Thursday

29th Sep 2022

Opinion

Fukushima one year on - lessons learnt?

  • "The nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima is far from over" (Photo: US Navy)

On 11 March last year, a massive earthquake and tsunami hit Japan, resulting in thousands of tragic deaths, and causing a nuclear disaster.

While global attention has long since shifted elsewhere, the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima is far from over. This is the nature of nuclear accidents: they leave a long-lasting radioactive legacy.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

One year on, the situation is not 'under control'. The announcement by the Japanese government that the damaged reactors were in a state of 'cold shutdown' was met with scepticism and anger from a concerned public – and with disbelief amongst nuclear experts.

As the recent rise in temperature in reactor 2 has shown, the Fukushima facility remains unstable and highly vulnerable to a new earthquake. Meanwhile, it has been estimated that "cleaning up" the disaster will take a hundreds-strong workforce decades to complete.

Beyond the reactors themselves, and the arbitrary 20km 'exclusion zone', the surrounding area in Fukushima province and beyond will suffer from radioactive contamination for generations to come.

To give a concrete example: the amount of radioactive caesium 137 (which has a half life of around 30 years) released during the Fukushima disaster was 168 times that released by the Hiroshima bomb.

It has been estimated that deaths, due to radiation exposure in the region, could run into the thousands.

Fukushima, like Chernobyl twenty five years before it, has shown us that while the likelihood of a nuclear disaster occurring may be low, the potential impact is enormous.

The inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy, as well as the related proliferation of nuclear technologies, can and does have disastrous consequences. The only certain way to eliminate this potentially devastating risk is to phase out nuclear power altogether.

Some countries appear to have learnt this lesson. In Germany, the government changed course in the aftermath of Fukushima and decided to go ahead with a previously-agreed phase out of nuclear power. Many scenarios now foresee Germany sourcing 100% of its power needs from renewables by 2030. Meanwhile, Italian citizens voted overwhelmingly against plans to go nuclear with a 90% majority.

The same is not yet true in Japan. Although only 3 out of its 54 nuclear reactors are online and generating power, whilst the Japanese authorities conduct 'stress tests', the government hopes to reopen almost all of these and prolong the working life of a number of its ageing reactors by to up to 60 years.

The Japanese public have made their opposition clear however. Opinion polls consistently show a strong majority of the population is now against nuclear power. Local grassroots movements opposing nuclear power have been springing up across Japan. Mayors and governors in fear of losing their power tend to follow the majority of their citizens.

Elsewhere, in the UK and Finland for example, nuclear new build remains high on the agenda however.

The European-level response has been to undertake stress tests on nuclear reactors across the European Union. However, these stress tests appear to be little more than a PR exercise to encourage public acceptance in order to allow the nuclear industry to continue with business as usual. They fail to assess the full risks of nuclear power, ignoring crucial factors like fires, human failures, degradation of essential infrastructure or the impact of an airplane crash.

Fukushima showed us that nuclear remains a high risk technology and that the reassurances of the nuclear industry cannot be relied on. However, nuclear also fails to make the grade in economic terms.

As we have seen with the two new nuclear reactors under construction in Europe, the already prohibitive upfront constructions costs have been grossly underestimated. The EPR reactors under construction in Finland and France are both around 100% over budget, with the end date for construction being constantly postponed.

The hidden costs of nuclear - such as waste disposal, insurance and decommissioning - are also huge, and it is the public that ends up footing the bill. Surely it makes more sense to invest billions in genuinely sustainable and low risk technologies?

One year on from Fukushima, we should not wait for another disaster to finally convince us to give up on nuclear power.

The writer is co-president of the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament. She visited Japan and Fukushima in January of this year.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

EU: Japanese nuclear accident will affect UN climate talks

The crisis at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant will have a major impact on global climate talks, a senior EU official has said, adding that the 27-member bloc will now study low-nuclear energy solutions more closely.

Lessons from Fukushima for EU energy policy

Five years on from the Fukushima disaster, Japan, the UK, and other EU states should commemorate victims by opting for safe and renewable energy over the genie's bottle of nuclear power.

Can King Charles III reset the broken Brexit relationship?

The Queen's funeral was an impressive demonstration of solidarity from the EU towards a country that left the Union in 2020, and with whom the EU's relations have never recovered. Can the new King Charles III build bridges to Brussels?

Column

EU should admonish less, and listen more, to the Global South

Whether on Russia, or gas, or climate change, or food security, the EU's constant finger-wagging and moralising is becoming unbearably repetitive and self-defeating. Most countries in the Global South view it as eurocentric and neo-colonial.

Column

EU should admonish less, and listen more, to the Global South

Whether on Russia, or gas, or climate change, or food security, the EU's constant finger-wagging and moralising is becoming unbearably repetitive and self-defeating. Most countries in the Global South view it as eurocentric and neo-colonial.

News in Brief

  1. EU to ban Russian products worth €7bn a year more
  2. Denmark: CIA did not warn of Nord Stream attack
  3. Drone sightings in the North Sea 'occurred over months'
  4. Gazprom threatens to cut gas deliveries to Europe via Ukraine
  5. New compromise over EU energy emergency measures
  6. 15 states push for EU-wide gas price cap
  7. EU: Nord Stream explosions 'result of a deliberate act'
  8. EU okays €21bn Covid-recovery funding for Italy amid concern

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. The European Association for Storage of EnergyRegister for the Energy Storage Global Conference, held in Brussels on 11-13 Oct.
  2. EFBWW – EFBH – FETBBA lot more needs to be done to better protect construction workers from asbestos
  3. European Committee of the RegionsThe 20th edition of EURegionsWeek is ready to take off. Save your spot in Brussels.
  4. UNESDA - Soft Drinks EuropeCall for EU action – SMEs in the beverage industry call for fairer access to recycled material
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic prime ministers: “We will deepen co-operation on defence”
  6. EFBWW – EFBH – FETBBConstruction workers can check wages and working conditions in 36 countries

Latest News

  1. Russian ideologue and caviar on latest EU blacklist
  2. Netherlands tops EU social safety net for the poor
  3. New EU rules to make companies liable for their AI failures
  4. Can King Charles III reset the broken Brexit relationship?
  5. Meloni's navy-blockade plan to stop Libya migrants 'unlikely'
  6. Underwater explosions were detected near Nord Stream leaks
  7. EU countries stall new pesticide rules, blame Ukraine war
  8. The UN's Uyghur report must push EU into China sanctions

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us