We’re all anxiously hoping that Japan can get their Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant under control and prevent continued nuclear contamination releases into the air and water. The environmental damage that has already occurred will take many years to repair (not to mention the affects of the earthquake and subsequent tsunami).
We can also learn a lot from this catastrophe about the condition of similar reactors built around the world, as well as how we can do better in the future.
While it’s still unclear what specifically caused the damage to the reactors, it appears that they survived an earthquake measured at 9.0 on the Richter scale, but didn’t survive the onslaught of the subsequent tsunami. Undoubtedly, there is structural damage due specifically to the earthquake, but could the damage have been managed without a release of nuclear contamination to the environment? We’ll never know for sure, but the answer could be yes! If this is true, it says a lot about the structural integrity of these existing plants.
Many are using the catastrophe to champion their position that no nuclear power should be allowed anywhere, but they may be missing the point. Many nuclear reactors are not sited in close proximity to the coastline, so they are not susceptible to tsunami damage. Earthquake damage is a concern that is factored into every design. Newer reactor models provide significantly more safeguards.
A new Westinghouse Model AP1000 nuclear plant being constructed in Sanmen, China, is reported to be 100 times safer than this “old” technology. Advancements in the design of pebble bed reactor technology also shows great promise for improved safety of nuclear plants.
The catastrophe in Japan should cause each of us to contemplate and consider the safety of nuclear power. However, to simply decide that no nuclear power is good would be both short-sighted and doesn’t grasp all that the disaster in Japan is trying to tell us.
Read NSPE's position statement on nuclear electric power.
