Japan's Impact on U.S. Nuclear Power
March 14, 2011. http://www.cfr.org/japan/japans-impact-us-nuclear-power/p24370| Author: | Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change |
|---|
Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate ChangeThe Japanese nuclear crisis continues to unfold, with the ultimate outcome still unknown, but observers have already turned to the "Day Two" question: What does this disaster mean for the future of U.S. nuclear power? There is no doubt that, on the margin, this will hurt it. How much so remains to be seen.
A look back at last year's Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico should humble any prognosticator. The first few days of that disaster were met mostly with a collective shrug. We have already blasted through that phase in the Japanese situation: It is already clear that this is no small incident.
Within a few weeks of the BP spill, the scale of the actual disaster began to become apparent. Drilling opponents seized the moment to reinforce their prior beliefs, but proponents largely dug in their heels. The nuclear debate has now moved to this second stage: Skeptics have had their beliefs about the risks of nuclear power confirmed, but most pro-nuclear forces are still as enthusiastic as ever.
The evolution of public opinion is still far from over, though. The ultimate policy consequences of the Japanese crisis will depend on precisely how the situation on the ground develops over the coming weeks, just as it did over the oil spill's many months. Those details are impossible to predict right now: Much depends on technical matters that are not known to the public, and on exactly how the stricken reactors respond to the stresses that they are now under. It is safe to say that the death toll from the tsunami itself, which is estimated to already be upward of ten thousand people, will be greater than the human impact of the nuclear situation. But it is equally likely that all eyes, particularly in the United States, will be focused on how the latter evolves.
Nuclear power provides about 20 percent of U.S. electricity, but new construction has been stalled for decades by a mix of high costs and public apprehension dating back to the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. Opposition to nuclear power has softened slightly in recent years, but the old patterns of debate remain largely intact.
Pro-nuclear forces are unlikely to reverse their prior stance in response to the unfolding disaster. Some in the anti-nuclear camp, on the other hand, may change theirs. Many moderate nuclear skeptics in the environmental community have become more open to zero-carbon nuclear power as part of a grand bargain on climate policy, much as many drilling skeptics had become open to an offshore exploration deal by this time last year. The Japanese disaster, though, may make moderates in the environmental community far more reticent to deal, just as the BP disaster made them less willing to deal on offshore drilling. A big swing within this bloc could have real consequences for U.S. policy on nuclear power.
Many observers have already pointed out correctly that the future of nuclear energy will still come down to costs. But cost and regulation are tightly intertwined when it comes to nuclear power. One of the central drivers of nuclear power's high costs is the uncertainty surrounding regulation and permitting, which drives up project developers' cost of capital. Any big changes to the regulatory process or to power plant design increase uncertainty, at least in the short term, and hence increase the cost of financing new plants. With nuclear power already under pressure from cheap natural gas, regulatory reactions to the latest disaster could tip the balance.
It is safe to say, though, that prediction remains a dangerous task. Less than a year after the oil spill, in the midst of upheaval in the Middle East, the drilling debate has largely returned to its preexisting form. It will not be surprising if nuclear memories are short lived too.
Rescue workers search for victims in the rubble in northern Japan after the 8.9 magnitude earthquake and tsunami struck the area. (Lee Jae Won/Courtesy Reuters)
6:39AM GMT 14 Mar 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/8379926/Japan-earthquake-Nuclear-power-under-fire.html
A look back at last year's Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico should humble any prognosticator. The first few days of that disaster were met mostly with a collective shrug. We have already blasted through that phase in the Japanese situation: It is already clear that this is no small incident.
Within a few weeks of the BP spill, the scale of the actual disaster began to become apparent. Drilling opponents seized the moment to reinforce their prior beliefs, but proponents largely dug in their heels. The nuclear debate has now moved to this second stage: Skeptics have had their beliefs about the risks of nuclear power confirmed, but most pro-nuclear forces are still as enthusiastic as ever.
The evolution of public opinion is still far from over, though. The ultimate policy consequences of the Japanese crisis will depend on precisely how the situation on the ground develops over the coming weeks, just as it did over the oil spill's many months. Those details are impossible to predict right now: Much depends on technical matters that are not known to the public, and on exactly how the stricken reactors respond to the stresses that they are now under. It is safe to say that the death toll from the tsunami itself, which is estimated to already be upward of ten thousand people, will be greater than the human impact of the nuclear situation. But it is equally likely that all eyes, particularly in the United States, will be focused on how the latter evolves.
Nuclear power provides about 20 percent of U.S. electricity, but new construction has been stalled for decades by a mix of high costs and public apprehension dating back to the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. Opposition to nuclear power has softened slightly in recent years, but the old patterns of debate remain largely intact.
Pro-nuclear forces are unlikely to reverse their prior stance in response to the unfolding disaster. Some in the anti-nuclear camp, on the other hand, may change theirs. Many moderate nuclear skeptics in the environmental community have become more open to zero-carbon nuclear power as part of a grand bargain on climate policy, much as many drilling skeptics had become open to an offshore exploration deal by this time last year. The Japanese disaster, though, may make moderates in the environmental community far more reticent to deal, just as the BP disaster made them less willing to deal on offshore drilling. A big swing within this bloc could have real consequences for U.S. policy on nuclear power.
Many observers have already pointed out correctly that the future of nuclear energy will still come down to costs. But cost and regulation are tightly intertwined when it comes to nuclear power. One of the central drivers of nuclear power's high costs is the uncertainty surrounding regulation and permitting, which drives up project developers' cost of capital. Any big changes to the regulatory process or to power plant design increase uncertainty, at least in the short term, and hence increase the cost of financing new plants. With nuclear power already under pressure from cheap natural gas, regulatory reactions to the latest disaster could tip the balance.
It is safe to say, though, that prediction remains a dangerous task. Less than a year after the oil spill, in the midst of upheaval in the Middle East, the drilling debate has largely returned to its preexisting form. It will not be surprising if nuclear memories are short lived too.
Japan's Nuclear Tremors After Quake
Updated: March 14, 2011. http://www.cfr.org/japan/japans-nuclear-tremors-after-quake/p24363| Author: | Jayshree Bajoria, Senior Staff Writer |
|---|
Rescue workers search for victims in the rubble in northern Japan after the 8.9 magnitude earthquake and tsunami struck the area. (Lee Jae Won/Courtesy Reuters)The devastation wreaked by Japan's worst-ever earthquake and the accompanying tsunami continues to widen. Officials put the death toll at thirty-five hundred (UPI), while some reports say more than ten thousand have died (AP) in Miyagi prefecture alone. Tens of thousands of people remain unaccounted for, and the number of casualties is expected to rise, as large numbers are believed buried under rubble. Millions of survivors struggle without electricity, food, and drinking water. Fears of a nuclear meltdown from reactors damaged by the quake prompted Japan's Prime Minister Naoto Kan to declare the disaster the country's "most severe crisis" (BBC) since World War II.
The escalating nuclear crisis follows explosions at two reactors at the earthquake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, 170 miles north of Tokyo. Technicians are trying to stabilize a third reactor (BBC) at the plant. There are fears that reactors could experience full meltdowns (NYT) if operators are unable to establish control, which could release catastrophic amounts of radiation. At a nearby nuclear plant, Daini, three more reactors lost their cooling systems, and thousands of residents in the area were evacuated. On Sunday, Japan's nuclear energy agency declared a state of emergency at a third nuclear facility (BBC), at Onagawa, after higher-than-permitted radiation levels were recorded there. The Japanese authorities admitted that radiation levels near the Daiichi plant at one point exceeded legal safety limits, raising the specter of potential health problems (WashPost). It isn't yet clear how much radiation has leaked (CBS) and might still escape from the Daiichi plant. Some analysts say public health risks from Japan's nuclear plants (Reuters) remain "quite low." But others suggest radioactive releases of steam from the crippled plants (NYT) could go on for weeks or even months.
The unfolding nuclear crisis will shake public confidence in the safety of nuclear power both in Japan and abroad, say experts. With fifty-four operating nuclear reactors, Japan is the third-largest nuclear power generator in the world behind the United States and France, and the Japanese government plans to increase nuclear's share of total electricity generation from the current 30 percent to 50 percent by 2030. Keiji Takeuchi of the Asahi Shimbun writes the latest crisis has forced the need to reevaluate how much a quake-prone Japan can count on nuclear energy. Charles Ferguson, president of the Federation of American Scientists, recommends Japan ramp up its use of renewable energy resources (ForeignPolicy), in particular geothermal power. "Renewable sources could provide about 67 percent of Japan's electricity by 2050 if the government would implement effective policies," he says.
Japan will face other, longer-term political and economic costs of this disaster. Even before the disaster struck, Japan's fragile government was reeling from corruption scandals, pressures of an aging society, and clashes over budget as the government struggles to reduce its public debt, which is double the country's GDP. Need to finance public works in the disaster-affected areas will put a further strain on the government budget. Rising oil prices and uncertain export demand add to risks of economic recovery.
While the economic costs of the disaster remain difficult to predict, largely due to uncertain consequences from overheating nuclear reactors (Economist), analysts remain cautious on what the economic impact on the country (Reuters) might be. Some predict an initial decline in GDP growth rate but expect economic activity--driven by reconstruction--to rise. Peter Tasker, a Tokyo-based analyst with Arcus Research, writes "the economic impact on a country as wealthy as Japan is likely to be minimal" (FT).
Japan has received offers of aid from scores of countries (VOA). Both South Korean and U.S. military teams are on the ground to offer assistance. Japan was better prepared than most countries (NPR) to deal with the earthquake and tsunami. Yet, the extent of devastation caused there, some experts say, serves as a reminder of how countries remain vulnerable to such calamities on a large scale. Earthquake and tsunami-prone countries need to develop their own early warning systems, writes Syed Fattahul Alim of the Daily Star. Also, these countries should develop infrastructures "including strongly built tsunami shelters, especially for the section of the population living in the coastal areas," he adds.
Additional Analysis:
Cristine Russell of the Atlantic writes the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, and the government's clumsy response, both resemble the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear disaster in the United States.
William Tucker, author of a book on nuclear power, argues that even if a meltdown takes place in Japan, it will not be a disaster for the general public (WSJ), and whatever steam releases occur will have a negligible impact.
Simon Tisdall of the Guardian examines whether Japan's leadership is up to the task of delivering after the tsunami.
Background:
This CFR multimedia interactive on Nuclear Energy analyzes the benefits, risks, and limits of nuclear power.
This Washington Post graphic explains how the nuclear emergency unfolded and how bad the crisis is.
The escalating nuclear crisis follows explosions at two reactors at the earthquake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, 170 miles north of Tokyo. Technicians are trying to stabilize a third reactor (BBC) at the plant. There are fears that reactors could experience full meltdowns (NYT) if operators are unable to establish control, which could release catastrophic amounts of radiation. At a nearby nuclear plant, Daini, three more reactors lost their cooling systems, and thousands of residents in the area were evacuated. On Sunday, Japan's nuclear energy agency declared a state of emergency at a third nuclear facility (BBC), at Onagawa, after higher-than-permitted radiation levels were recorded there. The Japanese authorities admitted that radiation levels near the Daiichi plant at one point exceeded legal safety limits, raising the specter of potential health problems (WashPost). It isn't yet clear how much radiation has leaked (CBS) and might still escape from the Daiichi plant. Some analysts say public health risks from Japan's nuclear plants (Reuters) remain "quite low." But others suggest radioactive releases of steam from the crippled plants (NYT) could go on for weeks or even months.
The unfolding nuclear crisis will shake public confidence in the safety of nuclear power both in Japan and abroad, say experts. With fifty-four operating nuclear reactors, Japan is the third-largest nuclear power generator in the world behind the United States and France, and the Japanese government plans to increase nuclear's share of total electricity generation from the current 30 percent to 50 percent by 2030. Keiji Takeuchi of the Asahi Shimbun writes the latest crisis has forced the need to reevaluate how much a quake-prone Japan can count on nuclear energy. Charles Ferguson, president of the Federation of American Scientists, recommends Japan ramp up its use of renewable energy resources (ForeignPolicy), in particular geothermal power. "Renewable sources could provide about 67 percent of Japan's electricity by 2050 if the government would implement effective policies," he says.
Japan will face other, longer-term political and economic costs of this disaster. Even before the disaster struck, Japan's fragile government was reeling from corruption scandals, pressures of an aging society, and clashes over budget as the government struggles to reduce its public debt, which is double the country's GDP. Need to finance public works in the disaster-affected areas will put a further strain on the government budget. Rising oil prices and uncertain export demand add to risks of economic recovery.
While the economic costs of the disaster remain difficult to predict, largely due to uncertain consequences from overheating nuclear reactors (Economist), analysts remain cautious on what the economic impact on the country (Reuters) might be. Some predict an initial decline in GDP growth rate but expect economic activity--driven by reconstruction--to rise. Peter Tasker, a Tokyo-based analyst with Arcus Research, writes "the economic impact on a country as wealthy as Japan is likely to be minimal" (FT).
Japan has received offers of aid from scores of countries (VOA). Both South Korean and U.S. military teams are on the ground to offer assistance. Japan was better prepared than most countries (NPR) to deal with the earthquake and tsunami. Yet, the extent of devastation caused there, some experts say, serves as a reminder of how countries remain vulnerable to such calamities on a large scale. Earthquake and tsunami-prone countries need to develop their own early warning systems, writes Syed Fattahul Alim of the Daily Star. Also, these countries should develop infrastructures "including strongly built tsunami shelters, especially for the section of the population living in the coastal areas," he adds.
Additional Analysis:
Cristine Russell of the Atlantic writes the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, and the government's clumsy response, both resemble the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear disaster in the United States.
William Tucker, author of a book on nuclear power, argues that even if a meltdown takes place in Japan, it will not be a disaster for the general public (WSJ), and whatever steam releases occur will have a negligible impact.
Simon Tisdall of the Guardian examines whether Japan's leadership is up to the task of delivering after the tsunami.
Background:
This CFR multimedia interactive on Nuclear Energy analyzes the benefits, risks, and limits of nuclear power.
This Washington Post graphic explains how the nuclear emergency unfolded and how bad the crisis is.
Japan earthquake: Nuclear power under fire
Until the explosion at Fukushima, nuclear power was enjoying a renaissance as a 'clean' source of energy. Now its future looks a lot less secure, says Geoffrey Lean.
179 Comments
Almost 40 years ago, in the heyday of the expansion of nuclear power, one of its pioneers warned the world that it had made "a Faustian bargain" with the atom. People like himself, he said in 1972, were providing a "magical energy source" that was "almost non-polluting when properly handled". But it came at a price: "a vigilance ... to which we are quite unaccustomed".
Dr Alvin Weinberg, then director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, was a driving force behind the world's most widely built reactors, including the two that have been teetering on the edge of disaster in Japan. Today at Fukushima – as at Chernobyl, 25 years ago last month, and at Three Mile Island seven years earlier – the world is being forced to weigh up that bargain. Is the supply of a well-developed, low-carbon source of energy worth the price of the cataclysm that can follow a human lapse in vigilance or an act of God? Does the role it could play in helping avert the almost certain slow catastrophe of climate change justify the risk of a calamitous accident?
Already the battlelines are being drawn. On Saturday, some 50,000 anti-nuclear protesters formed a 27-mile human chain from Germany's Neckarwestheim nuclear power plant to the city of Stuttgart to protest against its government's plans to extend the life of the country's reactors. Green politicians in pro-nuclear France urged an end to its dependence on the atom, and Ed Markey, a leading Democratic US Congressman, called for a moratorium on building new reactors in seismically active areas.
But Chancellor Angela Merkel, after holding a meeting of the German cabinet on the issue, reaffirmed her confidence in the safety of nuclear power. The leader of Silvio Berlusconi's party said that Italy would stick with plans to build new reactors. And a spokesman for US Senator Lisa Murkowski said it would be "poor form for anyone to criticise the nuclear industry, or pronounce the end of nuclear power, because of a natural disaster that has been a national tragedy for the Japanese people".
At first, what Dr Weinberg promised would be "energy that is cheaper than energy from fossil fuel" was widely welcomed, even by some early environmentalists who saw it as a way of countering climate change. But this enthusiasm was already giving way to concern when Three Mile Island suffered a partial meltdown in 1979. The accident pulled nuclear expansion up short – work did not start on a single new reactor in the United States until recently – and Chernobyl only deepened the crisis. The atom seemed to be in near-terminal decline.
But France and Japan continued to build reactors undaunted, and gradually – as the danger of climate change became widely accepted – most of the rest of the world came round to their point of view. After stagnating, even slightly declining, for more than 25 years, nuclear power's share of global electricity production is set to rise again. Sixty reactors are now being built around the globe and, the World Nuclear Association adds, there are "another 150 or more planned to come on line during the next 10 years, and over 200 further back in the pipeline".
China has recently completed 10 new reactors, and has some 30 more under construction. India plans to build at least 20 during this decade and Russia is aiming to double its nuclear capacity within the same timescale. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received applications for 25 new ones, while Japan is planning another 15 and our own government wants another 10. And, the association says, 25 countries, including Vietnam, Bangladesh and Nigeria, are aiming to go nuclear for the first time.
Many fear all this is being put at risk at Fukushima. Indeed, the much-touted "nuclear renaissance" was beginning to falter even before the shock of Friday's earthquake. In its 2009 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency, which promotes nuclear power, warned: "A nuclear renaissance is possible, but cannot occur overnight. Nuclear projects face significant hurdles, including extended construction periods and related risks, long licensing processes, and manpower shortages, plus long-standing issues related to waste disposal, proliferation and local opposition. Huge capital requirements, combined with risks of cost over-runs and regulatory uncertainties, make investors and lenders very cautious, even when demand growth is robust."
And so it has proved. New reactors being built in France and Finland – precursors for ones planned for Britain – are running behind time and over budget. It now seems certain that no new reactor will be operating here by 2017, as was planned. And, the night before the earthquake, the energy minister Charles Hendry warned that Britain's own renaissance was threatened by a skills shortage.
Natural gas, one of the causes of the initial decline in nuclear, is becoming cheaper with the development of new technologies to wring it from shale rock. And the failure of the Obama administration to get climate legislation through Congress has dealt the US industry a particularly severe blow: the defeated "cap and trade" proposals were expected to spur the construction of another 100 reactors.
In fact, only a handful of the 25 planned US reactors seem to be going ahead. A year ago, Exelon – the country's biggest nuclear operator – withdrew its application to build two reactors in Texas. Its chief executive, John Rowe, says "except with massive subsidies, there's really nothing one can do to make a whole lot of nuclear plants economic right now". Last year, the company bought a major renewable energy firm, and is moving into wind power.
The events at Fukushima are likely to make things worse. "This is obviously a significant setback," says Peter Bradford, a former member of the NRC. "The image of a nuclear power plant blowing up before your eyes on the television screen is a first. These cannot be good things for an industry that is looking for votes in the Congress and in the state legislatures."
The accident is also likely to have a devastating effect in Japan, where suspicion of the nuclear industry was already running high following past accident cover-ups. Indeed, several managers of the company that runs the Fukushima plant were forced to resign in 2002 for falsifying safety records. And in the wake of the earthquake, it has emerged that the government ignored warnings from one of the country's top seismologists that the reactors had "fatal flaws" in their design and "fundamental vulnerabilities" to such shocks.
If disaster is averted at Fukushima, the nuclear industry will argue that the event strengthens its case, by showing how its reactors can withstand the severest stress. But that may cut little ice with a worldwide public, which is likely to conclude, like Dr Faustus, that it should never have made the pact in the first place.
China has recently completed 10 new reactors, and has some 30 more under construction. India plans to build at least 20 during this decade and Russia is aiming to double its nuclear capacity within the same timescale. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received applications for 25 new ones, while Japan is planning another 15 and our own government wants another 10. And, the association says, 25 countries, including Vietnam, Bangladesh and Nigeria, are aiming to go nuclear for the first time.
Many fear all this is being put at risk at Fukushima. Indeed, the much-touted "nuclear renaissance" was beginning to falter even before the shock of Friday's earthquake. In its 2009 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency, which promotes nuclear power, warned: "A nuclear renaissance is possible, but cannot occur overnight. Nuclear projects face significant hurdles, including extended construction periods and related risks, long licensing processes, and manpower shortages, plus long-standing issues related to waste disposal, proliferation and local opposition. Huge capital requirements, combined with risks of cost over-runs and regulatory uncertainties, make investors and lenders very cautious, even when demand growth is robust."
And so it has proved. New reactors being built in France and Finland – precursors for ones planned for Britain – are running behind time and over budget. It now seems certain that no new reactor will be operating here by 2017, as was planned. And, the night before the earthquake, the energy minister Charles Hendry warned that Britain's own renaissance was threatened by a skills shortage.
Natural gas, one of the causes of the initial decline in nuclear, is becoming cheaper with the development of new technologies to wring it from shale rock. And the failure of the Obama administration to get climate legislation through Congress has dealt the US industry a particularly severe blow: the defeated "cap and trade" proposals were expected to spur the construction of another 100 reactors.
In fact, only a handful of the 25 planned US reactors seem to be going ahead. A year ago, Exelon – the country's biggest nuclear operator – withdrew its application to build two reactors in Texas. Its chief executive, John Rowe, says "except with massive subsidies, there's really nothing one can do to make a whole lot of nuclear plants economic right now". Last year, the company bought a major renewable energy firm, and is moving into wind power.
The events at Fukushima are likely to make things worse. "This is obviously a significant setback," says Peter Bradford, a former member of the NRC. "The image of a nuclear power plant blowing up before your eyes on the television screen is a first. These cannot be good things for an industry that is looking for votes in the Congress and in the state legislatures."
The accident is also likely to have a devastating effect in Japan, where suspicion of the nuclear industry was already running high following past accident cover-ups. Indeed, several managers of the company that runs the Fukushima plant were forced to resign in 2002 for falsifying safety records. And in the wake of the earthquake, it has emerged that the government ignored warnings from one of the country's top seismologists that the reactors had "fatal flaws" in their design and "fundamental vulnerabilities" to such shocks.
If disaster is averted at Fukushima, the nuclear industry will argue that the event strengthens its case, by showing how its reactors can withstand the severest stress. But that may cut little ice with a worldwide public, which is likely to conclude, like Dr Faustus, that it should never have made the pact in the first place.
We need nuclear power
Telegraph View: The earthquake in Japan must not divert Britain from its nuclear energy programme
The fate of the Japanese nuclear power stations damaged by Friday’s tsunami remains uncertain. There is continuing anxiety at the possibility of a core meltdown. Countries around the world are watching the unfolding crisis with a mixture of compassion for the Japanese people, and unease about the resilience of an electricity source on which many depend. Britain has recently – and belatedly (because of dithering by the last government) – decided to proceed with a new generation of nuclear reactors, to replace the ageing plants that will be decommissioned over the next eight years. It is imperative that not even a calamity in Japan should divert the Government from this path.
Even with a revived nuclear programme, Britain faces energy shortages in the medium term and is vulnerable to a sudden disruption of oil and gas supplies from the Middle East. The civil war in Libya and the renewed unrest in Bahrain provide further evidence that these cannot be relied upon. As David Cameron said in the Commons yesterday, the reactors planned for Britain are not the same design as those in Japan and nor is this country in a seismically active region. But the green lobby has been quick to jump on Japan’s woes to call into question once again the wider safety of nuclear power.
A review of the risks has been ordered by Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, who once described nuclear energy as a “tried, tested and failed technology”. He has since changed his mind, shifting policy away from the last government’s obsession with renewables and towards a more balanced strategy, in which nuclear will play a prominent role. This is the right approach. We trust that Mr Huhne’s review represents a reassurance measure, not a retreat.
Japan crisis: third explosion raises spectre of nuclear nightmare
New explosion at Fukushima plant, as engineers fought to prevent a meltdown in the second worst nuclear accident in history.
Image 1 of 4
Fukushima reactor one, bottom left, was the first to explode on Saturday and reactor three, top right, exploded yesterday Photo: AP
A huge explosion hit another reactor at an earthquake-damaged Japanese nuclear power plant early Tuesday, the third blast since Saturday, the plant operator said.
"There was a huge explosion" between 6:00 am (2100 GMT Monday) and 6:15 am at the number-two reactor of Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant, a Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) spokesman said.
The government also reported apparent damage to part of the container shielding the same reactor at Fukushima 250 kilometres (155 miles) northeast of Tokyo, although it was unclear whether this resulted from the blast.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters the suppression pool of the number-two nuclear reactor appeared to have been damaged.
This is the bottom part of the container, which holds water used to cool it down and control air pressure inside.
"But we have not recorded any sudden jump in radiation indicators," Edano added.
Earlier a cloud of radioactive dust billowed from the Fukushima Daiichi power plant after it suffered its second explosion in three days.
Government officials admitted that it was “highly likely” the fuel rods in three separate reactors had started to melt despite repeated efforts to cool them with sea water. Safety officials said they could not rule out a full meltdown as workers struggled to keep temperatures under control in the cores of the reactors.
The Fukushima crisis now rates as a more serious accident than the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979, and is second only to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, according to the French nuclear safety authority. After insisting for three days that the situation was under control, Japan urgently appealed to US and UN nuclear experts for technical help on preventing white-hot fuel rods melting.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it was “unlikely” that the accident would turn into another Chernobyl, but failed to rule it out completely.
More than 500,000 people are thought to have been made homeless by Friday’s earthquake and tsunami, which is estimated to have killed at least 10,000. More than 2,000 bodies have been washed up on beaches along Japan’s Pacific coast, but rescuers have yet to reach isolated towns and villages in some of the worst-affected areas.
The tragedy is expected to become the costliest natural disaster in history, with the repair bill likely to top £100 billion.
The economic impact was already being felt around the world yesterday as a 6.2 per cent fall in the Nikkei share
index triggered significant losses on stock markets elsewhere. In London, the FTSE-100 fell by almost one per cent over the course of the day, wiping £15 billion off the value of shares.
David Cameron said there were “severe concerns” for a number of Britons living in the disaster zone who have still not been in touch with their families. The Foreign Office said its emergency helpline had received 4,700 calls from people worried about relations, but had no confirmed reports of British casualties.
Fears of a meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi power station, 150 miles north of Tokyo, grew significantly after yesterday morning’s explosion at its No 3 reactor. The blast injured 11 workers and released as much radiation in an hour as would normally be expected in six months. It exposed up to 160 people to high doses, and 22 received treatment for radiation poisoning.
Like the explosion in the No 1 reactor on Saturday, the problem was caused by a build-up of hydrogen released from water surrounding the reactor as temperatures rose above 2,200C.
The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan later detected increased radiation 100 miles off the coast of Japan and weather forecasters said that the wind direction would change overnight, blowing the radioactive cloud inland. Scientists said it did not pose a health risk.
Seventeen US helicopter crewmen helping with the relief effort were exposed to levels equivalent to one month’s normal background radiation, but were declared free of contamination after being scrubbed down.
As technicians tried to contain the temperatures inside all three reactors at the plant, there were warnings of a possible third explosion as fuel rods inside the No 2 reactor became fully exposed.
Workers managed to pump enough seawater into the reactor to cover the rods, but they became partly exposed last night. Ryohei Shiomi, an official at Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, said the rods in all three reactors appeared to be melting.
“Units one and three are at least somewhat stabilised for the time being,” he said. “Unit two now requires all our effort and attention.”
Yukio Edano, the chief cabinet secretary, said it was “highly likely” that the fuel rods were melting.
In the event of a complete meltdown, where the uranium core melts through the outer containment shell, high levels of radiation would be released into the environment, a major risk to health.
Andre-Claude Lacoste, head of the nuclear safety authority in France, the world’s second-largest producer of nuclear power, said the accident was now “worse than Three Mile Island but not as great as Chernobyl”. The partial meltdown in Pennsylvania in 1979 was rated five out of seven on an international scale, with Chernobyl put at seven.
While Japan’s nuclear safety agency rates Fukushima as level four, Mr Lacoste said: “We have the feeling that we are at least more than level five and probably at level six. I say this after speaking to my Japanese counterparts.”
Yukiya Amano, director general of the IAEA, said it was “very unlikely” to turn into an accident similar to Chernobyl as “the design is different and the structure is different”, making the reactors far safer. But local residents remained distrustful of official assurances, following accusations of cover-ups in the past.
Kyoko Nambu, whose home was destroyed by the tsunami, said: “It’s like a horror movie. Our house is gone and now they are telling us to stay indoors.
“We can see the damage to our houses, but radiation? We have no idea what is happening. I am so scared.”
Around the world, Germany and Switzerland reacted by suspending plans for new reactors. Italy and Poland said they would rethink plans to invest in nuclear energy, and Friends of the Earth urged the British government to scrap its own plans for new reactors.
Andy Atkins, the campaign group’s executive director, said: “We can’t keep heading down the nuclear route until the lessons from this crisis have been learnt.”
The landscape of parts of Japan looks like the aftermath of World War Two; no industrialised country since then has suffered such a death toll. The one tiny, tiny consolation is the extent to which it shows how humanity can rally round in times of adversity, with heroic British rescue teams joining colleagues from the US and elsewhere to fly out.
And solidarity seems especially strong in Japan itself. Perhaps even more impressive than Japan’s technological power is its social strength, with supermarkets cutting prices and vending machine owners giving out free drinks as people work together to survive. Most noticeably of all, there has been no looting, and I’m not the only one curious about this.
This is quite unusual among human cultures, and it’s unlikely it would be the case in Britain. During the 2007 floods in the West Country abandoned cars were broken into and free packs of bottled water were stolen. There was looting in Chile after the earthquake last year – so much so that troops were sent in; in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina saw looting on a shocking scale.
Why do some cultures react to disaster by reverting to everyone for himself, but others – especially the Japanese – display altruism even in adversity?
Tags: Japan, Japan earthquake, looting, tsunami
Earlier a cloud of radioactive dust billowed from the Fukushima Daiichi power plant after it suffered its second explosion in three days.
Government officials admitted that it was “highly likely” the fuel rods in three separate reactors had started to melt despite repeated efforts to cool them with sea water. Safety officials said they could not rule out a full meltdown as workers struggled to keep temperatures under control in the cores of the reactors.
The Fukushima crisis now rates as a more serious accident than the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979, and is second only to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, according to the French nuclear safety authority. After insisting for three days that the situation was under control, Japan urgently appealed to US and UN nuclear experts for technical help on preventing white-hot fuel rods melting.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it was “unlikely” that the accident would turn into another Chernobyl, but failed to rule it out completely.
More than 500,000 people are thought to have been made homeless by Friday’s earthquake and tsunami, which is estimated to have killed at least 10,000. More than 2,000 bodies have been washed up on beaches along Japan’s Pacific coast, but rescuers have yet to reach isolated towns and villages in some of the worst-affected areas.
The tragedy is expected to become the costliest natural disaster in history, with the repair bill likely to top £100 billion.
The economic impact was already being felt around the world yesterday as a 6.2 per cent fall in the Nikkei share
index triggered significant losses on stock markets elsewhere. In London, the FTSE-100 fell by almost one per cent over the course of the day, wiping £15 billion off the value of shares.
David Cameron said there were “severe concerns” for a number of Britons living in the disaster zone who have still not been in touch with their families. The Foreign Office said its emergency helpline had received 4,700 calls from people worried about relations, but had no confirmed reports of British casualties.
Fears of a meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi power station, 150 miles north of Tokyo, grew significantly after yesterday morning’s explosion at its No 3 reactor. The blast injured 11 workers and released as much radiation in an hour as would normally be expected in six months. It exposed up to 160 people to high doses, and 22 received treatment for radiation poisoning.
Like the explosion in the No 1 reactor on Saturday, the problem was caused by a build-up of hydrogen released from water surrounding the reactor as temperatures rose above 2,200C.
The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan later detected increased radiation 100 miles off the coast of Japan and weather forecasters said that the wind direction would change overnight, blowing the radioactive cloud inland. Scientists said it did not pose a health risk.
Seventeen US helicopter crewmen helping with the relief effort were exposed to levels equivalent to one month’s normal background radiation, but were declared free of contamination after being scrubbed down.
As technicians tried to contain the temperatures inside all three reactors at the plant, there were warnings of a possible third explosion as fuel rods inside the No 2 reactor became fully exposed.
Workers managed to pump enough seawater into the reactor to cover the rods, but they became partly exposed last night. Ryohei Shiomi, an official at Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, said the rods in all three reactors appeared to be melting.
“Units one and three are at least somewhat stabilised for the time being,” he said. “Unit two now requires all our effort and attention.”
Yukio Edano, the chief cabinet secretary, said it was “highly likely” that the fuel rods were melting.
In the event of a complete meltdown, where the uranium core melts through the outer containment shell, high levels of radiation would be released into the environment, a major risk to health.
Andre-Claude Lacoste, head of the nuclear safety authority in France, the world’s second-largest producer of nuclear power, said the accident was now “worse than Three Mile Island but not as great as Chernobyl”. The partial meltdown in Pennsylvania in 1979 was rated five out of seven on an international scale, with Chernobyl put at seven.
While Japan’s nuclear safety agency rates Fukushima as level four, Mr Lacoste said: “We have the feeling that we are at least more than level five and probably at level six. I say this after speaking to my Japanese counterparts.”
Yukiya Amano, director general of the IAEA, said it was “very unlikely” to turn into an accident similar to Chernobyl as “the design is different and the structure is different”, making the reactors far safer. But local residents remained distrustful of official assurances, following accusations of cover-ups in the past.
Kyoko Nambu, whose home was destroyed by the tsunami, said: “It’s like a horror movie. Our house is gone and now they are telling us to stay indoors.
“We can see the damage to our houses, but radiation? We have no idea what is happening. I am so scared.”
Around the world, Germany and Switzerland reacted by suspending plans for new reactors. Italy and Poland said they would rethink plans to invest in nuclear energy, and Friends of the Earth urged the British government to scrap its own plans for new reactors.
Andy Atkins, the campaign group’s executive director, said: “We can’t keep heading down the nuclear route until the lessons from this crisis have been learnt.”
Why is there no looting in Japan?
Respect for property even in the middle of disaster (Photo: EPA)
And solidarity seems especially strong in Japan itself. Perhaps even more impressive than Japan’s technological power is its social strength, with supermarkets cutting prices and vending machine owners giving out free drinks as people work together to survive. Most noticeably of all, there has been no looting, and I’m not the only one curious about this.
This is quite unusual among human cultures, and it’s unlikely it would be the case in Britain. During the 2007 floods in the West Country abandoned cars were broken into and free packs of bottled water were stolen. There was looting in Chile after the earthquake last year – so much so that troops were sent in; in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina saw looting on a shocking scale.
Why do some cultures react to disaster by reverting to everyone for himself, but others – especially the Japanese – display altruism even in adversity?
Japan crisis: third explosion at Fukushima nuclear plant
A fresh explosion rocked Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant on Tuesday and some workers were ordered to leave the site, a sign that the situation may be getting more serious.
Image 1 of 5
Number two reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 Daiichi nuclear power plant after a large explosion was heard at the reactor Photo: NHK/AFP/GETTY
The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi complex said radiation levels around the site immediately after the blast, the third there, were rising fast but still far from levels that local authorities say would cause large-scale radiation sickness.
Authorities are trying to prevent meltdowns in all three of the plant's nuclear reactors by flooding the chambers with seawater to cool them down.
Japan has asked the United States for more equipment to help cool the reactors, after a dangerous drop in cooling water levels that exposed fuel rods in the No. 2 reactor, where Tuesday's blast took place.
"It was a hydrogen explosion. We are still assessing the cause and unsure whether the explosion was caused by damage to the suppression chamber," an official at the nuclear safety agency told Reuters. He did not have any more details.
The full extent of the destruction wreaked by Friday's massive quake and tsunami that followed it was still becoming clear, as rescuers combed through the region north of Tokyo where officials say at least 10,000 people were killed.
"It's a scene from hell, absolutely nightmarish," said Patrick Fuller of the International Red Cross Federation from the northeastern coastal town of Otsuchi.
Prime Minister Naoto Kan said Japan was facing its worst crisis since World War Two and, with the financial costs estimated at up to £111 billion, analysts said it could tip the world's third biggest economy back into recession.
The U.S. Geological Survey upgraded the quake to magnitude 9.0, from 8.9, making it the world's fourth most powerful since 1900.
Car makers, shipbuilders and technology companies worldwide scrambled for supplies after the disaster shut factories in Japan and disrupted the global manufacturing chain.
Tokyo's Nikkei share average was down 5 per cent shortly after opening on Tuesday, after falling more than 6 per cent the previous day. Insurers' shares fell for a second day on Monday in London and New York, as world stocks slid to a six-week low.
The fear at the Fukushima complex, 240km (150 miles) north of Tokyo, is of a major radiation leak after the quake and tsunami knocked out cooling systems. The complex had already seen explosions at its No. 1 and No. 3 reactors on Saturday and Monday.
Jiji news agency said Tuesday's explosion had damaged the roof and steam was rising from the complex. The news agency also reported
some workers had been told to leave the plant – a development one expert had warned beforehand could signal a worsening stage for the crisis.
The risk of a major radiation leak in Japan is subsiding as stricken nuclear reactors cool, but there will be major clean-up costs and three reactors will probably be written off, experts said on Monday.
The worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine in 1986 has drawn criticism that authorities were ill-prepared and revived debate in many countries about the safety of atomic power.
Switzerland put on hold some approvals for nuclear power plants and Germany said it was scrapping a plan to extend the life of its nuclear power stations. The White House said U.S. President Barack Obama remained committed to nuclear energy.
Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the reactor vessels of nuclear power plants affected by the disaster remained intact.
"The nuclear plants have been shaken, flooded and cut off from electricity," he told a news conference. But "the reactor vessels have held and radioactive release is limited."
Amano, a veteran Japanese diplomatic, added that a Chernobyl-style disaster was "very unlikely".
An explosion at the Soviet Chernobyl plant sent radioactive fallout across northern Europe.
Whilst the Fukuskima plant's No. 1 and No. 3 reactors both suffered partial fuel rod meltdowns, operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) had earlier said the No. 2 reactor was now the biggest concern.
A sudden drop in cooling water levels when a pump ran out of fuel had fully exposed the fuel rods for a time, an official said. This could lead to the rods melting down and a possible radioactive leak.
TEPCO had resumed pumping seawater into the reactor early on Tuesday.
"This is nothing like a Chernobyl," said Murray Jennex, a nuclear expert at San Diego State University. "At Chernobyl you had no containment structure – when it blew, it blew everything straight out into the atmosphere."
Nonetheless, the government warned those still in the 20-km (13-mile) evacuation zone to stay indoors. TEPCO said 11 people had been injured in the blast.
U.S. warships and planes helping with relief efforts moved away from the coast temporarily because of low-level radiation. The U.S. Seventh Fleet described the move as precautionary.
South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and the Philippines said they would test Japanese food imports for radiation.
France's ASN nuclear safety authority said the accident could be classified as a level 5 or 6 on the international scale of 1 to 7, putting it on a par with the 1979 U.S. Three Mile Island meltdown, higher than the Japanese authorities' rating.
Japan's nuclear safety agency has rated the incidents in the No. 1 and No. 3 reactors as a 4, but has not yet rated the No. 2 reactor.
More than 500,000 people are thought to have been made homeless by Friday’s earthquake and tsunami, which is estimated to have killed at least 10,000. More than 2,000 bodies have been washed up on beaches along Japan’s Pacific coast, but rescuers have yet to reach isolated towns and villages in some of the worst-affected areas.
David Cameron said there were “severe concerns” for a number of Britons living in the disaster zone who have still not been in touch with their families. The Foreign Office said its emergency helpline had received 4,700 calls from people worried about relations, but had no confirmed reports of British casualties.
The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan detected increased radiation 100 miles off the coast of Japan and weather forecasters said that the wind direction would change overnight, blowing the radioactive cloud inland. Scientists said it did not pose a health risk.
Seventeen US helicopter crewmen helping with the relief effort were exposed to levels equivalent to one month’s normal background radiation, but were declared free of contamination after being scrubbed down.
Yukio Edano, the chief cabinet secretary, said it was “highly likely” that the fuel rods were melting.
In the event of a complete meltdown, where the uranium core melts through the outer containment shell, high levels of radiation would be released into the environment, a major risk to health.
Andre-Claude Lacoste, head of the nuclear safety authority in France, the world’s second-largest producer of nuclear power, said the accident was now “worse than Three Mile Island but not as great as Chernobyl”. The partial meltdown in Pennsylvania in 1979 was rated five out of seven on an international scale, with Chernobyl put at seven.
While Japan’s nuclear safety agency rates Fukushima as level four, Mr Lacoste said: “We have the feeling that we are at least more than level five and probably at level six. I say this after speaking to my Japanese counterparts.”
Around the world, Germany and Switzerland reacted by suspending plans for new reactors. Italy and Poland said they would rethink plans to invest in nuclear energy, and Friends of the Earth urged the British government to scrap its own plans for new reactors.
Andy Atkins, the campaign group’s executive director, said: “We can’t keep heading down the nuclear route until the lessons from this crisis have been learnt.”
Prime Minister Naoto Kan said Japan was facing its worst crisis since World War Two and, with the financial costs estimated at up to £111 billion, analysts said it could tip the world's third biggest economy back into recession.
The U.S. Geological Survey upgraded the quake to magnitude 9.0, from 8.9, making it the world's fourth most powerful since 1900.
Car makers, shipbuilders and technology companies worldwide scrambled for supplies after the disaster shut factories in Japan and disrupted the global manufacturing chain.
Tokyo's Nikkei share average was down 5 per cent shortly after opening on Tuesday, after falling more than 6 per cent the previous day. Insurers' shares fell for a second day on Monday in London and New York, as world stocks slid to a six-week low.
The fear at the Fukushima complex, 240km (150 miles) north of Tokyo, is of a major radiation leak after the quake and tsunami knocked out cooling systems. The complex had already seen explosions at its No. 1 and No. 3 reactors on Saturday and Monday.
Jiji news agency said Tuesday's explosion had damaged the roof and steam was rising from the complex. The news agency also reported
some workers had been told to leave the plant – a development one expert had warned beforehand could signal a worsening stage for the crisis.
The risk of a major radiation leak in Japan is subsiding as stricken nuclear reactors cool, but there will be major clean-up costs and three reactors will probably be written off, experts said on Monday.
The worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine in 1986 has drawn criticism that authorities were ill-prepared and revived debate in many countries about the safety of atomic power.
Switzerland put on hold some approvals for nuclear power plants and Germany said it was scrapping a plan to extend the life of its nuclear power stations. The White House said U.S. President Barack Obama remained committed to nuclear energy.
Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the reactor vessels of nuclear power plants affected by the disaster remained intact.
"The nuclear plants have been shaken, flooded and cut off from electricity," he told a news conference. But "the reactor vessels have held and radioactive release is limited."
Amano, a veteran Japanese diplomatic, added that a Chernobyl-style disaster was "very unlikely".
An explosion at the Soviet Chernobyl plant sent radioactive fallout across northern Europe.
Whilst the Fukuskima plant's No. 1 and No. 3 reactors both suffered partial fuel rod meltdowns, operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) had earlier said the No. 2 reactor was now the biggest concern.
A sudden drop in cooling water levels when a pump ran out of fuel had fully exposed the fuel rods for a time, an official said. This could lead to the rods melting down and a possible radioactive leak.
TEPCO had resumed pumping seawater into the reactor early on Tuesday.
"This is nothing like a Chernobyl," said Murray Jennex, a nuclear expert at San Diego State University. "At Chernobyl you had no containment structure – when it blew, it blew everything straight out into the atmosphere."
Nonetheless, the government warned those still in the 20-km (13-mile) evacuation zone to stay indoors. TEPCO said 11 people had been injured in the blast.
U.S. warships and planes helping with relief efforts moved away from the coast temporarily because of low-level radiation. The U.S. Seventh Fleet described the move as precautionary.
South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and the Philippines said they would test Japanese food imports for radiation.
France's ASN nuclear safety authority said the accident could be classified as a level 5 or 6 on the international scale of 1 to 7, putting it on a par with the 1979 U.S. Three Mile Island meltdown, higher than the Japanese authorities' rating.
Japan's nuclear safety agency has rated the incidents in the No. 1 and No. 3 reactors as a 4, but has not yet rated the No. 2 reactor.
More than 500,000 people are thought to have been made homeless by Friday’s earthquake and tsunami, which is estimated to have killed at least 10,000. More than 2,000 bodies have been washed up on beaches along Japan’s Pacific coast, but rescuers have yet to reach isolated towns and villages in some of the worst-affected areas.
David Cameron said there were “severe concerns” for a number of Britons living in the disaster zone who have still not been in touch with their families. The Foreign Office said its emergency helpline had received 4,700 calls from people worried about relations, but had no confirmed reports of British casualties.
The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan detected increased radiation 100 miles off the coast of Japan and weather forecasters said that the wind direction would change overnight, blowing the radioactive cloud inland. Scientists said it did not pose a health risk.
Seventeen US helicopter crewmen helping with the relief effort were exposed to levels equivalent to one month’s normal background radiation, but were declared free of contamination after being scrubbed down.
Yukio Edano, the chief cabinet secretary, said it was “highly likely” that the fuel rods were melting.
In the event of a complete meltdown, where the uranium core melts through the outer containment shell, high levels of radiation would be released into the environment, a major risk to health.
Andre-Claude Lacoste, head of the nuclear safety authority in France, the world’s second-largest producer of nuclear power, said the accident was now “worse than Three Mile Island but not as great as Chernobyl”. The partial meltdown in Pennsylvania in 1979 was rated five out of seven on an international scale, with Chernobyl put at seven.
While Japan’s nuclear safety agency rates Fukushima as level four, Mr Lacoste said: “We have the feeling that we are at least more than level five and probably at level six. I say this after speaking to my Japanese counterparts.”
Around the world, Germany and Switzerland reacted by suspending plans for new reactors. Italy and Poland said they would rethink plans to invest in nuclear energy, and Friends of the Earth urged the British government to scrap its own plans for new reactors.
Andy Atkins, the campaign group’s executive director, said: “We can’t keep heading down the nuclear route until the lessons from this crisis have been learnt.”
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
