Japan’s nuclear conundrum
One modern nuclear reactor can make 1,300 megawatts of power, can have multiple reactors. One in Japan has 7 reactors.
The explosions and meltdown fears at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant that followed the March 11 earthquake have increased not just Japan’s, but global concerns about the safety of nuclear power. In fact this happens each time there is an accident. There was Three Mile Island in 1979, where thankfully no one died, then Chernobyl in 1986, and now Fukushima. There is also the general consensus, that after a while these concerns will die down, and it will be life as usual.
However, while the alarm may be real, Japan is not in a position where it can easily move away from its reliance on nuclear power. It is the third largest producer of nuclear power, surpassed only by America and France which produce more electricity from nuclear power. Germany, which recently suspended a deal to delay closing its ageing nuclear plants, is the world’s sixth-largest producer.
But when it comes to actual dependence on nuclear power, it is a completely different story. Japan may be the third largest producer, but it only gets 29 per cent of its domestic electricity needs fulfilled by nuclear power. This makes it fifteenth in the overall list. Japan generates 60 per cent of its power needs from coal, oil and natural gas. France, on the other hand relies on nuclear power for 75 per cent of its electricity. As for the US, it produces twice as much nuclear power as France does, but this accounts for just 20 per cent of its power needs.
The most obvious question that arises is that why a country sitting right on the notorious Ring of Fire has made the choice of using nuclear power when it possesses easily-accessible geothermal energy resources. Out of the 840 active volcanoes in the world, Japan is home to 80, and all clustered in an area roughly the size of California. And this would become even more pertinent when we take into account the fact that Japan has experienced the horrific consequences of two nuclear bombings in its history.
But when we look at the situation, there are many practical reasons why Japan doesn’t really have a choice. For one, you can create a lot of energy from a small footprint. Japan is resource-poor in almost everything including land.
One modern nuclear reactor can make 1,300 megawatts (MW) of power and a nuclear facility can have multiple reactors. There is one in Japan with seven reactors. And the US has some that have the ability to have many more reactors added all to one facility. As for geothermal power, the US produces about 3,000 MW with 77 geothermal plants, which comes to roughly 40 MW per facility. This means that 33 geothermal plants equal one nuclear facility.
With wind power hundreds of turbines would be needed to match the power generated by a nuclear facility. And wind turbines don’t always perform at their peak. The same is the case with solar panels, and in any case Japan does not have this kind of available land area.
With nuclear power and without the use of breeder reactors, a country that exercises this energy generation option would have an energy source that could last potentially hundreds of years. With fuel reprocessing this time period would be even longer. Hence, nuclear power is possibly the best solution to a country’s energy needs.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 24th, 2011.
However, while the alarm may be real, Japan is not in a position where it can easily move away from its reliance on nuclear power. It is the third largest producer of nuclear power, surpassed only by America and France which produce more electricity from nuclear power. Germany, which recently suspended a deal to delay closing its ageing nuclear plants, is the world’s sixth-largest producer.
But when it comes to actual dependence on nuclear power, it is a completely different story. Japan may be the third largest producer, but it only gets 29 per cent of its domestic electricity needs fulfilled by nuclear power. This makes it fifteenth in the overall list. Japan generates 60 per cent of its power needs from coal, oil and natural gas. France, on the other hand relies on nuclear power for 75 per cent of its electricity. As for the US, it produces twice as much nuclear power as France does, but this accounts for just 20 per cent of its power needs.
The most obvious question that arises is that why a country sitting right on the notorious Ring of Fire has made the choice of using nuclear power when it possesses easily-accessible geothermal energy resources. Out of the 840 active volcanoes in the world, Japan is home to 80, and all clustered in an area roughly the size of California. And this would become even more pertinent when we take into account the fact that Japan has experienced the horrific consequences of two nuclear bombings in its history.
But when we look at the situation, there are many practical reasons why Japan doesn’t really have a choice. For one, you can create a lot of energy from a small footprint. Japan is resource-poor in almost everything including land.
One modern nuclear reactor can make 1,300 megawatts (MW) of power and a nuclear facility can have multiple reactors. There is one in Japan with seven reactors. And the US has some that have the ability to have many more reactors added all to one facility. As for geothermal power, the US produces about 3,000 MW with 77 geothermal plants, which comes to roughly 40 MW per facility. This means that 33 geothermal plants equal one nuclear facility.
With wind power hundreds of turbines would be needed to match the power generated by a nuclear facility. And wind turbines don’t always perform at their peak. The same is the case with solar panels, and in any case Japan does not have this kind of available land area.
With nuclear power and without the use of breeder reactors, a country that exercises this energy generation option would have an energy source that could last potentially hundreds of years. With fuel reprocessing this time period would be even longer. Hence, nuclear power is possibly the best solution to a country’s energy needs.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 24th, 2011.