set it alight when it
flowed from their taps.
Pennsylvania is where the shale trail is being
blazed. Companies, such as Shell, Chevron, Reliance and BG Group
(half of the former British Gas), expect to drill 2,000 additional
wells in the state this year, on top of 1,415 in 2010.
Shale gas extraction has caused a very long list
of catastrophes – fraccidents as they are becoming known. In April
in Bradford County, Pennsylvania, drillers lost control of a well
which spewed chemicals for 19 hours. Homeowners have been issued
with gas detectors to lower the risk of an explosion – two homes
have exploded since late last year. Residents in a number of towns
have to boil tap water before drinking after water treatment plants
were polluted by bromides from gas-drilling projects.
A blowout at a gas well in Punxsutawney,
Clearfield County, hurled a 23-metre combustible gusher of gas and
toxic waste water into the air. It took the gas company, EOG
Resources, 16 hours to control it. A report released by Democratic
members of Congress on 18 April found that more than 650 of the
chemicals used in fracking were carcinogens. They have been used in
at least 13 states. (Guardian, 1 June)
The gas industry has used a report by the
European Gas Advocacy Forum (EGAF) to back up its hyperbole. The
EGAF claims that shale gas would be a cheaper and more viable form
of energy than renewables, and that it would generate half the
greenhouse gas emissions of coal. This report, however, is a
distortion of a study by the European Climate Foundation (ECF), a
green think-tank. The ECF stated: "We in no way endorse this [EGAF]
report. Heavy dependency on gas, as this report seems to suggest, is
not a viable alternative to a low-carbon generation network with low
dependence on fossil fuels in terms of cost, energy security, or
climate resilience". (Guardian, 20 April)
A study from Cornell University, published in
the Climate Change Letters journal, also exposes the EGAF spin. It
showed, for example, that 4-8% of the methane from shale gas
production escaped into the atmosphere during the lifetime of a
well. Methane is more than 20 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as
carbon dioxide. If all emissions associated with shale gas
production and combustion are taken into account, it could be even
more harmful in climate change terms than coal, which is widely
regarded as the dirtiest fossil fuel.
|