Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
include the costs and an innate resistance of institutions to suffer avoidable costs.
Also critical was the uncertainty over the level of risk. Even accepting evidence of
rare extreme events, the probability of such an event occurring within the lifetime
of a single power station (40-50 years) would have been seen as low.
This simple analysis can be a source of discussion not only on the validity of
balancing costs against risks, but also on aspects of responsibility; whether the com-
pany, and government or society should be responsible for such 'safety insurance'.
If safety cannot be guaranteed, government intervention might be needed. Govern-
ment intervention adds more costs to the power company and if this is known to a
company, it may decide it is wise to start cooperative action before being criticized
by the government or stakeholder. The question is why this did not occur in this
case- was it through too weak demands by the government on behalf of the safety
of its people? It may be that energy companies have been subjected to less of these
potential market pressures than other businesses.
14.4.2.4
Effects of the Disaster on Attitudes to Nuclear Power
The Fukushima disaster has led to a surge in opposition to nuclear power. In April
2011, a month after the accident, 10 % of the population still supported increasing
the use of nuclear power. Then this backing fell to 2 % by October 2011. The num-
ber in favour of decreasing or phasing out nuclear power increased from 41 to 68 %
in the same period. However such shifts in public opinion have occurred before
(Froggatt et al.
2012
). After the oil shock in the 1970s, nuclear power became popu-
lar to reduce dependency on imported oil. After some scandals in falsified safety
checks and hiding information on safety, nuclear power became less popular. How-
ever concern over global warming and carbon dioxide emissions from the time of
the Kyoto protocol increased appreciation of nuclear power. Now a combination
of the Fukushima disaster and unresolved issues on disposal of waste has led to
unpopularity again. However there are many associated questions; what risk are we
excepting by increasing CO
2
emissions? With a dependency of over 90 % on fossil
fuels, what are the implications for energy security? With the power station already
built and representing a huge investment cost, can we really afford to write that off
and not use it? There are many questions to encourage students to take more holistic
approach.
14.4.2.5
Energy Security
The shutting down of the nuclear power plant removed thousands of megawatts
from Japan's power grid. To offset the loss of domestic energy supply, Japan re-
quires import from outside because only 4 % of energy is domestically produced if
we exclude nuclear power. Thus gas and coal is being imported more than before.
For example, imports of LNG in 2012 were 11 % higher than before. This is $ 27 bn
