Fukushima Fallout: Alternatives to nuclear by James Tulloch After the 2011 earthquake and tsunami shut down Japan energy supply, liquid natural gas (LNG) tankers like this one stepped up supplies of the f uel to fill the energy gap. ( Source Reuters Japans nuclear crisis may prompt other countries to suspend, scale back, or even quit nuclear power. What would fill the resulting energy gaps? When you add" to the list including Three Mile Island'andChernobyl',the future for nuclear power looks bleak Those accidents stopped the industry in its tracks in North America and Europe respectively Could Fukushima be the Asian equivalent? Not in Asia, say energy experts. China, India, Korea and Russia are building the vast majority of the worlds new nuclear reactors. Some plans may be delayed, but they won't be scrapped Unless Fukushima blows up, I doubt it will be significant enough to put them off, "reckons Malcolm Keay, Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. " Political ion and the financial costs of nuclear are less than in oecd countries Europe and America are a different story. Safety concerns could push aging reactors, like the ones at Fukushima, into early retirement, while escalating costs associated with higher safety standards and anti-nuclear opposition could scare investors away from the recent nuclear renaissance With delays and cost overruns endemic, the economics of nuclear power are controversial. A new plant in Finland, with the latest safety features, is four years overdue and massively over budget But if old nuclear reactors are not renovated or replaced, what will fill the energy gaps left behind? The UK gets nearly one half of its energy from nuclear power, Germany over one quarter, the United States one fifth. How will these countries keep the lights on? A Dash for Gas? We didn t have to wait long after the tsunami, or look far from Fukushima, to see one vision of the energy future. The supertanker that docked in Tokyo Bay three days later carried liquid natural gas (LNG). Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell had diverted the shipment to help Japan fill its sudden energy gap Natural gas is now the most likely substitute for nuclear energy, say many analysts, because new discoveries mean it is cheap. It is also readily available, it fits with existing infrastructure, and it is cleaner' than coal or oil
Fukushima Fallout: Alternatives to Nuclear 05 April 2011 by James Tulloch After the 2011 earthquake and tsunami shut down Japan's nuclear energy supply, liquid natural gas (LNG) tankers like this one stepped up supplies of the fossil fuel to fill the energy gap. (Source: Reuters) Japan’s nuclear crisis may prompt other countries to suspend, scale back, or even quit nuclear power. What would fill the resulting energy gaps? When you add ‘Fukushima’ to the list including ‘Three Mile Island’ and ‘Chernobyl’, the future for nuclear power looks bleak. Those accidents stopped the industry in its tracks in North America and Europe respectively. Could Fukushima be the Asian equivalent? Not in Asia, say energy experts. China, India, Korea and Russia are building the vast majority of the world’s new nuclear reactors. Some plans may be delayed, but they won’t be scrapped. “Unless Fukushima blows up, I doubt it will be significant enough to put them off,” reckons Malcolm Keay, Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. “Political opposition and the financial costs of nuclear are less than in OECD countries.” Europe and America are a different story. Safety concerns could push aging reactors, like the ones at Fukushima, into early retirement, while escalating costs associated with higher safety standards and anti-nuclear opposition could scare investors away from the recent ‘nuclear renaissance’. With delays and cost overruns endemic, the economics of nuclear power are controversial. A new plant in Finland, with the latest safety features, is four years overdue and massively over budget. But if old nuclear reactors are not renovated or replaced, what will fill the energy gaps left behind? The UK gets nearly one half of its energy from nuclear power, Germany over one quarter, the United States one fifth. How will these countries keep the lights on? A Dash for Gas? We didn’t have to wait long after the tsunami, or look far from Fukushima, to see one vision of the energy future. The supertanker that docked in Tokyo Bay three days later carried liquid natural gas (LNG). Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell had diverted the shipment to help Japan fill its sudden energy gap. Natural gas is now the most likely substitute for nuclear energy, say many analysts, because new discoveries mean it is cheap. It is also readily available, it fits with existing infrastructure, and it is ‘cleaner’ than coal or oil
UK bank HSBC and French bank Societe Generale (SocGen), for example, released research notes predicting that natural gas would be a winner if voters and governments reject nuclear power. Why the world Is Addicted to Dirty Coal But not all countries are like Japan, with natural gas infrastructure-LNG terminals, pipelines gas refineries. To take advantage of the gas glut, they will have to invest. It's not just a matter switching off nuclear and switching on gas Take Germany, for example, which temporarily shut down seven nuclear reactors in response to Fukushima. It has no LNG terminals and limited gas infrastructure and so its utilities filled three quarters of the energy gap with coal, traders told Reuters in early April Coal is cheaper than gas and, when utility company profits are at stake, they may be tempted to use it. Other nuclear countries that rely heavily on coal are the United States, Japan, China and Coal, gas and oil would benefit from a nuclear phaseout because they can quickly and cheaply eplace the baseload power-continuous energy at a constant rate-provided by nuclear energy This scenario won't be good for the planet, adding about 2 billion tons of Co2 to the 9 billion tons emitted by electricity generators in 2009, according to the economist magazine But on the upside it could have the knock-on effect of a much-needed acceleration of carbon pture and storage(CCs)technology to make fossil fuel plants greener A Rush to renewables? There is another vision. Nuclear's loss becomes renewables' gain if governments and investors get really serious about low-carbon energy Solar power company stocks soared immediately after the Fukushima disast Renewables cannot, at the moment, fill the energy gap entirely. Wind and solar plants don't yet provide continuous baseload power because the sun doesnt al ways shine and the winds dont al ways blow. Those hurdles could in time be overcome by massive expansion of all renewables, plugged into new electricity storage systems andsmart electricity grids that can better distribute wind and solar power The 2011 Battle of the Grids' report from environmental campaigners Greenpeace argues that Europe could get nearly 70 percent of its energy from renewables by 2030, and almost 100 percent by2050
UK bank HSBC and French bank Societe Generale (SocGen), for example, released research notes predicting that natural gas would be a winner if voters and governments reject nuclear power. Why the World Is Addicted to Dirty Coal But not all countries are like Japan, with natural gas infrastructure—LNG terminals, pipelines, and gas refineries. To take advantage of the gas glut, they will have to invest. It’s not just a matter of switching off nuclear and switching on gas. Take Germany, for example, which temporarily shut down seven nuclear reactors in response to Fukushima. It has no LNG terminals and limited gas infrastructure and so its utilities filled three quarters of the energy gap with coal, traders told Reuters in early April. Coal is cheaper than gas and, when utility company profits are at stake, they may be tempted to use it. Other nuclear countries that rely heavily on coal are the United States, Japan, China and India. Coal, gas and oil would benefit from a nuclear phaseout because they can quickly and cheaply replace the ‘baseload’ power—continuous energy at a constant rate—provided by nuclear energy. This scenario won’t be good for the planet, adding about 2 billion tons of CO2 to the 9 billion tons emitted by electricity generators in 2009, according to the Economist magazine. But on the upside it could have the knock-on effect of a much-needed acceleration of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to make fossil fuel plants greener. A Rush to Renewables? There is another vision. Nuclear’s loss becomes renewables’ gain if governments and investors get really serious about low-carbon energy. Solar power company stocks soared immediately after the Fukushima disaster. Renewables cannot, at the moment, fill the energy gap entirely. Wind and solar plants don’t yet provide continuous baseload power because the sun doesn’t always shine and the winds don’t always blow. Those hurdles could in time be overcome by massive expansion of all renewables, plugged into new electricity storage systems and ‘smart’ electricity grids that can better distribute wind and solar power. The 2011 ‘Battle of the Grids’ report from environmental campaigners Greenpeace argues that Europe could get nearly 70 percent of its energy from renewables by 2030, and almost 100 percent by 2050
But until these new systems are developed and deployed, unless you have huge hydroelectric dams like Brazil, or unless you expand geothermal, biomass, and tidal power exponentially overnight, your baseload options are largely limited to fossil fuels and nuclear Encourage Energy Efficiency We could just use less energy Another post-Fukushima scenario sees a greater focus on energy efficiency, and many experts now see energy conservation as perhaps the brightest prospect for reducing energy use and thereby cutting greenhouse gas emissions Buildings account early 40 percent of all energy use and so they could be designed retrofitted to the b ble energy-efficiency standards, particularly in advanced economies Improvements in appliance and vehicle energy efficiency have helped many rich countries stabilize their energy consumption levels, despite increasing wealth Extend those efficiencies to the rest of the world, and we could slash energy wastage. And a carbon price or carbon taxes would certainly help concentrate minds on energy conservation A Bump in the road? Of course, there may be very little Fukushima effect. The backlash could be short-lived, a bump in the road rather than a stop! sign Fukushima may be like the Deepwater Horizon oil platform disaster: prompting delays and safety improvements before resuming business as usual It will depend very much on the particular political and energy supply circumstances of each country. Not all governments will react as negatively as Germany, nor will they be as pro-nuclear In fact, neither of these extremes holds the nuclear balance now: China, India Russia and the United States are the key players deciding whether the worlds energy system becomes more or less atomic. and whether it becomes greener or gassier
But until these new systems are developed and deployed, unless you have huge hydroelectric dams like Brazil, or unless you expand geothermal, biomass, and tidal power exponentially overnight, your baseload options are largely limited to fossil fuels and nuclear. Encourage Energy Efficiency We could just use less energy. Another post-Fukushima scenario sees a greater focus on energy efficiency, and many experts now see energy conservation as perhaps the brightest prospect for reducing energy use and thereby cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Buildings account for nearly 40 percent of all energy use and so they could be designed or retrofitted to the best possible energy-efficiency standards, particularly in advanced economies. Improvements in appliance and vehicle energy efficiency have helped many rich countries stabilize their energy consumption levels, despite increasing wealth. Extend those efficiencies to the rest of the world, and we could slash energy wastage. And a carbon price or carbon taxes would certainly help concentrate minds on energy conservation. A Bump in the Road? Of course, there may be very little Fukushima effect. The backlash could be short-lived, a bump in the road rather than a STOP! sign. Fukushima may be like the Deepwater Horizon oil platform disaster: prompting delays and safety improvements before resuming business as usual. It will depend very much on the particular political and energy supply circumstances of each country. Not all governments will react as negatively as Germany, nor will they be as pro-nuclear as France. In fact, neither of these extremes holds the nuclear balance now: China, India, Russia and the United States are the key players deciding whether the world’s energy system becomes more or less atomic , and whether it becomes greener or gassier
