#18: Unsustainable Nuclear Power Plants (PART 2)

【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