Tony Lodge: Tsunami must not slow down nuclear progress

Amongst much tabloid noise, the important facts remain that after the worst earthquake in 100 years to hit Japan, there has not been, thankfully, terminal damage inflicted on the reactor at the Fukushima plant. The concrete casings which contain the reactors remain intact.

This is a crucial fact and one which will help dictate future nuclear plant design for generations to come. The impact of the earthquake led to problems with the pumps which power the cooling systems at Fukushima, which stop the reactor from over-heating.

These problems caused a build up of hydrogen and the subsequent high-profile explosions. There has not been a partial or full meltdown at Fukushima. Parallels with Chernobyl in 1986 and the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 are incorrect.

This is not to say that countries with nuclear power plants, particularly those with known exposure to natural threats, such as earthquakes, should not re-assess their plants’ ability to withstand such staggering and unpredictable shocks.

A reassessment following such events is commendable and right, but it should not halt nuclear power’s global renaissance, especially in the UK and Europe. Germany’s decision to halt her nuclear plans as a result of events in Japan will merely delay these new and existing but modified plants’ ability to generate cheap, abundant low carbon baseload electricity.

It is important to understand that the Fukushima plant is both old and vast. It was built to generate 4.7GW of electricity.

To put this in comparison, the huge Drax coal plant near Selby generates 4GW of electricity and provides seven per cent of UK supply. Fukushima was completed in 1971 and has operated successfully until last Friday’s earthquake. Japan started building civil nuclear power stations after permission was granted by the US in the late 1950s. The importance of nuclear is clear for Japan. The country is almost 100 per cent import dependent on fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas and enjoys no significant indigenous fuel reserves.

The post-war nuclear programme sought to guarantee some energy security against this huge import dependence. What little coal Japan could extract was exhausted in 2002. She now imports a staggering 190 million tonnes a year, alongside all of her oil and gas needs.

In comparison with the UK, our coal demand amounts to around 60 million tonnes, but with some home production alongside imports. Consequently, Japan endures some of the highest energy bills in the world. Home-produced nuclear power helps counter Japan’s exposure to world fossil fuel prices and is essential.

Japan currently has 54 operating nuclear reactors with a total installed generating capacity of around 49 GW, making it the third-largest nuclear power generator in the world behind the United States and France. Tokyo plans to increase nuclear’s share of total electricity generation from 24 per cent in 2008 to 40 per cent by 2017 and to 50 percent by 2030, according to the Energy Ministry. This plan may now be delayed or even shelved.

From a Japanese perspective, it is right that lessons are now learned and that modern nuclear plant design, which relies less on pumps and valves to cool reactors in favour or far more reliable systems, is embraced and better explained to an often sceptical public. I have often thought it a shame that a sector which started out proclaiming “atomic energy” should have become later labelled as “nuclear energy”. The association with the military aspect of nuclear weapons has always presented a barrier in the public’s perceptions of this vital energy source.

We are already hearing those who are diametrically opposed to nuclear power begin to claim the sector’s death knell as a result of Friday’s events. It is important that their arguments are rebutted with facts and realities. Some anti-nuclear commentators claim that full-scale support for renewables, over new nuclear plants is unavoidable. They are wrong and their determination to use the Fukushima incident to push their case is shameless. Indeed, most forms of renewable energy would have been destroyed or severely disrupted by such a natural disaster, whether they be offshore or onshore wind, solar farms or marine technologies. None would have withstood Friday’s onslaught.

Britain is looking to build up to eight new nuclear power stations, representing 16GW of new capacity, with the first due for completion in 2018.

If we are serious in our desire to slash carbon emissions, provide cheap baseload energy for consumers and industry and build up a new energy skills base, then the Government should indeed learn from the events in Japan, and then get on with laying the fast-track framework for new nuclear plants. It is already behind schedule, and events in the Far East – no matter how dramatic – must not delay this process any longer.

Tony Lodge is the Energy Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies. His new pamphlet, The Atomic Clock – Meeting the challenge of delivering new nuclear power will be published later this spring.