Nuclear Fallout

The Fukushima disaster sounds yet another warning call of the need for safe and clean energy sources, but the need to mitigate climate change will keep nuclear in the picture for some time yet.

The events of the past year have served as a The impacts of severe climate change Proper risk management can partly serious warning call about the urgency of would reach virtually every corner of the be achieved by a commitment to a more transitioning to both clean and safe energy globe, and range from human disease robust reactor design than that of the sources. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in to crop failure and extreme weather type used in the Fukushima power plant. April 2010 — now recognized as the worst events (page 84). Reducing emissions Although that means that Germany’s in US history — contaminated several thus continues to be more critical than decision to shut its old reactors should hundred miles of the Louisiana shoreline, preventing the expansion of nuclear power. stay in place, it could open a door to safer destroying invaluable marine habitat and Moreover, in a strange side-effect of the deployment of new reactors in countries causing untold damage to the fishing and Japanese disaster, the nation’s imports such as the UK, whose Secretary of tourism industries. In another global of carbon-intensive energy products has State for Energy and Climate Change, energy disaster, the tsunami that struck the pushed up the price of carbon, an effect Chris Huhne, has commissioned a report northeast Japanese coastline in early March that will ultimately make alternative energy into the lessons to be learnt from the has now resulted in a nuclear disaster equal sources — including nuclear — more Fukushima disaster (Nature doi:10.1038/ in scale to that of Chernobyl. attractive in the long run (page 90). news.2011.209; 2011). Many of the plants Both of these incidents reinforce the being built now should be better able to need to shift away from energy sources that withstand an impact such as the tsunami pose a high risk to human health, and are Much like the response to that hit Japan’s northern coastline on more effective in conveying that message to 11 March. But just as critical to risk the public than the more remote, if riskier, the risk of offshore drilling, management is due consideration of the threat of climate change. The political plans for expanding nuclear location of existing builds; regardless response to the Fukushima disaster of their specification, locating nuclear suggests that world leaders are aware at capacity are probably on reactors in earthquake-prone regions least of the public’s concern for energy hiatus rather than halted. represents an incomprehensible level safety. Already, Germany has shut seven of of irresponsibility. its oldest nuclear plants, and Europe has For the public to accept the nuclear committed to testing all 143 reactors in its On timescales that matter to climate option anew governments worldwide 27 member states. China — a nation that mitigation, we are unlikely to have the must communicate clearly about the accounts for 40% of planned new reactors luxury of switching off fossil fuel and risks, and in that regard, the UK’s globally — has brought a halt to all new nuclear power simultaneously. Although commissioned report on lessons from nuclear projects (page 91). And in spite of wind and solar are promising sources the Fukushima disaster, due out in full ambitious plans to scale its nuclear capacity of plentiful energy, nuclear is the only in September, is to be commended. by one third by 2030, Japan has now available source of non-carbon baseload Communicating transparently on the risks reverted to importing liquefied natural gas, power, and so the future energy mix of nuclear will mean more research into as well as oil and coal (page 90). will almost certainly include nuclear the likely health impacts of long-term However, despite the aversion to nuclear to some extent, regardless of the risks. versus short-term exposure and from power in the aftermath of the Fukushima After all, the global need for energy is different sources, to expand on what little disaster, the negative response is likely to increasing, with electricity demand in the we now know (page 91). And importantly, soften over time. Only a year has passed US alone predicted to rise 30% by 2035. it will require a clearer picture of the since the Gulf of Mexico disaster and And according to some estimates, that possibilities at the thin tail of the risk- already licensing for deepwater rigs has means the share of nuclear power should distribution curve. resumed in the region, and continues increase to about 30% by 2050, a shift that Although current technology and unabated elsewhere in spite of dwindling would require an additional 2,000–3,000 knowledge dictates that nuclear will form returns. Much like the response to the risk power plants (Nature 467, 391–392; 2011). part of any low-carbon global energy mix, of offshore drilling, plans for expanding Even though the practicalities of we should not take that as a fait accompli. nuclear capacity are probably on hiatus deployment mean that such a scheme is The past year has shown that neither rather than halted. unfeasible, the risks posed by expanding corporations nor governments can afford This is partly owing to the fact that nuclear even on the scales planned before the economic and human costs of failing even though nuclear energy poses the Fukushima disaster — which would to invest in clean energy. Without the significant human health risks, including represent 4–6% of the global energy possibility of discovering a clean fuel the risk of radiation exposure and nuclear demand — are not insignificant. If these for cars, a method of capturing and proliferation, so too does climate change. plans do indeed regain the political storing carbon dioxide or a smart-grid If greenhouse-gas emissions continue support they once had, they will require technology that will boost energy efficiency unchecked, the probability of extreme highly effective risk management and and so lessen demand (page 76), we will be impacts on human health is higher than risk communication to allay the fears of a stuck relying on at least one, and probably from deploying new nuclear power plants. concerned public. two, highly risky energy options. ❐

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 1 | MAY 2011 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 69