with Tony Barrell.
(reprinted from ABC's Drum, also from the Energy Bulletin)
The Japanese are very earthquake-conscious. Maybe more so than others in vulnerable areas.
The anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake which destroyed much of Tokyo in 1923 on September 1 is an occasion for public campaigns and safety drills throughout the country. The Japanese have always been aware that they live on shaky ground and that there is always a chance that somewhere in the country will suffer a really big one. This includes those regions of the country which have more than their fair share of nuclear power plants, such as the huge cluster at Kashiwazaki (which includes the biggest nuclear reactor in the world) on the Japan Sea coast in Niigata, the home region of the disgraced corrupt politician Kakuei Tanaka.
He was the great promoter of nuclear power in the 1970s, especially as a way of providing electricity for the shinkansen (bullet train) line which he made sure had plenty of stops in his home electorate.
Japan certainly has stricter building regulations than many countries but unfortunately that doesn¹t mean they are strictly enforced. Some years back many buildings constructed according to these rules were found to be substandard because avaricious construction companies had cut corners.
Nevertheless, there has been widespread complacency that things are OK. For example, last month several Japanese said to Rick that what happened in Christchurch "would not happen in Japan".
They may have been ready and well-drilled for a huge quake but people were not prepared for the tsunami that followed this one. The buildings that withstood the initial jolt were quickly washed away by the massive force of water on which whole houses, cars and freight containers bobbed about like bath toys. People who survived the quake were soon claimed by the 10-metre-plus wave. Hubris may apply to those who run nuclear power plants. They (and their supporters in the media) claim that because they are better designed and more rigorously constructed none of the 55 working reactors could suffer an accident like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. It's a phrase we have heard many times in the past week or so that, even if it's true, seems like an echo of an over-confidence which has now become intrinsic to their business.
There's no doubt there was a decline in reactor-building over the past two decades, but in recent years there has been a lot of talk of a nuclear power 'renaissance'. Only days prior to the quake, Chugoku Electric (the utility that serves southern Honshu) began work on a new plant on Kamiseki island in the Inland Sea. It will be interesting to see what happens further south in Kyushu, in Miyazaki prefecture, where a people's referendum is due on April 10 to decide the fate of a proposed reactor in the town of Kushima.
To compensate for the slowdown in building new plants at home, nuclear power is being spread by Japanese interests outside the country. Not long ago, a consortium of utilities and reactor constructors set up International Nuclear Energy Development of Japan (JINED, which includes Tokyo's power utility TEPCO and Toshiba (the company that built the damaged Fukushima reactors) to encourage the export of reactors. JINED has already won a contract for Vietnam¹s second power reactor, and, until the Fukushima disaster, hopes were high for a deal with Turkey (another quake-prone country).
We have frequently been reassured that all Japan's reactors have been built to withstand 'known' quakes (up to 7.9) but the severity of the tsunami that hit the east coast on March 11 was not in the plan; certainly no-one thought it would mean a disruption of national power and communication grids or the introduction of rolling blackouts affecting industry and households alike.
Confusion was such that TEPCO had to phase it in slowly. Train services were reduced to skeleton timetables, escalators and lifts stopped working and shelves in shops were emptied. Thanks in part to the widespread use of the oh-so-efficient Just-In-Time delivery system, supermarkets carry only a minimum of stock so shoppers responded with their own Just-In-Case policy and ready-to-eat meals were soon sold out.
For years, Japan's nine regional power utilities have been promoting the increased consumption of electricity (as the 'all electric' way) with the humble but absurd toilet seat warmer, huge fridges, electric cooking tops, floor heaters and air conditioners, the typical middle-class home has become a power guzzler. Many public spaces throughout the country are so well lit there is hardly any night. Vending machines spew out refrigerated or heated drinks around the clock. Since nuclear reactors can't be turned down or off when demand slows, it seems people have been urged to consume the (perhaps surplus) electricity they make regardless of whether it's needed.
Most trains are now electrified. The new shinkansen line, which opened on the very next day of the quake, links Kagoshima at very bottom of the southern island of Kyushu, with Aomori, at the northern tip of Honshu. The plan is to extend the network even further north to Hokkaido. And to that end the underwater tunnel between the islands has already been built. To top all this, Maglev, the next generation of very very very fast trains, which run on magnetic levitation, is coming closer.
If Japan somehow manages to avoid dangerous fallout from the Fukushima accidents, it will soon have to find other sources of power if the 'electrifying' lifestyle is to continue its expansion. Building more nuclear power plants, however, suddenly seems an unlikely way to service the demand that¹s been established. Even if their operators could persuade a remote town or village to accept a nuclear power station it will take at least a decade to get it up and running. And that's on top of what has been estimated to be a repair bill of between $100 billion and $170 billion for the damage done by the tsunami.
So, what will be used to generate electricity in the short and medium-term?
Will it be coal or oil, and where will it come from? Already China consumes half the world's coal and even without taking into account the cost of global warming, coal and gas will not be cheap. Then there's the problem of instability in the Middle East (Japan relies on the region for most of its oil and gas) and the International Energy Authority has announced that the peak of oil production was reached in 2006 and it will continue to be more difficult and costlier to extract. Nuclear power has long been touted as the answer to the problem of peak oil and some climate change experts have touted nuclear as the answer to pollution and warming. Now that something not that unlike 'another Chernobyl' has occurred in the country where such a disaster was not meant to happen these people may need to think again.
(reprinted from ABC's Drum, also from the Energy Bulletin)
The Japanese are very earthquake-conscious. Maybe more so than others in vulnerable areas.
The anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake which destroyed much of Tokyo in 1923 on September 1 is an occasion for public campaigns and safety drills throughout the country. The Japanese have always been aware that they live on shaky ground and that there is always a chance that somewhere in the country will suffer a really big one. This includes those regions of the country which have more than their fair share of nuclear power plants, such as the huge cluster at Kashiwazaki (which includes the biggest nuclear reactor in the world) on the Japan Sea coast in Niigata, the home region of the disgraced corrupt politician Kakuei Tanaka.
He was the great promoter of nuclear power in the 1970s, especially as a way of providing electricity for the shinkansen (bullet train) line which he made sure had plenty of stops in his home electorate.
Japan certainly has stricter building regulations than many countries but unfortunately that doesn¹t mean they are strictly enforced. Some years back many buildings constructed according to these rules were found to be substandard because avaricious construction companies had cut corners.
Nevertheless, there has been widespread complacency that things are OK. For example, last month several Japanese said to Rick that what happened in Christchurch "would not happen in Japan".
They may have been ready and well-drilled for a huge quake but people were not prepared for the tsunami that followed this one. The buildings that withstood the initial jolt were quickly washed away by the massive force of water on which whole houses, cars and freight containers bobbed about like bath toys. People who survived the quake were soon claimed by the 10-metre-plus wave. Hubris may apply to those who run nuclear power plants. They (and their supporters in the media) claim that because they are better designed and more rigorously constructed none of the 55 working reactors could suffer an accident like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. It's a phrase we have heard many times in the past week or so that, even if it's true, seems like an echo of an over-confidence which has now become intrinsic to their business.
There's no doubt there was a decline in reactor-building over the past two decades, but in recent years there has been a lot of talk of a nuclear power 'renaissance'. Only days prior to the quake, Chugoku Electric (the utility that serves southern Honshu) began work on a new plant on Kamiseki island in the Inland Sea. It will be interesting to see what happens further south in Kyushu, in Miyazaki prefecture, where a people's referendum is due on April 10 to decide the fate of a proposed reactor in the town of Kushima.
To compensate for the slowdown in building new plants at home, nuclear power is being spread by Japanese interests outside the country. Not long ago, a consortium of utilities and reactor constructors set up International Nuclear Energy Development of Japan (JINED, which includes Tokyo's power utility TEPCO and Toshiba (the company that built the damaged Fukushima reactors) to encourage the export of reactors. JINED has already won a contract for Vietnam¹s second power reactor, and, until the Fukushima disaster, hopes were high for a deal with Turkey (another quake-prone country).
We have frequently been reassured that all Japan's reactors have been built to withstand 'known' quakes (up to 7.9) but the severity of the tsunami that hit the east coast on March 11 was not in the plan; certainly no-one thought it would mean a disruption of national power and communication grids or the introduction of rolling blackouts affecting industry and households alike.
Confusion was such that TEPCO had to phase it in slowly. Train services were reduced to skeleton timetables, escalators and lifts stopped working and shelves in shops were emptied. Thanks in part to the widespread use of the oh-so-efficient Just-In-Time delivery system, supermarkets carry only a minimum of stock so shoppers responded with their own Just-In-Case policy and ready-to-eat meals were soon sold out.
For years, Japan's nine regional power utilities have been promoting the increased consumption of electricity (as the 'all electric' way) with the humble but absurd toilet seat warmer, huge fridges, electric cooking tops, floor heaters and air conditioners, the typical middle-class home has become a power guzzler. Many public spaces throughout the country are so well lit there is hardly any night. Vending machines spew out refrigerated or heated drinks around the clock. Since nuclear reactors can't be turned down or off when demand slows, it seems people have been urged to consume the (perhaps surplus) electricity they make regardless of whether it's needed.
Most trains are now electrified. The new shinkansen line, which opened on the very next day of the quake, links Kagoshima at very bottom of the southern island of Kyushu, with Aomori, at the northern tip of Honshu. The plan is to extend the network even further north to Hokkaido. And to that end the underwater tunnel between the islands has already been built. To top all this, Maglev, the next generation of very very very fast trains, which run on magnetic levitation, is coming closer.
If Japan somehow manages to avoid dangerous fallout from the Fukushima accidents, it will soon have to find other sources of power if the 'electrifying' lifestyle is to continue its expansion. Building more nuclear power plants, however, suddenly seems an unlikely way to service the demand that¹s been established. Even if their operators could persuade a remote town or village to accept a nuclear power station it will take at least a decade to get it up and running. And that's on top of what has been estimated to be a repair bill of between $100 billion and $170 billion for the damage done by the tsunami.
So, what will be used to generate electricity in the short and medium-term?
Will it be coal or oil, and where will it come from? Already China consumes half the world's coal and even without taking into account the cost of global warming, coal and gas will not be cheap. Then there's the problem of instability in the Middle East (Japan relies on the region for most of its oil and gas) and the International Energy Authority has announced that the peak of oil production was reached in 2006 and it will continue to be more difficult and costlier to extract. Nuclear power has long been touted as the answer to the problem of peak oil and some climate change experts have touted nuclear as the answer to pollution and warming. Now that something not that unlike 'another Chernobyl' has occurred in the country where such a disaster was not meant to happen these people may need to think again.
No comments:
Post a Comment