For a few moments this weekend, our worst
fears were reignited. An earthquake of 6.8 magnitude on the Richter scale
struck off the east coast of Japan and created a tsunami. This is perilously
close to the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant that was so dangerously damaged
by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, and workers that are cleaning up that plant
were briefly evacuated because of fears that the same thing could happen again.
Luckily, in this case, the quake was
considerably smaller than before, and the tsunami it created injured only one
person, rather than causing the apocalyptic scenes and massive death toll of
the previous one – the waves that reached the coast were only 20cm high this
time. So it seems that the world continues to be safe from the possibility of
another major nuclear meltdown along the lines of the Chernobyl incident of
1986. However, this latest scare does force us to ask tough questions about
what our energy mix should be made up of.
The problem we face is that, of all the
major energy technologies currently available to us, nuclear is the most
sustainable option that can realistically provide the huge amounts of energy
our current society needs. Nuclear is essentially a carbon-free energy source –
it doesn't release any greenhouse gases in the process of creating energy, and
only a relatively small amount in the extraction of uranium from the ground.
And it produces far more energy than any renewable technology, all while taking
up less space and being much quicker to scale up to the necessary levels.
At the same time, it's potentially very
dangerous, as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima have all shown us.
So what can we do? It seems clear that we
should not see nuclear as a long-term option. Over a long enough timescale,
nuclear power raises a number of complicated questions that we may not be able
to answer – what do we do with the waste, for one thing; and how can we ever be
truly safe from meltdowns and leakages caused by natural disasters like the
Japanese tsunami? This means that we must continue to aim for a long-term
policy that combines the scaling-up of renewable technologies like solar,
tidal, and wind power (as well as many other possibilities) with a reduction in
the amount of energy we consume.
But while we chase those policy goals, we
must also be pragmatic about the risks that face us today. We need to cut down
on our carbon emissions much more quickly than renewable technologies can be
developed, and this means that we must take a sensible approach to nuclear
power and consider it as a carbon-free technology that, although dangerous, can
be of use to us in the short-term.
Very few nations have regular earthquakes,
and the safety technology of nuclear plants has increased massively since the
days of Chernobyl. Consequently, we must accept that the risk of a nuclear
meltdown is relatively small; while the risk of catastrophic climate change if
we do not reduce our emissions is huge. It's time to balance those probabilities,
assess the risks, and choose a technology that allows us to avoid climate
change in the short-term while providing the energy we need to keep society
running while we pursue other long-term energy goals like reducing consumption
and growing renewables. And that may well mean being brave and choosing
nuclear.
[ Richter scale, Fukushima Dai-ichi
nuclear plant, Chernobyl incident, carbon-free energy source, greenhouse gases, renewable
technology, Three Mile Island, natural disasters, Japanese tsunami, long-term
policy, policy goals, carbon emissions, nuclear power, catastrophic climate ]