[Guide to the Market Economy] Nuclear Energy and Fear

The United States and Russia experienced nuclear power plant accidents, yet they remain the world’s largest nuclear power nations.

Nuclear energy is clean and environmentally friendly…we should understand it properly and use it wisely.

In March 2011, a powerful earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale struck the Pacific waters off northeastern Japan. As a result of the quake, a massive tsunami surged toward Japanese cities along the Pacific coast. Nearly 20,000 people were killed or went missing in the tidal waves, and about 6,000 were injured. Hundreds of thousands were displaced from their homes.

The Real Cause of the Fukushima Accident

The Great East Japan Earthquake was the most powerful in Japan’s recorded history and the fifth strongest earthquake in the world since modern seismic observation began in the early 20th century.

The earthquake and tsunami alone were already catastrophic natural disasters, but another major tragedy soon followed: Fukushima Prefecture, which lay within the tsunami’s impact zone, was home to four nuclear reactors. Faced with a natural disaster beyond ordinary expectations, Tokyo Electric Power was unable to respond in time, and a so-called “meltdown” occurred, in which the reactor cores melted down. Widespread radioactive contamination followed, and areas near the plant instantly became uninhabitable.

The Fukushima nuclear accident triggered anti-nuclear sentiment not only in Japan but around the world. Japan, the country directly affected by the tragedy, temporarily shut down all of its roughly 50 reactors. The measure was intended as a comprehensive inspection of all reactors in light of the accident.

In fact, anti-nuclear sentiment had also arisen after the Three Mile Island accident in the United States and the Chernobyl accident in the former Soviet Union. After a nuclear accident, it is natural for the public to fear nuclear power and radiation damage. But that does not mean these countries abandoned nuclear power after those accidents. The United States and Russia still possess some of the largest numbers of reactors in the world, and in the case of Three Mile Island, the plant even resumed operation.

The Fukushima nuclear accident was unquestionably a tragedy. But to argue from this that nuclear power is inherently dangerous energy is an excessive leap. First, the cause of the Fukushima accident was not human error. It was a natural disaster—a tsunami caused by an undersea earthquake—that was simply beyond human control. Human beings must do everything possible to predict natural disasters and prepare accordingly, but that does not mean every disaster can be prevented.

If an Apartment Building Collapses in a Tsunami

Consider an example. Suppose apartment buildings line a scenic coast, and a tsunami causes heavy casualties among the residents. Was the cause of the tragedy the tsunami, or the apartment buildings? If the apartment buildings were to blame, should we stop building apartments altogether? To say apartments are acceptable but nuclear power plants are not is a contradiction in logic.

The claim by some that nuclear energy is dangerous is also unfair when compared with other forms of power generation. Of course, this does not mean nuclear plants are free of accidents. But the accident rate relative to power output is extremely low compared with other methods of electricity generation. That is partly because nuclear plants are managed very safely, and partly because their power output is so large.

For example, when an aviation accident occurs, it is often a major disaster with an extremely low survival rate, which makes airplanes seem like a very dangerous means of transport. But when accident rates are measured against distance traveled, airplanes are incomparably safer than cars or ships. Anyone who argued that air travel should be banned because of aviation accidents would be treated as irrational. The same is true of nuclear power.

If we are to learn a lesson from Fukushima, it should not be the regressive conclusion that nuclear power must be abolished, but the progressive determination to build better nuclear power plants in the future. Using the tragedies of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as stepping stones, humanity has developed better nuclear power. Fukushima should be no different. If Three Mile Island and Chernobyl taught us to pay attention to the possibility of human error in nuclear accidents and to control those risks, then Fukushima should lead us to broaden our understanding of risk to include natural disasters as well, and to prepare thoroughly so that such tragedies are not repeated. The claim that nuclear power is dangerous and must be rejected outright is itself an idea that has truly learned nothing from the tragedy of Fukushima.

The Argument for Abolishing Nuclear Power Plants

Nuclear power generation is the cleanest, most efficient, and most environmentally friendly energy source humanity has developed to date. Hydropower is inefficient, and when dams or weirs are built, areas are submerged and the surrounding environment is altered. Thermal power inevitably consumes finite oil or coal. Wind and tidal power still barely register as meaningful energy sources, and are likely to remain so for some time. Humanity still has a long way to go before it can seriously speak of alternatives to nuclear power.

■ Please remember

Nuclear power generation is the cleanest, most efficient, and most environmentally friendly energy source humanity has developed to date. Hydropower is inefficient, and when dams or weirs are built, areas are submerged and the surrounding environment is altered. Thermal power inevitably consumes finite oil or coal. Wind and tidal power still barely register as meaningful energy sources, and are likely to remain so for some time. Humanity still has a long way to go before it can seriously speak of alternatives to nuclear power.

Sung-no Choi

President, Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: [시장경제 길라잡이] 원자력 에너지와 공포

Author: Sung-no Choi

Date: 2020-06-08

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=column&pn=8&idx=22803