Nuclear Energy is Under Review

The ongoing saga of the damaged reactors at Fukushima, Japan has caused a global rethink of attitudes towards nuclear energy and further complicates the path to alleviating the worlds energy crisis.

Internationally, big nuclear players are questioning the safety and legitimacy of this controversial energy source. Even in France, where nuclear provides 80% of energy, authorities have called for an investigation into global regulation. China is suspending approval for planned nuclear plants and Germany, in a surprising turnaround, has declared 7 of the country’s plants will be temporarily  shut down for safety checks. The region saw thousands protest last weekend on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster.

In India, a country which desperately needs to solve an 11% energy deficit, plans have recently been made for the building of eight new coal fired power stations by the hugely powerful group Essar Energy. This would imply that despite massive government support for renewable power, confidence that nuclear is the answer in the short term at least is not high.

Since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, pro nuclear individuals and groups such as the World Nuclear Association have worked to dispel the sinister reputation that evolved to create the so called ‘victim industry’. Scare mongering was to a large extent quashed with facts and figures that presented nuclear in a new light, as a viable low carbon option for clean energy provision. Some called it  a ‘Nuclear Renaissance”.

Fukushima

Today however, Nuclear support groups are to some extent back where they started. The March earthquake and and tsunami in Japan which prompted evacuation and high levels of radioactive waste leakage at Fukushima has once again presented the industry as dangerous, uncontainable and unpredictable.

Yet, at a high profile emergency debate in London organised post Fukushima by the widely respected Intelligence Squared organisation, not only was there a majority in favour of nuclear, but a post debate poll showed those who initially voted ‘undecided’ were swayed pro nuclear after hearing the evidence.

The fact is that the world is desperate. Our resources are depleting, our populations are exploding and our demand for energy is growing. The other fact , as Jeremy Gordon of the World Nuclear Association pointed out, is that ‘the explosion at Chernobyl is almost uncomparable to the overheating at Fukushima’. He praised the Japanese government for their handling of the situation, the exclusion zones, the iodide pills and reminds us that the majority of the plant withstood the largest earthquake in history.

There is no getting away from the fact that nuclear is a terrifying prospect. There is something almost Armageddon like in its ability to wipe out living creatures for fear of radiation related diseases. Can we really rely on an energy source which causes fear and evacuation everytime there is an unexpected mishap?

Craig Bennett, Director of Policy and Campaigns at Friends of the Earth for example argued the dangers of nuclear energy ‘diverting investment and political focus’ on renewable energies such as hydro, solar and wind.

There is a sense however that despite investigations and current safety freezes, nuclear will continue. Defenders of atomic energy cite this power source as an ‘evolving technology’ and that groups such as Greenpeace cherry pick their information to scaremonger.

To hear this fascinating debate in full visit www.intelligencesquared.com/micro-site/nuclear which presents information for both cases.

- Alice Doyle