Does Nuclear Power have a future?


It might be reasonable to assume that a big question mark hangs over the future of nuclear power following the damage to four separate reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. This complex has a total of six reactors all fitted with failsafe safety devices and controls. Unfortunately words like failsafe and foolproof are not part of Mother Nature’s vocabulary. Mother Nature is also well-known for throwing unexpected and unpredictable thunderbolts out of a clear blue sky. In north-east Japan this came in the form of a magnitude 9-0 earthquake and the consequent reactor damaging tsunami which destroyed the electrical power supply that many of the safety features relied on.

Clearly this incident has demonstrated that no matter how much safety planning and features are built into the design of a nuclear reactor, there can no longer be a guarantee of 100% safety. Although Fukushima  will now join the well-known names of nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl the list of incidents is much larger. Others include the Mayak or Kyshtym nuclear complex in 1957, Windscale also in 1957, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in 1961, Severesk, formerly Tomsk-7 in 1967, Tokaimura nuclear fuel processing facility in 1999 and Mihama power plant in 2004 although apparently no radiation leak occurred at this incident.

It is the insidious fear of the potential lethal or genetic mutational effects on the unborn, of radiation that causes such alarm in the world populace. Radiation can be like an invisible and unheard wraith casting its deadly cloak like an unseen shadow over land, people, animals and vegetation with effects of contamination that can last for years.

The only realistic solution to avoiding future nuclear incidents is not to have nuclear power stations at all. However a no nuclear option also requires realistic alternatives. It would be possible to return to fossil fuel based power stations like coal or oil but these raise environmental and cost issues and well as objections on global warming issues. It would also only be a matter of time before fossil fuels become exhausted.  Wind, solar and tidal power are possible alternatives but wind turbines are unsightly and blot landscapes. Although wind and tide have a contributory input to national power requirements, at the moment they only provide a fraction of the ever-growing demand for more and more power. It is questionable if alternative sources will ever fulfil the power need currently supplied by nuclear power.

I expect once the dust, (hopefully not radioactive), has settled over Fukushima, politicians will come to the only foreseeable conclusion that if the world wants power then it will have to accept nuclear power despite its inherent dangers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: