- Email: [email protected]
Nuclear inspector: What we can learn from Fukushima
Comment on these stories at newscientist.com/opinion
Peter Byck is a film-maker based in Kentucky. Carbon Nation is being screened across North America and will be available on DVD in August
One minute with...
Mike Weightman The UK’s principal nuclear inspector is visiting the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan to discover what lessons can be learned Are you worried by the possibility of a radiation risk at Fukushima? No. I’m not reckless, but I understand the hazards of the business. I don’t think anyone is going inside the reactors, but we want to see the site for ourselves. As well as going to the Fukushima Daiichi site, where the accident happened, we are going to Fukushima Daini 11 kilometres away, which was hardly damaged, so we can compare and contrast, and report why one escaped damage and the other didn’t. It may be something simple, like the less damaged plant being on higher ground, but we need to find out. How many people are going? There are about 20 of us, from a variety of nations. What do you know already about the disaster? The information I have is that the reactors closed down OK when the quake happened, and began cooling down OK, but then the tsunami came along and knocked out all the backup electricity generators and backup diesel tanks. Because the tsunami took out the off-site electrical grid too, there was no cooling system for the reactors and the disaster unfolded. There have recently been suggestions that the quake itself, not the tsunami, may have caused the problems. What are the biggest gaps in knowledge that you want to plug? We want to establish what happened, when, and the implications. What was the physics of the event? We aim to forward our report to an international meeting of ministers convened by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) next month, so the world community can think about how to react better to events like this in the future. Do we need an international nuclear safety body that takes control and provides assistance when a nuclear accident occurs? Certainly we need a more robust system for disseminating information, perhaps through the IAEA. All governments need advice on how to
Profile Mike Weightman, the UK’s chief inspector of nuclear installations, is this week joining an international fact-finding mission to the site of the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl
react when these things happen, and it would be better if it came from an international, independent body. Do you think TEPCO, which owns Fukushima, should have asked for help earlier? It’s not for me to second-guess what Japan should or shouldn’t have done. You have to remember the context, with 14,000 people known to have been killed by the earthquake and tsunami, 11,000 missing and massive destruction of infrastructure. Can any good come from the Fukushima accident? It was good to see the world community pulling together to learn lessons from it, and trying to improve existing safety standards. It also shows we should never be complacent. Is it bad news for nuclear power? Whether or not we have nuclear power is not my concern. My concern is that if it is used, it should be used safely. Interview by Andy Coghlan
28 May 2011 | NewScientist | 27
Health and safety executive
dioxide, Richard Branson of Virgin and Bob Iger of Disney (which has an internal carbon tax in place), wants a price on carbon. So does every military person I met, including ex-CIA director Jim Woolsey, every reporter including The Wall Street Journal editor Alan Murray, every economist and every nuclear proponent. All want a price on carbon. And they all concede Congress will never have the guts to do it. Yet we already have a huge carbon tax. A recent study by Harvard Medical School in Boston found that using coal as a fuel creates enormous financial burdens on the US economy. When factoring in mining, transportation and electricity generation, the bill is between one-third and half a trillion dollars in health, economic and environmental costs every year. This is what the business school folks call external costs – they aren’t paid by the coal or utility industry, but are picked up by ordinary people. Just using the study’s lower number, every man, woman and child in the US pays $1000 annually (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol 1219, p 73). I say, let’s lower this carbon tax by putting a price on carbon right when it enters the economy, and watch as clean energy innovation takes off. I love a hot shower, I’m really glad the yogurt is cold in my fridge, I just don’t want to give the kid down the street, or my son for that matter, asthma. I don’t think the oil, coal and natural gas companies are committed to emitting carbon. They are committed to making money. So let’s find ways for energy companies to make enormous amounts of money with clean energy, and leave the carbon in the ground, where it belongs. n
Peter Byck is a film-maker based in Kentucky. Carbon Nation is being screened across North America and will be available on DVD in August
One minute with...
Mike Weightman The UK’s principal nuclear inspector is visiting the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan to discover what lessons can be learned Are you worried by the possibility of a radiation risk at Fukushima? No. I’m not reckless, but I understand the hazards of the business. I don’t think anyone is going inside the reactors, but we want to see the site for ourselves. As well as going to the Fukushima Daiichi site, where the accident happened, we are going to Fukushima Daini 11 kilometres away, which was hardly damaged, so we can compare and contrast, and report why one escaped damage and the other didn’t. It may be something simple, like the less damaged plant being on higher ground, but we need to find out. How many people are going? There are about 20 of us, from a variety of nations. What do you know already about the disaster? The information I have is that the reactors closed down OK when the quake happened, and began cooling down OK, but then the tsunami came along and knocked out all the backup electricity generators and backup diesel tanks. Because the tsunami took out the off-site electrical grid too, there was no cooling system for the reactors and the disaster unfolded. There have recently been suggestions that the quake itself, not the tsunami, may have caused the problems. What are the biggest gaps in knowledge that you want to plug? We want to establish what happened, when, and the implications. What was the physics of the event? We aim to forward our report to an international meeting of ministers convened by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) next month, so the world community can think about how to react better to events like this in the future. Do we need an international nuclear safety body that takes control and provides assistance when a nuclear accident occurs? Certainly we need a more robust system for disseminating information, perhaps through the IAEA. All governments need advice on how to
Profile Mike Weightman, the UK’s chief inspector of nuclear installations, is this week joining an international fact-finding mission to the site of the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl
react when these things happen, and it would be better if it came from an international, independent body. Do you think TEPCO, which owns Fukushima, should have asked for help earlier? It’s not for me to second-guess what Japan should or shouldn’t have done. You have to remember the context, with 14,000 people known to have been killed by the earthquake and tsunami, 11,000 missing and massive destruction of infrastructure. Can any good come from the Fukushima accident? It was good to see the world community pulling together to learn lessons from it, and trying to improve existing safety standards. It also shows we should never be complacent. Is it bad news for nuclear power? Whether or not we have nuclear power is not my concern. My concern is that if it is used, it should be used safely. Interview by Andy Coghlan
28 May 2011 | NewScientist | 27
Health and safety executive
dioxide, Richard Branson of Virgin and Bob Iger of Disney (which has an internal carbon tax in place), wants a price on carbon. So does every military person I met, including ex-CIA director Jim Woolsey, every reporter including The Wall Street Journal editor Alan Murray, every economist and every nuclear proponent. All want a price on carbon. And they all concede Congress will never have the guts to do it. Yet we already have a huge carbon tax. A recent study by Harvard Medical School in Boston found that using coal as a fuel creates enormous financial burdens on the US economy. When factoring in mining, transportation and electricity generation, the bill is between one-third and half a trillion dollars in health, economic and environmental costs every year. This is what the business school folks call external costs – they aren’t paid by the coal or utility industry, but are picked up by ordinary people. Just using the study’s lower number, every man, woman and child in the US pays $1000 annually (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol 1219, p 73). I say, let’s lower this carbon tax by putting a price on carbon right when it enters the economy, and watch as clean energy innovation takes off. I love a hot shower, I’m really glad the yogurt is cold in my fridge, I just don’t want to give the kid down the street, or my son for that matter, asthma. I don’t think the oil, coal and natural gas companies are committed to emitting carbon. They are committed to making money. So let’s find ways for energy companies to make enormous amounts of money with clean energy, and leave the carbon in the ground, where it belongs. n