The Japanese tragedy is one of those events that should not have happened, according to the experts’ probabilistic scenarios. With hindsight, it appears to have been pure madness to build nuclear plants in an area, like the Japanese region, where four tectonic plates collide, thus inevitably generating devastating earthquakes. The probability of a Force 9 earthquake, followed by a sea wave exceeding the maximum expected height, was not even taken into account. Still, the accident happened.
The probabilistic calculation of the accident, carried out ex ante, on the basis of the experience acquired in the past, turned out to be totally unreliable, and proved that the past is not a good forecaster of the future, considering the countless risk factors. In fact, the probability of the worst possible scenario is the only certainty that should be rationally taken into account when assessing the risks. The disaster – the effects of which still cannot be evaluated thoroughly – happened in a technologically advanced country, using American and Japanese technologies, which has always been praised for its organisational capacity and for the efficiency level of its activities.
It did not take place in a totalitarian state that makes use of obsolete technologies and has no safety culture, as the Chernobyl disaster, that was and is still justified because it happened in a “communist” reactor, even though it is a fact that the origin of the accident is to be ascribed to an imponderable “human error”. In the case of nuclear energy, if we look at the past, we have to acknowledge that, in all the worst accidents in history, the human factor has always somehow played a main role. Still, can the human-factor risk be avoided?
Regarding nuclear technology, which has not evolved significantly over the last twenty years since the Chernobyl disaster, we still don’t have any reasonable certainties. Indeed, there will always be the risk of the operator who forgets to tighten a bolt, or the company running the plant that tries to save on maintenance and safety measures. Besides, we all know that any technology related to the production and use of energy is not risk free, but it is also true that the gravity of the risks entailed by the use of fossil fuels and renewable energies is in no way comparable to those of nuclear energy, if we consider what can happen in case of fusion of the reactor core.
In the production of nuclear energy, the risks must be correlated with the tremendous consequences on the health of people, as well as on the environment, which may originate not only from nuclear accidents but also from the regular operation of the reactors, the storage of radioactive waste, the transport of spent material and the decommissioning of the plants at the end of their life cycle.
Even though, as far as we know, it is not possible to quantify accurately the consequences of nuclear accidents on health and the environment, the evacuations and unfitness for use of whole territories are certain, as are the physiological and psychological consequences resulting from the fear of the people exposed, even to a limited extent, to radiations. It is clear that with the radioactivity levels recorded in the ground and in the sea (bearing in mind that the release of radioactive material in the sea at Fukushima was the highest ever recorded), with the impact of radioactivity on the food chain, on the contaminated greenery and vegetables in Southern Japan, hundreds of kilometres away from the plant, somatic effects of the radioactivity will be felt relentlessly and insidiously over the next thirty years.
As for the effects of operating nuclear plants on the health of the people living in the vicinity of the sites, worrying statistical figures have been reported by government bodies (in Germany, Great Britain, Canada) about the very sensible increase of leukaemia in children living within 5 kilometres from the operating reactors. A particularly critical issue concerns the storage and treatment of radioactive waste, the decommissioning of the plants at the end of their production cycle and the site decontamination, considering that the highly radioactive residual materials remain active and toxic for a very long time (even as much as a million years).
The fact that, notwithstanding 50 years of public investments, more substantial than in any other technology, the issues of preservation and final storage have remained unsolved in all countries, raises fear over the impossibility to guarantee the maintenance of the safety conditions required for the most dangerous radioactive materials for hundreds of thousands of years. Without taking into account the costs required to keep these sites safe for such long periods of time and to defend them from possible terrorist attacks ,which are getting more and more likely and might occur both to the plants and to the spent-fuel transport operations.
Finally, as to the nuclear energy production costs, they are only apparently competitive. In fact, the producing companies fail to take into due account the expenses, only partly definable or utterly incalculable, required for the disposal and treatment of waste and radioactive material, which are mainly sustained by the States.
Should we give up nuclear power? The answer to the question whether the world can give up electro-nuclear energy is “yes”; however, the necessarily gradual transition will have to avoid, in any possible way, a higher use of fossil fuels and, on the other hand, will have to prove compatible with the objectives aiming at reducing the emission of carbon into the atmosphere, which is absolutely necessary in order to stabilise the earth's climate. In this respect, Europe has agreed (with the hope that these objectives will be further increased) to reduce the emissions into the atmosphere by 20-30% in 2020, compared to those in 1990.
The first priority is to establish, at the international level and within the UN framework, a set of standards (rules and regulations) based on a thorough analysis of what happened at Fukushima, regarding the general overhaul of the operating plants, the strengthening of the safety regulations and relative monitoring (to be submitted to the control of a technical body such as the IAEA).
Secondly, each State should design a programme aimed at gradually reducing the contribution of nuclear plants to fulfil the energy requirements, in compliance with the need for a fast reduction of the CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.
In order to carry out this programme, the following conditions must be verified:
- changing the current development model based on unrestrained consumption of natural resources, in particular energy resources, thus reducing the consumption and changing
life styles. As M.K. Gandhi used to teach, we must learn to live more simply «so that the poor may simply live». Subsequent actions can be encouraged through cultural revision, environmental education and regulation of the activities by the public authorities, including through taxation for ecological purposes;
- improving significantly and without delay energy saving, the rational use of energy and energy efficiency. The goal, defined by many scientists, of a society which limits its overall energy consumption to 2000 Watt per person and per year, without giving up its wellbeing is, from a technological point of view, now basically feasible, provided that there is the political and social will to achieve it;
- increasing the investments in the development of renewable energy sources (sun, wind, geo-thermal, water, biomass), both in basic research and in technological research in the field.
As a matter of fact, it should be noted that wind energy is acquiring an increasingly important place within the renewable energy sources. From the early 2000s until now, its worldwide overall installed power has increased about ninefold. In Europe, the percentage of the wind energy total installed capacity has increased from 2% to 9% in the last nine years, while the percentage of electro-nuclear plants dropped from 22.3% to 15.6% over the same period1.
Since the production cost of electricity produced by wind farms has become competitive, we can foresee that the development trend should further increase with geometrical progression. As for solar energy (thermal, photovoltaic, and concentration), this technology has overcome the access barriers with the help of state incentives, and has now entered a stage of strong development2. A significant effort of intellectual revision and cultural training is required a priori, and this implies the will to give up the mentality that has led to all the present issues, and not only to those which are energy-related.
Germany has set a courageous example by making the “irreversible and final” decision, approved by the Parliament, to deactivate, by 2020, all its nuclear power plants which are still in operation. It should be noted that in Switzerland the Parliament has declared that the active nuclear plants will be deactivated (at the end of their life cycle) and will not be replaced. For its part, Japan has decided to build no new plants and to revise the plan of the existing nuclear plants.
Lastly, in Italy, the popular referendum held on 12 & 13 June, 2011, showed that 94% of the voters rejected the nuclear option, obviously considering that there is no reason to start, now, the production of nuclear energy. The choice of Germany has been clear, unequivocal and aware.
For the future, Germany will focus on saving-oriented technology and improved energy efficiency, as well as on the production of energy from renewable sources, which are indeed the new frontiers of technology. As everybody knows, the most significant economic and social revolutions took place in concomitance with new energy regimes, which have marked each stage of mankind’s progress and civilisation.
The increasingly-efficient transformation of widespread, inexhaustible and free solar energy into electrical power makes it possible for every human being to become the producer of the energy he needs. This observation emphasises the democratic content of the new “green” energy regime and its potential, allowing a more equitable redistribution of the energetic resources and wealth among the people living on Earth. It also calls upon Germany and Europe to view with greater consideration and interest those southern countries, such as Greece and the North African countries, which are certainly poor but “solarly rich” 3.
In order to appreciate the innovative potential of the new energy regime, we should also take
into account that it lays down the premises to face technological challenges not only related to energy production, but also to many other associated sectors such as:
- sustainable mobility, based on the public means of transport, electrical vehicles and fuel-cell vehicles;
- energy storage and hydrogen technology, as an energy vector, produced from renewable sources;
- redesigning of towns, to make them less polluted and more liveable;
- building of “energetically passive” dwellings;
- use of the Internet and smart-grids for energy distribution.
If faced with courage, the after-Fukushima period can lead to an economic development that will be more democratic, widespread, fair and balanced, driven by the wave of a technological revolution the effects of which will certainly be deep and lasting, even though they can be hardly imagined now.
1 Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC)
2 EU statistical bulletin 2010
3 The definition is given by Ulrich Beck in “Enfin l’ère postnucléaire”, Le Monde, July 10th, 2011