The real operational problem appears to be a loss – total or partial – of water cooling systems, which are vital in controlling and slowing down a nuclear reaction. To date, the nuclear vessels themselves appear to have survived reasonably intact, but radiation leakages have been confirmed. Although the extent of these leakages is unknown, reports indicate that, to date, they are still relatively small. However this could, of course, change markedly.
Undoubtedly, the Fukushima disaster will have a major impact both on existing nuclear plants, especially in countries prone to earthquakes, and for new nuclear build.
Currently, there are some 442 nuclear plants in operation around the world and around 60 under construction. Some of the older plants may be retired prematurely, whilst others may need additional safety-related expenditure.
Furthermore, the Japanese disaster will make it increasingly difficult for new nuclear build to be undertaken, even though modern safety standards within new generation designs are far more robust than those of earlier designs.
In any event, new nuclear build already faces serious financial questions in several countries, such as Finland, in addition to planning issues. Now, increasing concerns about safety are bound to be exploited with renewed vigour by nuclear opponents.
Already, there is some uncertainty about China’s massive investment in nuclear power plants, especially in areas where earthquakes can be expected. In reality, although China is suspending new nuclear build for the immediate future, it is still likely to pursue its aggressive nuclear targets, albeit with enhanced safety requirements.
In Germany, a three-month moratorium has been imposed on implementing the planned extension of the operating lives of existing nuclear plants: seven of the pre-1980 plants have been closed temporarily.
But France’s nuclear power programme is set to continue. Since almost 80% of France’s electricity is nuclear-generated, any U-turn on nuclear would have massive industrial implications.
The UK’s tentative new nuclear build plans have been badly dented, with political opposition expected to harden. Moreover, RWE, a 50% participant in the Horizon consortium, is rumoured to be seeking an exit: E.On may do likewise. Were this to happen, realistically only EdF would be left to undertake new nuclear build.
Whilst the Italian Government has recently supported new nuclear build, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster brought about a referendum which opposed nuclear power. A similar scenario could be re-enacted following the Fukushima catastrophe.
In recent months, new nuclear build in the US has struggled. The legal position is immensely complicated, whilst financial returns are uncertain. The Japanese disaster will certainly delay new nuclear build there, as more gas-fired plant – using cheap fuel – is commissioned.
Against this background, there are already calls for far more renewable energy investment, despite the fact that most renewable sources are intermittent – rather than base-load – generators.
However, financing renewable generation projects remains very challenging with subsidies in many countries – including Holland, Italy and Spain – all being slashed. Solar projects are particularly at risk, with even Germany – the EU’s great proponent of solar power – seeking to cut solar tariff levels next year.
In summary, much of the impact will depend on the, as yet, unknown outcome for the Fukushima plant. An apocalyptical outcome would probably kill off much of new nuclear build for good. However, a very ‘close shave’, with minimal radiation exposure, could be defended on the basis of the integrity of the safety systems combating the twin attacks of one of the biggest earthquakes in history and an accompanying tsunami of immense power.
Nigel Hawkins is a Director of Nigel Hawkins Associates which undertakes policy and investment research in the energy and water sectors.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
