Fourteen years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, radioactive contamination and damage are still ongoing. Is nuclear power really safe, and are we repeating the same mistakes?
Today marks exactly 14 years since the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The March 11, 2011, nuclear disaster cost Japan an estimated $235 billion (about 25 trillion yen) in economic damage, and 160,000 people who lost their homes in the accident are still living in evacuation centers and temporary housing, unable to return to their homes. In recent years, recovery efforts have continued in the Fukushima region, but radioactive contamination remains a serious problem. The port of Fukushima has banned the shipment of fish due to radioactive contamination, and Japanese citizens who have experienced the severity of radioactive contamination continue to protest on the 14th anniversary of the disaster, calling for “all nuclear power plants in Japan to be scrapped.” The Japanese government is currently taking various measures to improve the safety of nuclear power plants, but the call for decommissioning continues.
At the time of the accident, many people in Japan and around the world remembered the nightmare of the Chernobyl disaster and feared a repeat of that catastrophe. However, when it was discovered that the direct cause of the Fukushima nuclear accident was the power supply disruption caused by the tsunami, and the radioactive material that was feared spread mainly toward the Pacific Ocean, the awareness of the dangers of nuclear power began to weaken in Korea. As the public’s fear of nuclear energy gradually faded, the current government, which has set economic revival as its national goal, focused on the economics of nuclear energy rather than the dangers of nuclear power and the huge costs of decommissioning, and has taken various measures to promote nuclear energy, including plans to build an additional nuclear power plant in Ulsan. However, nuclear energy is not economical. Unlike other catastrophes, a single nuclear accident can cause long-term and widespread damage, so the economics of nuclear energy should be reevaluated to reflect the risks and costs of cleanup, and Korea’s dependence on nuclear energy should be gradually reduced.
As we have already seen in the Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents, when radioactive materials used in nuclear power generation are exposed to the atmosphere due to natural disasters or operator inexperience, the damage is more serious than any other disaster. The damage caused by radiation exposure is different from other natural disasters in two main ways.
First, the effects of radiation exposure are long-term. In general, the effects of radiation exposure are manifested as delayed cell division or cell death once the level of radiation exposure exceeds a certain threshold, which is then passed on to the next generation due to damage and alteration of germline chromosomes. This is why the effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1962 are still being felt today. Chernobyl is now an uninhabitable ghost town, and the second generation of people who were exposed to radiation at the time were born with deformities, and the effects are not limited to humans, but also to animals and plants.
Second, radioactive exposure has a wide geographic range of effects. The 1885 eruption of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia was the largest volcanic eruption in human history, with ash spreading over a 100-kilometer radius. In a typical nuclear power plant accident, the net impact area, excluding wind damage, is 50 kilometers. Furthermore, when the effects of wind, ocean currents, and radioactive rain are included, the damage is virtually impossible to measure. Considering this, a nuclear accident is a catastrophe comparable to a natural disaster. This has been demonstrated by the damage reports from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Within a week of the accident, radioactive material was detected on the other side of the world, in the United States, and fish that were exposed to radioactive material during the accident are still being caught off the coast of the United States two years later.
Proponents of nuclear power plants argue that the current nuclear power generation facilities are safe enough that the probability of a nuclear accident is very small, and the number of nuclear accidents so far is very small compared to the number of nuclear power plants, so the risk of nuclear energy can be evaluated as low. In particular, unlike the Fukushima plant, Korea’s nuclear reactors are pressurized water reactors (isolated), so accidents due to power supply shortages are even more unlikely. However, nuclear energy should not be judged as safe energy based on the stability of mechanical equipment and mathematical probabilities based on existing data, because force majeure factors such as natural disasters and intentional factors such as war cannot be judged by mathematical probabilities, and the stability of mechanical equipment can be destroyed by these external factors. In Korea, natural disasters such as recent earthquakes are often occurring, and the threat of war by North Korea continues, so nuclear energy can be a threat to us at any time.
Despite the potential dangers of nuclear energy, the reason why proponents of nuclear energy do not give up their arguments is the economics of nuclear energy. In fact, nuclear energy is so efficient that its cost per kWh is lower than fossil energy. However, this calculation is based on the pure cost of electricity generation without including the cost of disposing of nuclear waste at the end of the process and the cost of decommissioning old nuclear power plants. Nuclear waste contains materials with half-lives of hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. In order for radioactive materials to not cause significant damage to the environment, they need to go through at least 10 half-lives, which is as long as human history. To prevent radioactive materials from being exposed to the environment for such a long period of time, the waste must be permanently isolated by burying it deep underground, which is costly in terms of landfill and compensation for selected areas. Decommissioning old nuclear power plants is equally costly. Worst of all, these costs are passed on to future generations.
The current generation is already suffering from the global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. In the case of nuclear energy, the burden of the risk of nuclear accidents and the cost of post-processing is also passed on to future generations. Therefore, no matter how much the government estimates the cost of nuclear power plant decommissioning, it is a burden that will eventually be passed on to future generations and is nothing more than a show policy to fulfill immediate political goals.
The current generation has realized the importance of sustainable development after experiencing global warming caused by the indiscriminate use of fossil fuels. Therefore, we should actively invest in eco-friendly renewable energy instead of nuclear power to lay the foundation for truly sustainable development. In particular, Korea has excellent local conditions for wind and hydropower generation. By gradually reducing our dependence on nuclear energy and increasing our reliance on wind and hydropower, we can achieve sustainable development in the energy business.
Wind power is considered the greenest of the alternative energy sources, as it does not emit carbon dioxide and has a low environmental impact. Although it has disadvantages such as the fact that the wind does not always blow consistently and the cost of initial equipment is high, it is gradually being compensated by technology, and the amount of electric energy that can be generated with constant wind is increasing, and it is continuously developing at an annual growth rate of 20-30%. In addition, wind power generation is very promising in Korea due to the windy Jeju Island, Daegwallyeong, and Saemangeum reclamation sites. In addition, small hydroelectric power generation has a high energy density compared to other alternative energies, and it is a resource with great development value because it can generate electricity all the time. According to the latest statistics on renewable energy penetration, hydropower generates the second largest amount of electricity among renewable energy sources. There are many rivers and reservoirs suitable for small hydroelectric power generation in Korea, and the Renewable Energy Development Center’s survey confirmed a potential capacity of 1500 MW, and it is evaluated as a suitable energy source for Korea along with wind power generation.
The government’s investment in nuclear energy may provide a temporary boost to Korea’s industry, but it is a very uncomfortable energy source that increases the burden of preparing for its risks. Nuclear waste disposal will be a constant problem, and it is important to keep in mind that even a single accident can paralyze the entire country and cause a severe economic crisis. Nuclear energy is no different from nuclear weapons in terms of danger, and the government’s continued plans to build nuclear power plants are a policy of surrounding people’s lives with nuclear energy. If the government truly wants to ensure the safety of its citizens and achieve sustainable development of its energy business in the face of the ongoing threat of war from North Korea, it should redirect its investment plans for nuclear energy to alternative energy sources such as wind and hydropower, and eventually aim to shut down all nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is a gamble with future generations for the convenience and profit of the current generation.
