Concerns revived by the nuclear crisis in Japan could well reverse a renaissance in new power plant construction in many countries, while design upgrades to prevent similar reactor failures will make those that are built more expensive.
The 9.0 earthquake and resulting tsunami that struck northeastern Japan on Friday have caused a series of catastrophic failures in several nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Attempts to cool overheating fuel rods have led to four explosions, giving rise to fear over how much nuclear radiation may have escaped.
As the crisis has deepened, so has its potential to inflict lasting damage on the nuclear industry.
"Nuclear, long term, will be decided over the next couple of weeks," Abel Mojica, a manager of energy-related limited partnerships atTortoise Capital Advisors,told Bloomberg News. "If there are decisions after the post mortem, that there are additional safety features required, that could add to costs."
The economic ramifications of the disaster could negatively impact companies that build nuclear power plants and supply uranium fuel as well as the utilities that operate the facilities.
Other segments of the energy industry – mainly liquefied natural gas (LNG) and solar power – have gotten a boost over the past few days, although some analysts believe the gains won't last.
The seriousness of the disaster at the Fukushima plant will only add to public pessimism over nuclear power, which in turn will sap political support in democratic nations for building new plants.
Old Wounds
In the United States, the crisis revealed old fault lines in the nuclear power debate just when it seemed Republicans and Democrats had found an issue on which they could agree. Many Republican leaders in Congress are major proponents of building new nuclear plants. And U.S. President Barack Obama included $54.5 billion in loan guarantees for new plants in his proposed 2012 budget, triple last year's request.
But in the wake of Japan's disaster, some lawmakers, including Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) have called for a moratorium on any new nuclear plants in the United States.
"We don't know where it's going with regard to the nuclear power plants in Japan right now,"Lieberman said on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday. "I think it calls on us here in the U.S. – naturally not to stop building nuclear power plants, but to put the brakes on right now until we understand the ramifications of what's happened in Japan."
Republican leaders aren't so eager to slow down.
"I don't think right after a major environmental catastrophe is a very good time to be making American domestic policy," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on Fox News Sunday. "My thought about it is, we ought not to make American and domestic policy based upon an event that happened in Japan."
The White House so far has maintained its support for new plants. Nuclear power "remains a part of the president's overall energy plan,"said White House press secretary Jay Carney at a briefing Monday.
The 104 nuclear power plants in the United States generate 20% of the nation's electricity. Almost no new plants have come online in the past 30 years, however, following the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979.
While no injuries resulted from the accident, which was far less serious than the current crisis in Japan, nuclear power got a black eye in the United States from which it had only just recently started to recover. The disaster at the Soviet Union's reactor in Chernobyl in 1986, which blasted radioactive material into the atmosphere that spread for hundreds of miles, further hardened U.S. sentiment against nuclear power.
But in the past few years, higher costs for fossil fuels and increased concerns about global warming presented nuclear power with a second chance. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing 20 license applications from 12 companies that want to build new reactors. Preparations have already begun for two plants, in South Carolina and Georgia. Both are expected to go online in 2016. Depending on the fallout from Japan's problems, as many as eight new reactors could be operational by 2020.
Peter Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the disaster in Japan will lead to greater public skepticism and increased regulatory scrutiny.
"The image of a nuclear power plant blowing up before your eyes on the television screen is a first," Bradford told The Wall Street Journal. "That cannot be good for an industry that's looking for votes in Congress and in the state legislatures."
And those unforgettable images may also have regulators taking a harder look at the safety of existing plants, particularly those at risk of such natural disasters as earthquakes and floods.
"Regulators, politicians and activist groups are likely to view power plants of any design faced with similar risks to constitute a potential hazard," Hugh Wynne of Bernstein Research in New York said yesterday (Tuesday) in a report.
Although it will be years before investigations of the Fukushima disaster are completed, recommendations based on what is learned will affect not only future designs but also existing plants.
That could hurt utilities that own the plants, which may be required to retrofit older facilities to meet higher safety standards.
"It's necessary to have a sober and careful reassessment of the seismology," James Acton, an associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington told Bloomberg News. "There are valid safety concerns and it will be hard for the industry to rebut those arguments. But if additional safety costs become an economic issue, investors may not be willing to cough up the extra money."
A Global Issue
Globally, the crisis in Japan will almost certainly curb nuclear power in Europe, though the need for power will likely prevent many developing nations from significantly changing their pro-nuclear policies.
The backlash against nuclear power seems strongest in France and Germany.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced yesterday that all German nuclear facilities built before 1980 – seven out of 17 plants — would shut down for three months while that nation decides whether to go through with a plan approved last fall to extend their life by 12 years. Most polls show that about 70% of the German people oppose nuclear power.
In France, the Green Party called for a referendum on the future of nuclear power, which supplies 80% of France's electricity.
India and China, on the other hand, are determined to forge ahead, if perhaps a bit more cautiously.
India plans to spend $150 billion on nuclear power plant construction over the next few decades.
"Ours is a very power-hungry country," Srikumar Banerjee, the chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, said during a news conference yesterday. He noted that 40% of his country's population lacked power. "It is essential for us to have further electricity generation."
Still, India is watching events in Japan closely. India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, said a safety review of the country's current 20 reactors would be carried out "with a view to ensuring that they would be able to withstand the impact of large natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes."
China has far more grandiose nuclear ambitions. It wants to spend $511 billion on 245 reactors, with 40 complete and online by 2020. That's good news for nuclear construction companies like General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE), Toshiba Corp's (PINK: TOSBF) Westinghouse and Areva CIP (PINK: ARVCF), as well as uranium mining companies like Uranium One Inc (PINK: SXRZF), Cameco Corp. (NYSE: CCJ), Uranium Energy Corp. (AMEX: UEC ) and BHP Billiton Ltd (NYSE ADR: BHP).
"Evaluation of nuclear safety and the monitoring of plants will be definitely strengthened," Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said at a political conference in Beijing on Sunday.
News and Related Story Links:
- Money Morning:
Uranium Prices: The Top Three Ways to Play the Nuclear Power Surge - Money Morning:
Uranium Prices Surge on China's $511 Billion Investment in Nukes - Money Morning:
Waking up to Devastation - Council on Foreign Relations:
Japan's Impact on U.S. Nuclear Power - Mining Weekly:
Japanese nuclear crisis effect on uranium stocks overblown – analyst - Wall Street Journal:
Japan Earthquake: GE and the Nuclear Plant - Wall Street Journal:
U.S. Could Rethink Nuclear Reliance - World Nuclear Association:
Nuclear Power in the USA - Bloomberg:
Quake-Prone Pacific Rim Atomic Plants May Hold Keys to U.S. Nuclear Plans - CBS News:
Nuclear crisis in Japan sparks new talk about nuclear power plants in U.S. - Wikipedia:
Accident at Three Mile Island - Wikipedia:
Chernobyl disaster - New York Times:
Emerging Economies Move Ahead With Nuclear Plans - Business Week:
China Wants Nuclear Reactors-Fast
Before you push more nuclear power plants in this country, you might want to check your homeowners policy if you own a home. Nuclear incidents are not a coverable expense and you could lose your home or rental property and not be reimbursed. I think we need a balanced approach to more electrical generation in this country and it should include nuclear,but slanted more with more renewable systems. Also, safety should be a very prime concern with the building of new plants and a solution finally of, what to do about the spent fuel rods must be instituted into national energy policy!
In the history of nuclear energy, how many have died?
In the same time span, how many have died in the following industries or because of accidents, or wars, from the use of these energy commodities: coal, oil, natural gas?
Why are they talking about safety?
Despite media hype, nuclear energy far and away, is safest.
Some observations if I may.
What's presented above is the surface, conventional wisdom. But what happens if the situation is resolved with no loss of life and minimal radiation release…after the worst one two punch imaginable? Also, it wasn't the earthquake, but the wave, that knocked out the diesel backup power. The plants were operating fine on backup power for an hour before the wave hit.
India and China aren't gonna stop building nuclear plants and that's where the real action is. Look at the numbers.
Rejecting nuclear really isn't a viable option. That will become clearer as time goes on. We're gonna need EVERYTHING to keep up with demand for energy and loss of conventional oil supply. I wonder what percentage of people oppose shivering in the dark or going bankrupt paying for energy?
I have to laugh amidst the tragedy to see that Germany is shutting down the plants for review. But shutting the plants down doesn't make them materially safer. The fuel is still in the core. Cooling can be lost.
Joe Lieberman is an idiot. Maybe he should drop on by the Millstone plant in Waterford /Niantic and get an education. They have some swell public displays.
The Green Part called for a referendum in France? So what? If any place embraces nuclear with both arms, it's France. I'm sure Ralph Nadar is calling for a referendum here. Maybe Peewee Herman is too. Haven't heard yet.
This is sad, below is why certain politicians in our government are so adamant about nuclear energy. This is what our American politics have developed into over the years. We have so many resources other than Nuclear to research and develope. Why not put more effort into those? Because we don't control our destiny as a nation. Corporate and wealthy do this for the average citizen. Realize that only 400 people in the US have more wealth than 150 MILLION Americans. Nearly half our population. What is wrong with our system and country. It's a shame the way these lobbyist for Nuclear power act in Washington. How could they sleep at night? Wake up America. Look how our poiliticians really decide policy.
What are those resources other than nuclear that "we" can research and develop that aren't being researched and developed? This is idle chatter.
You have to replace something real with something else real. What exactly would that be among current or potential energy sources that would replace 20% of our power supply, not to mention expand it so that we could accommodate electric cars and expanding demand for electricity generally? Nat gas? Coal? Something tells me what you have in mind is some hazy notion of the mythical "perfect" energy source rather than actual real-life alternatives. Doesn't exist.
You are correct that policy is decided by an insider elite. They actually don't favor nuclear. The Rockefellers made their early money in oil. That might tell you something. And nuclear essentially has gone nowhere here for 30 years, despite very safe plants being designed. Not so in China and India. That's the only story that really matters to this industry. U.S. development is an afterthought.
japan power plant is and probably the worst tragedy the world has to deal with
and that is quite evident
GOD HAS TO COME HOME AND HELP US ALL
hear our prayers lord please
THE ENERGY USE NEED NOT BE AS IS
ALL WE NEED IS ONE LIGHT ON AT HOME TV IS PATHETIC JUST USE LITTLE RADIO
USE PUBLIC TRANSPORT STOP ALL DRINKING
NO MORE FOOTY BEER COFFEE SMOKING AND SURPLUS LADIES
TELL CHINA PEOPLE STAY WHERE YOU ARE YANKEE GO BACK AUSSIE BECOME AUSTRALIAN THE LORD WILL BE HAPPY AND WILL THEN HELP US ALL SO YEAH NO WORRIES MATE –USE THE BRAIN CHECK -NOT MATE -SAY FRIEND OR BROTHER SEE YOU ANON
PS I REITERATE NO MORE FOOTY BEER COFFEE SMOKING AND SURPLUS LADIES
WHEN I WAS A CHILD I HAD A BIKE MY MOTHER HAD HER BIKE MY FATHER HAD AN WOODEN LEG HE WAS NOT ABLE TO RIDE ABIKE WE HAD OIL LAMP AND GOT WARM HAND MILKING THE COWS SO I THINK ENERGY IS NOT ESSENTIAL
AS THERE IS NO FOOTBALL YES NO FOOTBALL PERHAPS WE COULD PLAY CHESS NOT PLAY THE FOOL ANON BY THE WAY FOOTY IN THE EVENT OF SANITY IS FOOTBAL
AND SO YERR MATE NO WOORRIES IS REALY GOOD BYE WAKE UP TIME DONT GRAB THE THING I SHALL HAVE ONE THANK YOU WE DO NOT NEED NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS
I HAVE SUBMITTED THE BIKE THE COW THE CHESS
NO MORE OIL
NO MORE URANIUM
START CHESS IF YOU ARE CAPABLE MENTALLY
I have always been pro nuclear and following the Fukushima Daiichi plant accident I listened and watched with interest at the events but was astonished to see the pathetic attempts to cool the spent fuel rods. While I do not have detailed information as to why the coolant pond leaked, it should never happen.
What is clear is that design consideration is lacking regardless of the age or type of reactor.
If they were earlier BWRs, they should have been updated there is no excuse.
Also the Backup Power Supply Generators, being washed away. This is criminal behavior on the part of the Plant Operators. The explosions that followed are incompetence there are supposed to be systems in place.
Following a loss of coolant accident, the temperature of fuel cladding could rise and hydrogen could be generated by a water-metal reaction, which could impair the containment integrity due to hydrogen gas combustion. In order to prevent such a case, BWR containments are kept inert with nitrogen gas. Failure 1
Safety – Advance Boiling Water Reactor, Safety Systems.
ABWR has three completely independent and redundant divisions of safety systems.
The systems are mechanically separated and have no cross connections as in earlier BWRs. They are electronically separated so that each division has access to redundant sources of ac power and, for added safety, its own dedicated emergency diesel generator. Failure 2
Divisions are physically separated. Each division is located in a different quadrant of the reactor building, separated by firewalls. A fire, flood or loss of power, which disables one division, has no effect on the capability of the other safety systems. Failure 3
Finally, each division contains both a high and low-pressure system and each system has its own dedicated heat exchanger to control core cooling and remove decay heat. One of the high-pressure systems, the reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system, is powered by reactor steam and provides the diverse protection needed should there be a station blackout. Failure 4
The safety systems have the capability to keep the core covered at all times. Because of this capability and the generous thermal margins built into the fuel designs, the frequency of transients, which will lead to a scram, Control rod insertion and therefore to plant shutdown have been greatly reduced (to less than one per year). In the event of a loss of coolant accident, plant response has been fully automated. This worked but caused other failures.
Any accident resulting in a loss of reactor coolant automatically sets off the emergency core cooling system (ECCS). Made up of multiple safety systems, each one functioning independently, ECCS also has its own diesel-driven standby generators that take over if external power is lost. Failure 5
High-pressure core flooder (HPCF) and reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) systems: These systems inject water into the core to cool it and reduce reactor pressure. Failure 5
Low pressure flooder (LPFL) system: Once pressure in the reactor vessel is reduced, this system injects water into the reactor vessel. The reactor core is then cooled safely.
Automatic-depressurization system: Should the high-pressure injection system fails; this system lowers the reactor vessel pressure to a level where the LPFL system can function. Failure 6
Its reinforced concrete outer shell is designed to resist pressure, while the internal
Steel liner ensures the RCCV is leak-proof. The compact cylindrical RCCV integrated into the reactor building enjoys the advantages of earthquake-resistant design and economic construction cost. Failure 7 the cost to bury the reactors and replace will be expensive now, due to the concern of people like myself still pro nuclear, though the rest of society will I fear end future progress Gordan Finch.
nuclear power is important,if we need to avoid dependance from oil .