WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Can Carbon Taxes Kill Pipeline Opposition?

Can Carbon Taxes Kill Pipeline Opposition?

Will Canada’s carbon taxes mitigate…

Stormy Seas Ahead For Oil Markets

Stormy Seas Ahead For Oil Markets

The OPEC agreement has sent…

Fukushima no Reason for Nuclear Energy Ban

This week marks the one-year anniversary since the 9-magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami rocked Japan. It was the strongest earthquake ever to hit the country, leaving an estimated 15,000 people dead. It caused roughly $34 billion worth of damage. Within hours of the afternoon quake, Tokyo Electric Power Co. reported a loss of power at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and later a meltdown. One year later, the international community is debating the safety of nuclear power. Though the Fukushima disaster was on par with the Chernobyl event in 1986, calling for a ban on nuclear power, however, may be something of a knee-jerk reaction.

At about 4 pm local time on March 11, 2011, TEPCO reported that the generators at Fukushima were without power. A few hours after that, cooling functions were suspended and by the end of the week, several units of the Fukushima nuclear power plant were melted down.

The accident sparked a near-universal examination of the safety of nuclear power. German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a decision to phase out nuclear power in the wake of the accident to close eight of the country's 17 nuclear reactors by the end of 2011 and ordered a complete shutdown by 2022. That decision, by their estimates, cost Germen energy companies RWE and E.ON about $1.3 billion.

Apart from the financial consequences, residents in areas as far away as the U.S. east coast, fed largely by the media frenzy, began to express concern about nuclear material from the Fukushima disaster. While some 300,000 people were relocated and many more directly impacted by the meltdown in Japan, the Environmental Protection Agency said fears in the United States were largely overblown.

Power wise, the nuclear disaster forced Japan to start taking on more natural gas to balance the country's energy sector. With Asian economies booming when compared with the rest of world, the shifting focus on eastern markets could spell trouble for other countries looking to add more natural gas to their energy mix. This, in turn, would lead to higher costs and potentially exacerbate already-growing concerns about the impact that soaring energy prices are having on global economic recovery.

With any anniversary comes time for reflection and this one's no different. Major players at the IHS CERA energy conference in Houston last week said maybe nuclear power has had its day. Why risk it when renewables are gaining momentum? There may be enough natural gas available to last a thousand years, collectively speaking. Meanwhile, Japan's former prime minister writes in Foreign Affairs that it's time to phase out nuclear technology all together. He maintains that, given the dual threat of meltdown and proliferation, there's simply no amount of precaution that can make nuclear technology safe.

The first unit at the Fukushima Diacchi nuclear power plant went into service in 1970 and all six came online six years later. Some of the risks associated with the plant were known as early as 1971 and some safety issues had already been reported by 1979. But those incidents are nothing compared with the 2011 disaster. While it's easy to compare the Fukushima disaster to the Chernobyl tragedy in 1986, the technology improvements during those past 25 years shouldn't be thrown discarded. Western governments, even those with vast natural gas resources, say nuclear power is here to stay. Just as no serious consideration was given to abandoning oil after the Deepwater Horizon tragedy in 2010, not taking a lessons-learned approach to nuclear energy is about as wise as the calls for all outright ban.

By. Daniel J. Graeber of Oilprice.com



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Mr. Zippy E. Chimp on May 08 2012 said:
    Clearly the small time author is full of beans on this facts. This is worse than Chernobyl in size scope and impact.
    Nuke power is insanity at its best. Putting faith imperfect human systems that can poison the globe for hundreds of thousands of generations is insanity and not worth it. Humanity needs to get off the obsolete power grid and start building self sufficient homes, buildings and factories. Do your research about Nikola Tesla. The man who illuminated the world.
    Germany Italy have correctly banned nuke power. The risk is too great and the consequences last forever. Insanity.
  • Mr. Zippy E. Chimp on May 08 2012 said:
    Clearly the small time author is full of beans on this facts. This is worse than Chernobyl in size scope and impact.
    Nuke power is insanity at its best. Putting faith imperfect human systems that can poison the globe for hundreds of thousands of generations is insanity and not worth it. Humanity needs to get off the obsolete power grid and start building self sufficient homes, buildings and factories. Do your research about Nikola Tesla. The man who illuminated the world.
    Germany Italy have correctly banned nuke power. The risk is too great and the consequences last forever. Insanity.
  • Matt H on March 18 2012 said:
    Is Nuclear Energy Safe? - you may answer a resounding no. But the correct answer is- which one? The story behind Thorium-based (in particular LFTR) nuclear energy is compelling and demands everyone's attention. Please spend 5 minutes watching the first part of the Thorium Remix video to get an example of a "clean fusion process that doesn't use or produce radioactive product, lead to weapons production or can't blow-up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
  • Jim Pitre on March 15 2012 said:
    Rwerkh - well stated, and I agree with you almost completely -with the exception that i reserve the possibility that some new technology could come along to change my mind. A clean fusion process that doesn't use or produce radioactive product and can't blow-up would be a good example

    Jim
  • Rwerkh on March 14 2012 said:
    573 civillians died as a result of the Fukushima disaster. That is an official japanese govt figure. There are also many workers who now cannot be contacted to verify their health.

    The Fukushima disaster was a near miss for a much larger tragedy.

    As bad as the BP oil spill was, it did not displace 100,000 people like Fukushima did.

    The BP oil spill did not risk wiping out half of a country, which Fukushima did according to those who were there.

    No matter if the technological improvement argument sounds good, in truth the danger was from the part of reactor design that has not been improved.

    No matter what the apologists say, the risk was great, the health risk is great and the NRC was preparing for an event that was greater than what their software could work out the evacuation zone for.

    The lesson that should be learned is that a Nuclear power plant can make a much bigger mess than any oil disaster.

    Both Oil and Nuclear are global warming, contrary to popular belief, and contrary to the sales arguments from the nuclear industry.

    We cannot base our future power on Nuclear, no matter if it is fission or fusion.

    We need to do something sustainable, and safe, and not repeat the downside of fossil fuels.

    They had their place but we should learn and move on.

    Using one mistake to justify another is ludicrous.

    The 100,000 people suffering now may not agree with you, and the 573 dead (so far) people can't agree with you.

    The shill and apologists are out in force for the anniversary of a major tragedy, and largely they are pretending everyone is OK. Well they are not.

    Thank you for smoking.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News