When a mega quake struck off the northern coast of Japan, few people envisaged the unfolding tale of a nuclear power plant would add to the terrible human disaster of the earthquake, and tsunami. What is the future of nuclear energy, after the ongoing Fukushima disaster?
Nuclear power is as divisive as it was when Chernobyl disaster affected much of Russia, the Ukraine and Europe in 1986. But times have changed, as fossil fuels are getting rarer and more expensive, whilst an extra two billion people have been added to our planets population.
These extra two billion people need electricity, and the energy to fuel a much more modern, and wired world, which has helped build 25 new nuclear reactors since Chernobyl.
Japan is energy poor, and spends over 86% of its imports on oil, gas, and other fossil fuels, this has led to an increasing dependence on nuclear energy, which did supply almost 20% of the nations energy needs before the earthquake. One reason the nation built more power stations after the Chernobyl disaster.
The Fukushima power plant was built in 1964 by GE, a leading American nuclear power company. It was built next to the sea, in a known quake zone, and managed by TEPCO, a Tokyo based power company. Unlike Chernobyl, Fukushima is a privately owned, and run power plant.
When the earthquake struck, the plant largely escaped any tell tale damage, but the tsunami which followed may of created the ongoing problems the plant has today.
This was the second tsunami which has hit Fukushima, the first was on July 7th, 1905. Whoever decided to build this plant, ought to have known that aside from being in a quake zone, the nuclear plant would be in an area known for tsunamis.
The ongoing saga of the dangers of the plants reactors, and the probable consequences have led to a 20 kilometer exclusion zone, and evidence of excess radiation in the sea, and land near Fukushima. Japan's capital Tokyo, also has had spikes in radiation levels, since the earthquake struck.
Many experts have downplayed this danger, including the INEA (International Nuclear Energy Agency), and officials at TEPCO, whilst the international media have either downplayed the risk, defended nuclear energy or perhaps overstated it.
The simple fact that the local food chain is affected by radiation, drinking water and obviously the sea, has cast doubt to the advantages of this enigmatic power source, and the long term effects could be as invisible as the radiation that seeps into the ocean, the soil and the local water supply.
The Fukushima saga, also has implications for the nuclear power industry, which is forced to defend the safety record of this divisive energy source, in an age where this energy use has become the princess of alternative energy sources, rather than the ugly sister after Chernobyl- because its use helps us combat global warming.
Japan as a high tech industrial nation, needs energy but since 1980, the use of geothermal and green energies has actually dropped, leading to a growing dependence on fossil fuels, and nuclear energies. After the quake, the nation faces power shortages, and the possibility of having to import more of these fuels to offset this shortage.
Experts from both sides are looking at the effects of the aftershock of this man made disaster, whether the exclusion zone will grew and leave a greater area of Japan, uninhabitable. Whether the reactors can close or be buried in a no-go zone- Keeping an eye on how the public could react to the consequences of a probable part or full nuclear meltdown.
Depending on how the Fukushima saga ends, the future of the expanding nuclear industry may have reached its crossroads whilst there is little debate to what energy can replace it, despite growing evidence that geothermal, hydro-electricity, wind and solar energies are becoming more efficient, and less costly.
In an increasing energy dependent world, the solutions to how to maintain the energy needs of seven billion plus people- with a decreasing supply of non-renewable energy supplies like oil still look unclear, whilst the options of using nuclear energy, or renewable energy, still remain divisive.
Discover how you can thrive during a period of economic change
