|
【Global Warming】
Two months have passed since the first post in the series, Lessons from Corona Crisis. During those months, to our dismay, the confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus have tripled, and the death toll has doubled. As each day passes by, we remind ourselves of the hope to end this inconceivable sorrow, to secure the health and life of each and every one of us. To be frank, thinking about this crisis can be outright depressing. Life, health, livelihood – nearly everything gets tarnished whenever it’s tied to this virus. Nonetheless, even in the dark of a tunnel, there are times when we can spot a sliver of daylight. There are moments when we can sense a glimmer of hope. If now is that moment, then that hope may be the readiness of nature to reclaim the planet we’ve so disrespectfully trashed. Global warming is a dreadful result of the human trashing of our planet ever since the industrial revolution of 1850 to 1900. Our fossil fuel burning is the principle source of the greenhouse gases, which trap the planet’s surface heat as their concentration increases in the atmosphere, causing the rise in global surface temperature. As the average global temperature rises, so does the risk of extreme climate events – including heatwaves and heavy rainfalls. These events trigger further damaging impacts to the oceans, lands, forests, and all life forms through conditions such as acute food shortages. To be sure, every country has their own share of climate change deniers who choose to ignore science and facts. Those deniers are quick to point out the fact that global warming and ice ages have existed ever since the prehistoric times. However, what they don’t like to admit is the fact that the observed changes of global warming over the last century have been unprecedented in both rate and scale. And the fact that scientists are sounding the alarm over the human-induced warming of the planet’s surface temperature. The fact of the matter is, over the last 150 years since we’ve started to record the global temperatures, all five hottest years were in the last five years. Further, 2019 wrapped up the hottest decade ever recorded globally. And the fact that the global greenhouse gas emissions have doubled in the last half a century points to the undeniable scientific reality of human-induced global warming. According to the United Nations, in order to protect our planet from an urgent and potentially irreversible threat, we must limit the human-induced increase in the average global temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. To put this in context, as of 2017, human-induced warming has already reached about 1°C above pre-industrial levels. Which leaves us with only 0.5°C allowance before the impact of this warming becomes potentially irreversible and catastrophic. So as to hold below this level of increase, the UN says that global emissions would have to fall by 8% every single year between now and 2030. This number is alarming, because there’s no historical precedent for the pace of change nor scale of this magnitude, let alone we must do so in every single year for each of the next ten years. To put it another way, this means we must bring down our greenhouse gas emissions to nearly 40% of the current level by 2030, globally. And it’s crucial to note that these findings have been recognized by the national science bodies of major nations and are largely not disputed. The good news is that as of the first quarter of 2020, global greenhouse gas emissions are on track to plunge nearly 8% this year – the largest drop ever to be recorded. As worldwide lockdowns to fight the coronavirus have triggered an unprecedented slowdown in human activity, by March, the world’s use of oil fell nearly 5%, global road transport fell 50%, and air traffic down 60%, compared to 2019. By mid-April, global energy use was 17% to 25% lower than it was in 2019, all contributing to an unprecedented and desperately-needed cut in emissions. Granted, this historic decline in emissions is happening for all the wrong reason called the corona crisis. Nonetheless, we find children in New Delhi looking up at the clear blue skies for the first time in their life. We find people in Beijing enjoying a deep breath of clean fresh air for the first time in many decades. In witness to the readiness of nature to reclaim the planet we’ve trashed, it’s like a sliver of sunlight spotted in the dark tunnel – a thread of hope. Let us not make this a one-off event. Let us live as a partner to nature, not its exploiter. The reasonable way to sustainably reduce emissions is not through painful lockdowns, but by the global citizens coming together and respectfully cooperating as one. And that should mean the people of the so-called “developed nations” compromising to a much greater length. It's only fair because we’ve trashed our planet for far too long, and much worse in cumulative aggregate than the emerging nations. Through all those years to even today, we’ve reaped the benefits by trashing our planet. By setting the right energy and climate policies in place, let us sustainably reduce emissions – together. Read Next: Lessons from Corona Crisis (4)【Life or Livelihood?】 Read Previous: Lessons from Corona Crisis (2)【Killer is Hero?】 Complete Series: Lessons from Corona Crisis (1)～(4) [1] [2] [3] [4] Read Theme: Environment 【Our Responsibility】
We’ve extensively assessed the third reason for the unsustainability of nuclear power plants – their true cost. And the second assertion: Japan can’t scrap its nuclear energy policy because, if we do, then our electric bills will be too high. Here, we’ve examined the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Grounds for Cost Reversal to demonstrate that this assertion is factually inaccurate. 1st: Safety Upgrade Cost of 3.3 trillion yen (US$29 billion). 2nd: Disaster Cleanup Cost of 879 trillion yen (US$7.7 trillion). And 3rd: Safety Decommission Cost of 336.1 trillion yen (US$3 trillion). For a grand total of 1,218.4 trillion yen (US$10.7 trillion). It’s important to remember that this cost – albeit colossal – covers only within the limitations of what can be reasonably estimated based on today’s science and technology. Japan is known for its huge national debt, having by far the highest Debt-to-GDP ratio in the world. Yet, the colossal cost of nuclear power plants even exceeds that debt figure. And what’s more alarming is that METI, in its Annual Report on Energy, almost completely omits a mention of this colossal cost. Moreover, Abe administration and the nuclear advocates shamelessly continue to assert the cost efficiency of nuclear power generation, in hopes to restore additional nuclear power plants back online – and even build new ones. Their assertion is beyond irresponsible – it’s reprehensible. Now, this colossal cost of 1,218.4 trillion yen (US$10.7 trillion). If we bring this astronomical figure back down to the ground level and think in terms of our living expenses, what does it actually mean? As of 2017, approximately 126 million people live in Japan. This means that 9.67 million yen (US$86,000) in electric bill per person is overdue, above and beyond what has already been paid. For a family of three, the amount owed comes to roughly 29 million yen (US$258,000). Let’s break this further down into monthly electric bill. Japan enjoys the world’s longest average life expectancy of around 83 years, which calculates to 996 months in average opportunity to pay electric bills – assuming payment from birth to death. During those months, each person is therefore presumably underbilled 9,700 yen (US$86) per month. For a family of three, the underbilled amount comes to roughly 29,000 yen (US$257) per month. If you believe in a very basic concept of paying for what you use yourself, then you actually should be paying more for your electricity every month. This electric bill has already been incurred by erecting 54 nuclear power plants and allowing 1 Fukushima disaster. So, this cost of 1,218.4 trillion yen (US$10.7 trillion) is a very real, irreversible, electric bill. Today, you won’t pay this expensive electric bill that you actually owe. Tomorrow, too, you probably won’t pay. For that matter, you probably won’t pay most of what you actually owe in electric bill during your lifetime. Yet, this extraordinarily expensive electric bill has already been incurred. Surely, someone must pay for what has already been incurred. So then, who? Who’ll get stuffed with the bill incurred by us who live here today? That is, the people of the future. They’re our children and grandchildren. And their children and grandchildren. That’s who we’re stuffing, with the cost we’ve incurred but won’t pay, and the problems we’ve created but can’t solve. This is another example of an assertion, “As long as it’s good for me, then it’s fine for the others to suffer.” That is, “(Me First) = (You Suffer).” Nuclear power plants are unsustainable. The reasons are clear as baby’s innocent eyes. First Reason: When you “plan” for the “unpredictable” including volcanic eruptions and terrorist attacks, you already know it’s way too risky. Second Reason: Our science and technology of today offer no viable solution to the daily mass production of extremely contaminated water polluted with dangerously high level of radioactive materials. Third Reason: The true cost of nuclear power generation is colossal, not even remotely comparable to the cost of thermal power. And now, let us earnestly face the undeniable truth that we who live here today are responsible for the nuclear power plants. We’re responsible because we’ve been enjoying nuclear power generated electricity, and many of us continue to accept the ongoing use of this energy source. “There’s nothing I can do about it on my own,” one may say in passivity. Yet, no matter how passive your acceptance may be, the end result is the same – in essence, the acceptance of nuclear energy. Because we live in such a time as this, the moral judgement of each and every one of us is being questioned. In elections, did you vote for candidates advocating a nuclear-free energy policy? Did you voice your thoughts against nuclear energy policy to people around you? Do we duck our heads in fear of the authority and its supporters? Or do we voice what is our moral obligation, to have the courage and principles to say “no” to what is unjust? Each choice such as these creates a bigger voice in our communities and ultimately even structures our world in which we’re all a part of. Despite falling into the realm of pre-Fukushima fantasy which falsely allowed us to magically escape our responsibility by saying “We didn’t know,” now that we do know, we can no longer be excused. And still, the true cost of nuclear power plants is endless. For example, 30.5 billion yen (US$270 million) spent on cesium-contamination inspections conducted on rice grown in Fukushima prefecture during the five-year period from 2012 to 2016. The cost of radiation-contamination inspection conducted on a variety of food types by countless farmers and producers. And more than anything, the immeasurable cost of health and environmental harms. The constant concerns of radiation contamination to the food that we all eat, worldwide. The residents’ agony of their livelihood hijacked and forever lost. The loneliness of the people forced to live apart from their families. The deepest sorrows of the people who lost their loved ones. And the hopelessness of the people who took their own lives in great despair. The value of our livelihood. The value of our peace of mind. The value of our happiness. The value of all lives. And the value of life itself. How much are these values worth? How much are they worth to you? When we earnestly and honestly face these values and the reality of nuclear power plants, it’s obvious that nuclear power plants are unsustainable. To fulfill the responsibilities that so undeniably belong to us who live here today, let us take actions – by us who’ll live here from today. Cost Overview of Nuclear Power Plants in Japan
Grand Total: US$10.7 trillion Read Previous: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (3)【Onkalo】 Complete Series: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (1)～(4) [1] [2] [3] [4] Read Theme: Environment 【Onkalo】
Lastly, we’ll examine the Safety Decommission Cost that follows all nuclear power plants – without exception – at the end of their safely operating life expectancies of 40 years. As of now, 11 Japanese plants have closed for decommission. And to complete Safety Decommission, nuclear reactors must be dismantled as well as radioactive waste permanently stored away. The first step is the Dismantle of nuclear reactors. As of 2016, there are 150 nuclear power plants worldwide that have shut down for decommission – an equivalent of 1/4 of all plants constructed. Of those, only 17 reactors have actually completed the dismantle. And the average dismantle cost per reactor was approximately US$1 billion (roughly 113 billion yen). For instance, one of the most recent Safety Decommission closures in the US is Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon, Vermont, which ceased operation in December 2014. It’s dismantle cost is budgeted at US$1.2 billion (135 billion yen). By the way, not one Japanese reactor has completed the dismantle. Given that the 54 Japanese nuclear power plants (43 active and 11 closed for decommission) average 32 years since inception, the waves of decommission closure to soon arrive are a sure fact. And such Dismantle Cost will reach US$54 billion (6.1 trillion yen). Next, the second step is the Radioactive Waste Storage. With 600 nuclear power plants constructed worldwide and 63 years in operational history, we would surely expect a comprehensive radioactive waste management strategy already in place. However, our expectations can’t be more wrong – especially considering that this strategy must encompass hundreds of thousands of years until radioactive waste weakens to a biologically safe level. The truth is that not even one nuclear power plant in the world has in place such comprehensive radioactive waste management strategy. Perhaps, Finland’s “Onkalo” is the only one that even comes remotely close. Finland has long been one of the very few countries to realistically try to tackle the issue of Radioactive Waste Storage to complete Safety Decommission in a responsible manner. Onkalo is an underground repository for the final disposal of radioactive waste. Screening for its construction site began in 1983. After a long screening process, Olkiluoto in Eurajoki, a southwestern municipality of Finland, was selected as the site in 2001. Excavation of 520meter-deep tunnel began in 2004. In 2016, construction of the underground storage facility commenced, and it targets completion by 2020. From thereon, for the following 100 years, all radioactive waste produced in Finland will be stored in Onkalo. And after 100 years, around 2120, when Onkalo will reach its full capacity, it will be buried and its access tunnel backfilled and sealed for approximately 100 thousand years. The estimated construction cost of the project is €800 million (106 billion yen), however the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund has already saved €1.4 billion (186 billion yen) in case of a cost overrun. Nonetheless, even if it’s sealed, there will eventually come a time when aging of the structure will need to be addressed. Furthermore, given that it takes 240 thousand years for plutonium to weaken to a biologically safe level, Onkalo will require 2.5 times the longevity than its current assumption. With this in mind, if we assume the actual Onkalo Construction Cost to be roughly 2.5 times the Fund’s savings, then it will amount to €3.5 billion (465 billion yen) in present currency value. Moreover, even if it’s sealed, Onkalo is a repository for dangerously high level of radioactive materials. It’s safety management for an inconceivably long 240 thousand years will require not only the scientific expertise and equipment, but also heavy security. While examining the 2nd Ground for Cost Reversal, we’ve estimated a very rough ballpark figure for Shelter Operating Cost within Disaster Decommission Cost. Here, we’ll use the same method in estimating the Onkalo Operating Cost. Yet, Safety Decommission is presumably much more manageable than Disaster Decommission involving melt-down radioactive waste. Thus, if we assume Onkalo is operable at one-tenth of Shelter Operating Cost, then the annual Onkalo Operating Cost would be very roughly 100 million yen (US$0.9 million). This would mean that the operating cost of Onkalo for 240 thousand years will amount to 24 trillion yen (US$210 billion) in present currency value. As such, Finland’s Radioactive Waste Storage Cost would be comprised of Onkalo Construction Cost of 465 billion yen (US$4.1 billion), Onkalo Operating Cost of 24 trillion yen (US$210 billion), for a total of roughly 24.5 trillion yen (US$214.1 billion). Here, it’s important to remember that this cost covers 100 years of radioactive waste produced from the existing 4 nuclear power plants in Finland. If Finland continues on with its nuclear energy policy for longer than 100 years or expands its nuclear energy capacity beyond the existing 4 plants, then it will need to build the 2nd and 3rd Onkalos, and the cost will evidently multiply. Compared to Finland’s 4 nuclear power plants, Japan has 54 existing plants. As such, Japan’s Radioactive Waste Storage Cost would conceivably be 13.5 times that of Finland’s, for a total of 330 trillion yen (US$2.9 trillion). And, like Finland, if Japan continues on with its nuclear energy policy for longer than 100 years or expands its nuclear energy capacity beyond the existing 54 plants, then the cost will evidently multiply. And now, let’s tally up the Safety Decommission Cost that we’ve examined in the two steps above. The Dismantle Cost of 6.1 trillion yen (US$54 billion), the Radioactive Waste Storage Cost of 330 trillion yen (US$2.9 trillion), for a total of 336.1 trillion yen (roughly US$3 trillion). If we were to include this cost, no one in their right mind would feel the need to compare the cost of thermal power and nuclear power any longer. Here, let’s call this the 3rd Ground for Cost Reversal. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there still remains a concern if Onkalo – our best technology available today – will perform as promised. For instance, many scientists believe that Earth has a history of circulating from 40 to 100 thousand years of glacial period to another, within the millions of years of ice age. And in between these glacial periods, scientific evidences point to frequent massive earthquakes as well as geologic uplifts in the magnitude of several hundred meters. Given Onkalo is 520meters deep, could it withstand these geological stress events without leaking dangerously high level of radioactive materials? Additionally, could man-made structures of today withstand 40 to 100 thousand years of unforgiving glacial environment without leaking dangerously high level of radioactive materials? Naturally, these concerns are very real and legitimate as we face the unprecedented challenge that mankind has never before encountered. Furthermore, Japan is an island nation of extremely active seismic history, with earthquakes of devastating intensity occurring once every hundred years or so. This means that we would average approximately 2,400 earthquakes of intense magnitude in the course of a 240 thousand-year period. And a focal depth at the epicenter is typically assessed at several to tens of kilometers, far deeper in geological layer than Onkalo, leaving it vulnerable to the fierce underground tremors. Again, this poses a legitimate concern for Onkalo’s structural integrity to withstand such fierce forces, for thousands of times, for hundreds of thousands of years without leaking dangerously high level of radioactive materials. These very real and legitimate concerns cast a serious doubt that the radioactive waste management technology of today is far from being comprehensive or complete. Read Next: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (4)【Our Responsibility】 Read Previous: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (2)【True Cost】 Complete Series: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (1)～(4) [1] [2] [3] [4] Read Theme: Environment 【True Cost】
The third reason for the unsustainability of nuclear power plants is their true cost. Not only the nuclear advocates, but also many regular Japanese citizens are heard saying that, “Without nuclear power plants, we’ll face energy shortfalls unless alternative energy source is found.” Also, plenty of citizens echo the mantra that, “Without nuclear power plants, our electric bills will be too high.” Are these two assertions, indeed, factually accurate? Let’s consider the first assertion: Japan can’t scrap its nuclear energy policy because, if we do, then we’ll face energy shortfalls unless alternative energy source is found. Is this factually accurate? As it turns out, Japan has already proven this to be factually inaccurate. Between May 2012 and August 2015, all nuclear power plants were offline – either closed or operations halted under inspection – which left Japan without nuclear power generation for over 3 years. During those years, businesses and homes were encouraged to conserve energy. Even the iconic, mega neon signs in the big cities were toned down. With such efforts, peak energy demands of summers and winters were amply met. Energy supply was plentiful, even without adding any alternate source or capacity. Notwithstanding such proven track record, if you’re still concerned about not having enough electricity at your disposal. Or, if you insist that more energy supply will be critical as the economy grows. To address those concerns, we can safely and cost-effectively boost our energy capacity by expanding thermal power stations and solar power systems. Next, let’s consider the second assertion: Japan can’t scrap its nuclear energy policy because, if we do, then our electric bills will be too high. Many Japanese citizens seem truly wedded to this notion. Here, we’ll examine three separate grounds in determining the factual accuracy of this assertion. To begin with, how was the general public persuaded into believing such assertion in the first place? Perhaps, at the root of this may be the Annual Report on Energy published by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). According to this report, thermal power generation costs approximately 1.4 times as much as nuclear power generation. This information was widely disseminated through the news media over time. If this were true, then suppose we take all nuclear power plants offline, and instead generate that lost power by increasing the capacity of thermal power. In such instance, your monthly electric bill will rise by 4,000 yen (roughly US$35) if your current monthly bill were 10,000 yen (US$88). Or by 8,000 yen (US$70) if your bill were 20,000 yen (US$176). With this information alone, public opinion may split between “Oh that’s too much, we can’t scrap our nuclear energy policy,” and “That hurts, but considering the dire consequences of nuclear accidents, it’s like paying for insurance.” This brings us to examine the Safety Upgrade Cost. The urgent need for additional safety measures at nuclear power plants was unequivocally proven by the Fukushima disaster. Also, with Japanese nuclear power plants averaging 32 years since inception, and that of the US at 38 years, these reactors are nearing the end of their safely operating life expectancies of 40 years. And undeniably, the aging of these reactors further magnifies the cost of safety upgrades. As of July 2016, the electric utilities operating 43 active nuclear power plants in Japan estimate in total 3.3 trillion yen (US$29 billion) for Safety Upgrades. Nonetheless, this cost figure is at best unreliable – and at worst grossly underestimated – as it continues to balloon at every announcement. And, what’s even more alarming is that most of this cost is not included in the calculation of the above “1.4 times” figure published by METI. If we were to include all actual Safety Upgrade Cost, then it’s quite safe to say that the cost of thermal power and nuclear power will see a clear reversal. Here, let’s call this the 1st Ground for Cost Reversal. Next, we’ll examine the Disaster Cleanup Cost as a result of nuclear catastrophes. For one Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster, the Japanese government estimated as of 2013 a whopping 5.4 trillion yen (US$48 billion) in Liability Compensation, 2.5 trillion yen (US$22 billion) in Decontamination of the surrounding town and environment, for a total of 7.9 trillion yen (US$70 billion). However, this turned out to be just a rough initial estimate. In 2016, this figure almost doubles to 8 trillion yen (US$71 billion) in Liability, 7 trillion yen (US$62 billion) in Decontamination, for a total of 15 trillion yen (US$133 billion). And, what’s so outrageous is that this figure doesn’t include even a penny of the Disaster Decommission Cost. Most of the healthcare and medical treatment expenses for the local residents aren’t included as well. Even the 35 billion yen (US$312 million) wasted tab for the frozen soil wall isn’t included. This proves the appalling underestimation by the government and the utter unreliability of their cost figures. Surely, these cost estimates will continue to mushroom at every announcement. And, exclusively from cost perspective, the Disaster Decommission Cost will likely deliver an inconceivably enormous blow. Let’s take Chernobyl for example, the only other INES Level 7 disaster besides Fukushima. Immediately after the disaster, Chernobyl hastily built what’s called the “Sarcophagus,” a giant concrete structure enclosing the radioactive wrecked remains of the exploded reactor building. Its purpose was to temporarily reduce the spread of radioactivity. The expected life of sarcophagus was said to be 30 years, which has already passed. Most of the melt-down nuclear fuel remains inside the sarcophagus, and with rainwater passing through and out, the surrounding environment is continually contaminated by dangerously high level of radioactive materials. What’s more, the aging steel and concrete of sarcophagus are rotting away due to moisture, undeniably leaking more radiation into the environment. If it were to collapse, a massive amount of radioactive materials will be dispersed into the atmosphere over a wide range. Chernobyl is currently constructing a gargantuan new shelter called the New Safe Confinement (NSC) intended to contain the radioactive wrecked remains of the reactor building and the entire sarcophagus for the next 100 years. The construction began as a US$800 million (90 billion yen) project, but the budget quickly mushroomed. NSC is targeted for completion this year, and its actual tab at this point has tripled to US$2.3 billion (260 billion yen). And suppose we continue this cycle for another 240 thousand years until plutonium weakens to a biologically safe level, then we’ll build and rebuild NSC for roughly 2,400 iterations. And the Shelter Construction Cost of that will amount to a mind-boggling US$5.5 trillion (624 trillion yen) in present currency value. And this still won’t include the Shelter Operating Cost for 240 thousand years. Safely operating NSC containing dangerously high level of radioactive materials will require not only the scientific expertise and equipment, but also heavy security. If we assume this annual operating cost to be very roughly 1 billion yen (US$9 million), then the Shelter Operating Cost for 240 thousand years will amount to 240 trillion yen (US$2.1 trillion) in present currency value. Notwithstanding all the labor and cost for the inconceivably long 240 thousand years, we’re still unable to reasonably estimate the cost of Melt-Down Radioactive Waste Management because our science and technology of today are yet to offer a viable method to solve this part of the nuclear puzzle. Without knowing the method, we have no way to reasonably estimate its cost. And now, let’s tally up the Disaster Cleanup Cost that we’ve examined above. First, the appallingly underestimated government figure of 15 trillion yen (US$133 billion) for Liability and Decontamination. Second, the Disaster Decommission Cost comprised of 624 trillion yen (US$5.5 trillion) in Shelter Construction Cost and the very rough ball park figure of 240 trillion yen (US$2.1 trillion) in Shelter Operating Cost. These tally up to a colossal cost of 879 trillion yen (US$7.7 trillion). Finally, if we add-on the presently incalculable Melt-Down Radioactive Waste Management Cost, then the Disaster Cleanup Cost will snowball into an excessively monstrous amount beyond imagination. Mesmerized by such astronomical dollar amount in front of us, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that this cost is only for one Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. Here, we’re completely ignoring the risk of repeating this catastrophe once every 12 years. And even if we were to include only the cost of one Fukushima disaster, it becomes beyond foolish to be even comparing the cost of thermal power and nuclear power. Here, let’s call this the 2nd Ground for Cost Reversal. Read Next: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (3)【Onkalo】 Read Previous: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (1)【Every 12 Years】 Complete Series: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (1)～(4) [1] [2] [3] [4] Read Theme: Environment 【Every 12 Years】
This past August, Hurricane Harvey pounded Houston, Texas, leaving utter devastation behind. At a chemical plant northeast of Houston in Crosby, a specialty chemical manufacturer called Arkema produces organic peroxides, which are used in making plastic products. Organic peroxides require refrigeration especially during the summer months or they become unstable, start to decompose as they warm, and create more heat quickly leading to a rapid, explosive reaction. So, at this Crosby plant, these chemicals are refrigerated with additional backup generators designed to keep refrigeration units operating in case the cooling system shuts down. Yet, Harvey brought the highest total precipitation on record in the United States history, cutting off power and flooding all backup generators. Arkema warned that the failed cooling system will cause the chemicals to destabilize and, in a short time, explode. The local authorities issued a mandatory evacuation order in anticipation of imminent fire and explosion. A series of explosions shook the chemical plant that sent black plumes of smoke in the air, spewing out respiratory irritants as well as toxic gasses and carcinogens. Some local residents tried to get around the mandatory evacuation order to get back home, only to be met by road blocks and police in protective gear and gas masks. Arkema denies responsibility saying they couldn’t have predicted the unprecedented flooding. Such string of events reminds us of Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster of March 2011. Unprecedented natural disaster completely cut off power. Despite clear knowledge of an imminent explosion, we had no means to stop it. Mandatory evacuation order was issued, blocking the residents from getting back home. Everybody denied responsibility, asserting that the unprecedented disaster was unpredictable. Residents’ lives were instantly subjected to life or death situation, and their livelihood hijacked. This Arkema incident and Fukushima disaster. Organic peroxide and radioactive nuclear fuel explain all the differences in severity. Nonetheless, Harvey has warned us not only earthquakes and tsunamis, but also unprecedented hurricanes, rains and floods can bring about a nuclear catastrophe. Living through the inconceivable sorrows of Fukushima nuclear disaster and Harvey’s warning, all governments and citizens alike can no longer be excused by saying, “We couldn’t have predicted the unprecedented disaster.” We’ve already learned from Fukushima nuclear disaster to “plan” for the “unpredictable” including volcanic eruptions and terrorist attacks. As we grow wiser in our nuclear energy policy, it’s already quite clear that nuclear power plants are unsustainable. The second reason for the unsustainability of nuclear power plants is the daily mass production of extremely contaminated water polluted with dangerously high level of radioactive materials. In August 2013, the Japanese government disclosed that 300 tons of such extremely contaminated radioactive water were leaking out into the sea, every single day. The government admitted they couldn’t determine exactly when the leakage began, but conceivably ever since the explosion in March 2011. This is a frightening fact not only for the people of Japan and the world whose seafood consumption is high, but also for our marine life as well as animals such as birds who sample seafood. It takes 300 years for cesium and 240 thousand years for plutonium to weaken to a biologically safe level. In the meantime, these deadly radioactive materials will cross the oceans and carry on the dangerous level of contamination worldwide. In an attempt to moderate the leakage of extremely contaminated radioactive water, Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant is pumping such radioactive water through a filtering system that lowers the concentration of radioactive materials. Yet, this system can’t bring down the radioactive concentration to a biologically safe level. Today’s science and technology offer no viable solution to a problem of such magnitude. An enormous amount of filtered radioactive water is stocked in huge storage tanks on site at the Fukushima plant. As of July 2017, such radioactive water amounted to 780 thousand tons, an equivalent of three thousand 25meter-sized swimming pools. And even today, filtered radioactive water is continuously mass produced, daily. And groundwater continues to flow into the basement of melt-down reactor buildings, mass producing extremely contaminated radioactive water. Most of such radioactive water runs off into the sea or leaches into the soil – eventually likely to make its way to contaminate the groundwater at the source. From the numerous wells dug surrounding these reactor buildings, extremely contaminated radioactive water is pumped out, filtered and stocked, day in and day out – only to moderate what mostly runs off into the environment. Yet, mounting issues are relentless – storage tanks leaking filtered radioactive water, the filtering system leaking extremely contaminated radioactive water, and releasing filtered radioactive water into the sea to free up storage tank capacity enabling even higher level of contaminated radioactive water to be stocked. Other methods were tested. For example, hoping to block the water flow between the Fukushima plant and the sea, frozen soil wall was created by freezing the ground beneath the melt-down reactor buildings. Despite the high tax payor cost of 35 billion yen (roughly US$312 million), this method is said to have been largely ineffective. Against the dangerously high level of radioactive materials, our science and technology offer no better alternative than wells, pumps and filters. “Nuclear power plants are safe. Probability of an accident is one in a million years.” Advocates of nuclear energy policy repeated such sales pitch and constructed nearly 600 nuclear power plants worldwide. Yet, in the 63 years of nuclear power plant history since the first switch was flipped on in 1954, we count 5 accidents involving nuclear meltdown at or above INES level 5 severity – 1957 Windscale (Great Britain, 5), 1969 Lucens (Switzerland, 5), 1979 Three Mile Island (US, 5), 1986 Chernobyl (USSR, 7), and 2011 Fukushima (Japan, 7). (International Nuclear Event Scale – INES is an international severity scale for nuclear accidents, with Level 7 indicating the most severe). This averages one accident every 12 years, an egregiously high probability especially compared to the sales pitch repeated by the nuclear advocates. This is the reality. We must look at this truth without flinching – that we’re risking another Fukushima catastrophe every 12 years. With only one Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster, we’ve delivered an inconceivable blow to the lives and environment worldwide. When we earnestly face this reality and our responsibility, it’s quite obvious that nuclear power plants are, indeed, unsustainable. Read Next: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (2)【True Cost】 Complete Series: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (1)～(4) [1] [2] [3] [4] Read Theme: Environment |
ENG/JPN Posted Alternately
日本語/英語を交互に掲載 Author ﾌﾟﾛﾌｨｰﾙ
JOE KIM Theme ﾃｰﾏ
All
Visits ｱｸｾｽ15,321 (as of 3/1/2026) 
|
RSS Feed