Essay
The Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Viewed from Western Europe: How Has Fukushima Influenced the Peaceful Use of Atomic Energy in Europe?
2013 Volume 229 Issue 4 Pages 239-244
Details
2013 Volume 229 Issue 4 Pages 239-244
When Dr. Kensuke Joh from the Sendai-Shakaihoken Hospital invited me to speak at the meeting of the Freiburger Alumni1 in Sendai on 15th September 2012, I readily accepted this honour. But the subject he proposed for my lecture, nuclear power policies in Europe, filled me with some trepidation. However, since I did obtain a Master degree in Radiobiology (although over 40 years ago!) and have been following the subject ever since, I felt just about competent to attempt this task. In the mean time I have seen the terrible destruction wrought by the great east Japan earthquake of 2012 with my own eyes. These images I will never forget, nor loose the feeling of immense sadness aroused. It seems appropriate to begin at the time point when the news of the Tsunami disaster first reached Europe.
All views expressed are personal opinions of the author and do not represent official statements of affiliated institutions. The themes raised in this article have a large body of literature. To avoid an overlong literature list, I have made use of Wikipedia and Newspaper sites, in which many original references are cited. Thus, it is possible to check the veracity of the information if in doubt, or to gather more details. If the link I have given no longer functions, enter the main site with the terms I have listed.
1 Dr. Kensuke Joh was the chairman of the 15th Academic Meeting of the “Freiburger Alumni Club” in Sendai on 15th September 2012. This club currently has about 150 members; it publishes an annual newsletter and holds a combined general and academic meeting yearly. These activities deepen personal contacts between Japanese researchers, who have spent time at Freiburg University and maintain the connection to the mother university in Freiburg. Many such Alumni groups have been established worldwide in recent years. The 15th Academic meeting was planned to further these aims; the major theme this time was “The Great East Japan Earthquake.” Professor Hideyasu Kiyomoto held the post-luncheon seminar, followed by a special lecture from Professor Stephen Batsford, guest of honour from Freiburg.
The earthquake and resulting Tsunami in north east Japan on 11th March 2011 were reported from about 6:00 a.m. local time onwards in all German media. As soon as the extent of the disaster and the great danger threatening from Fukushima became known, comprehensive media coverage was started. For example, the leading German news magazine, Der Spiegel, set up a news-flash link on its website which was updated minute for minute (Spiegel Online: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/earthquake-catastrophe-hundreds-believed-dead-in-japanese-natural-disaster-a-750272.html). This intensive coverage was maintained for several weeks. As events proceeded commentaries from experts and official as well as unofficial sources were added. There was a strong wave of sympathy for the Japanese people and disaster relief funds were quickly established, thus people were able to express their solidarity in a practical manner.
We travelled through the disaster area (Shibahara 2011) for 2 days (15th and 16th September 2012). Starting at Sendai City (Tohoku University, Katahira Campus, Sakura Hall), we went to the Shiogama Harbour and sailed through Matsushima Bay to Matsushima City (Matsushima Century Hotel), and then we drove to Ohmagarihama in Matsushima-East and inspected the ruins of Kadowaki Elementary School and Ohkawa Elementary School near the Kitakami River. Finally we visited Hiyoriyama Park and saw Ishinomaki City with the Ishinomaki Mangattan Museum. What memories do I have of our travels through the region? Often there was simply so little left, just the remains of a few buildings that by chance survived. The first thing that really touched me was all the small objects scattered amongst the grass and weeds now growing up. Personal possessions, like clothing, household goods, children’s toys, books etc., were everywhere. Then we started to pass great mounds of rubble and debris at regular intervals and, from time to time, huge heaps of wrecked vehicles, cars, buses, trucks, all piled on top of each other. Pictures of this I had seen before, the reality was much more horrific! Immediately one asked, “what is to be done with all this?” I believe a very fitting solution has been found; our guide said that cities throughout Japan have each agreed to take a part of this material and, by covering it with earth and plants, create an artificial hill that can become a monument to the disaster. This is similar to the “Trummerberge” (rubble mountains) that are found in some German cities, like Berlin, following the second world war.
The saddest place was Okawa Elementary School near the Kitakami River that was destroyed, and nearly all the children and teachers were drowned, although a safe hill was nearby, because they could not be told that the Tsunami was coming.
Severe earthquakes and storm floods have occurred regularly in Europe throughout the ages, causing great loss of life and widespread damage (Historical earthquakes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_earthquakes; List of tsunamis in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis_in_Europe). Nevertheless, news coverage in Europe was strongly angled towards events in Fukushima. Reactions within Freiburg are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. As I have detailed below, atomic energy is a very sensitive issue in Germany and the discussion is highly emotional but often not always objective! In fact, when I returned to Germany after the Alumni meeting and related my experiences in the Tsunami region, people often said “but can you really go there, is it not contaminated by radioactivity?” I am always careful to describe the situation as accurately as possible and stress that Fukushima is only a part of the problem. Rebuilding the devastated area is a huge task that will probably take years to perform.
Freiburg commemorates Fukushima.
Lichtemeer (see of light) in Freiburg to commemorate Fukushima. On the “Augustinerplatz” in Freiburg’s old city center, 1,000 candles were set up in the form of the symbol for radioactivity. Each candle was intended to represent 1,000 more, so symbolically 1,000,000 candles!
Protest action in Freiburg.
A human chain was formed along Freiburg’s main street, the Kaiser-Joseph Strasse; the main purpose was to protest against nuclear power!
Since I was addressing an audience all very familiar with the Freiburg region in southern Germany, I have given a central role to relevant local events in the upper Rhine region of Germany. In addition developments in France and Germany are compared in detail, as these two countries have taken up completely opposing positions on nuclear power. Germany is now irrevocably committed to a non-nuclear energy future, whereas in France the energy concept is still being hotly debated. Of course the Japanese people have the right and the duty to decide for themselves, but it is surely informative to closely study how two major European countries are now planning their energy policies.
Reactions in Europe followed rapidly. The initial theme was “how safe are our nuclear reactors?” then moving on to “should new reactors be built/put into service?” and eventually “is this the end for nuclear power?” This debate was particularly heated in Germany, with confrontations between environmentalists on one side and the energy industry plus their political lobbies on the other.
European Union: On 23 March 2011 European Union-wide stress test was announced. All 143 nuclear power plants in the Union were subjected to assessment.
Here is an extract of the major findings:
Nuclear stress tests: confirmation of high safety standards but need for further improvement. The standards of safety of nuclear power plants in Europe are generally high but further improvements in the safety features of almost all European nuclear power plants are recommended. Nevertheless national safety authorities came to the conclusion that no closure of Nuclear Power Plants was warranted. This is the main message of today’s European Commission communication on results of the nuclear stress tests. These tests have established that not all safety standards promoted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and not all international best practices are applied in all Member States. In addition, lessons from Fukushima need to be drawn.
The full report can be viewed on the European Commission website (EUROPA: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1051_en.htm, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/stress_tests_en.htm).
France: Stress test was approved, but France “committed to nuclear power“ although the new President, Hollande has promised “revision of policy.” Only concrete result is the decision to shut down France’s oldest reactor in Fessenheim (about 25 km from Freiburg!) by 2016 (Fig. 3).
Germany: The 8 oldest reactors shut down within days following Fukushima. In June 2011 parliament passes law (“Atomausstieg”) to shut down all reactors by 2022.
Italy: Referendum in June 2011 “NO” vote to any future nuclear plants.
Spain: Review of nuclear plants ordered on 16.3.2011, long-term ban on new nuclear power stations “under review”, no decision to date.
Switzerland: On 14.3.2011 all plans for new reactors put on ice, existing reactors to be phased out by 2034.
United kingdom: Government still committed to nuclear power. October 2011 - “Final Fukushima Report” issued - “no reason to shut down any plants for safety reasons.” New reactors “under consideration.”
Evacuation zones near Freiburg.
Map of the Freiburg region showing site of Whyl, the oldest French nuclear plant Fessenheim and my home! The red circles indicate the 3 categories of danger zones, both Freiburg and my family would have to be evacuated in the event of a large scale disaster! Fortunately this plant is scheduled to close down in 2016, dismantling will take 10-15 years longer though!
Germany: one day after Fukushima (12.3.2011), 200,000 people took part in nationwide anti-nuclear demonstrations. Election in state of Baden-Württemberg (includes Freiburg city) on 27.3.2011, Green-SPD2 State government elected after 58 years of CDU2 rule.
Prior to Fukushima opinion polls pointed to a CDU victory!
France: on 20.3.2011 about 1,000 people demonstrated against nuclear power! Opinion polls however claim about 60% of the population are against nuclear power!
Other EU Countries: modest demonstrations against nuclear power. In general, in most populations, majority do not view nuclear power as a long term option, but rather as a “bridging technology”
Since France and Germany are in the process of adopting quite contrary policies concerning future energy supplies, it is instructive to analyse events leading to these decisions.
In France, although massive resistance to nuclear energy was seen in the 1970’s, this movement failed to establish a broad basis in the population with the result that France has 58 reactors, producing over 70% of electricity, the highest in the world! In fact, the French anti-atom movement has a longer history than most people now realize. Crucial events took place in 1977, when about 60,000 demonstrators protested on the site of the fast breeder Super Phoenix, in Creys-Malville. Violence erupted and the police even used flash grenades against the protesters, one died, one lost a hand and another a foot! This massive show of strength by the French authorities probably discouraged more peaceful opponents of nuclear energy to continue large-scale protest actions. Although a militant splitter group actually launched a rocket attack on the plant in 1982, narrowly missing the reactors still empty core! After a series of severe technical problems, the plant was finally shut down in 1998, it was the last fast breeder to operate in Europe (Anti-nuclear movement in France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_France; Superphénix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Phoenix).
In Germany the first commercial reactor went into service in 1962. Atomic energy was a sensitive issue right from the early days, although initial protest actions against nuclear plants in Germany were limited and local. Discussion involved conservative groups, mainly CDU/CSU2, and centered on particular sites for power stations, not on the issue of nuclear power in general. Wine farmers near Freiburg and dairy (milk) farmers in Lower Saxony (Hannover area) were concerned about climatic and negative image effects. By the 1970s they had been joined by environmentalists and left wing groups, an unusual alliance.
The first large scale organized protests concerned planned Nuclear plants in Breisach (near Freiburg), Esenhamm, Neckarwestheim and Bonn. In Breisach there were demonstrations, protest marches and 65,000 legal objections! This resulted in relocation of the site to the Kaiserstuhl region (Whyl) near Freiburg (Fig. 3). Strong protests, even violent clashes with para-military police units sent to secure the building site followed and provoked even more protests (Fig. 4). In 1975, the site was occupied by 28,000 people! The German authorities, unlike their French equivalents (see above), wisely refrained from employing even more force against the demonstrators. The project was put on ice in 1977 following a court injunction and finally abandoned in 1994, when the area was declared to be a nature reserve.
The environmental party, Die Grüne (the Greens) arose from these protest actions. In 1983 the Greens won 5.6% of the votes and entered the national parliament (der Bundestag). Following Tschernobyl (1986) both trade unions and the SPD officially rejected nuclear energy. In the years 2000-2002, the then socialist SPD-Green government started to phase out atomic energy and intended to shut down all plants by 2021. However, in 2010 the current conservative-liberal government yielded to pressure from the nuclear lobby and extended the operating time till 2035. Most Germans believe that this was a preliminary step to authorising new reactors, as official European Union policy in 2009 (a reaction to rising oil prices and problems with Russian gas supplies!) clearly stated that Europe’s energy future was Nuclear power.
The highly emotional, nation wide debate following Fukushima forced the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to abandon the governments plans concerning nuclear power; 9 older nuclear power plants were shut down immediately and the rest have only a limited lifetime, final shutdown is scheduled for 2022. In Germany new plants are now unthinkable. Opinion polls show that 80% of Germans no longer accept nuclear power.
Protesters in 1975.
Whyl 1975: protesters against the planned nuclear power station marched to the site. The abbreviation KKW seen on banners means “Kern Kraft Werk” (nuclear power station).
2 Traditionally there are 2 major conservative political parties in Germany: the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and their bavarian sister party, the Christian Socialist Union (CSU) (Bavarians always have to have their own organisations!), these form a single fraction in parliament. Then there are the Liberals (Free Democratic Party, FDP) and the Socialist Party Germany (Deutschland, SPD). More recently the environmental party, the Greens (Grüne) and a Left wing splitter group (Linke) have entered parliament.
Particularly in Germany two major areas of discussion have opened up. Firstly, what is to be done with the radioactive waste, which will continue to increase as long as reactors are in use; and secondly, what are the alternative, regenerative and environment friendly sources of energy?
This is a very important but also very complicated subject and the reader is referred to specialist literature cited below (High-level radioactive waste management: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management; Mycle Schneider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycle_Schneider). The dilemma of high-level radioactive waste management remains to be solved, a pressing problem.
Since Germany is now committed to regenerative energy for the future, it is worth taking a brief look at the way this is now being tackled. In September 2011, the giant German engineering corporation Siemens announced it was withdrawing completely from the nuclear industry and would not build reactors anywhere in the world. Lucrative plans for more than 30 reactors in Russia were cancelled and Siemens will concentrate on the renewable energy sector. In fact, the importance of nuclear power was on the decline long before Fukushima; in 1993 17% of electric power worldwide came from nuclear power stations, in 2011, the figure had dropped to 11%, tendency falling, even though the absolute quantity generated has risen (World nuclear news: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Global_ups_and_downs_0201131.html).
The development of renewable electric power capacity in Germany from 1990 to 2011 is shown in Table 1; total capacity both in Megawatts (MW) and as a percentage of electricity consumed is given.
Renewable energy accounted for about 10% of the total energy used in Germany in 2011. For comparison in 2011 the 9 nuclear plants still operating produced about 17.6% of electricity. Significant is that the reduction of over 10% in electric power, supplied by the 8 nuclear plants shut down in March 2011, did not result in any shortages of electricity, even during peak winter usage. In fact, Germany remained a net exporter of electricity in 2011 and in 2012 exports reached a new record; evidence supporting the viewpoint that a highly industrialised country like Germany can become independent of nuclear power over a 10-year transition period.
| Year | Capacity (MW) | Percentage of total Electricity consumed |
|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 4,069 | 3.1 |
| 2000 | 10,875 | 6.4 |
| 2011 | 65,483 | 20.1 |
• Renewable Electricity - 35% by 2020, 80% by 2050.
• Renewable Energy - 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030, 60% by 2050.
• Energy Efficiency - 50% reduction from 2008 level in electricity consumption by 2050.
These are ambitious targets; improved energy efficiency involves upgrading household appliances, like refrigerators, freezers and washing machines, and avoiding “standby devices” (estimated to use the output of 2 power stations!) for example. Private and public lighting, including illuminated advertising also offer considerable potential for saving energy; some countries like France are now introducing legislation along these lines. In principle, the biggest savings can be made with reducing energetic requirements of buildings and transport systems, both public and private.
Is the wheel turning full circle?
At this point I think it worthwhile to go back to the beginnings of the nuclear age. There are important differences between developments in Japan and Europe. The oil crisis of 1973 and the need to provide reliable sources of energy for the long term was the driving force in Japan. In Europe the nuclear age had started 20 years earlier: in the 1950’s and 1960’s industrial countries in Europe, particularly Great Britain, Germany and France, were faced with a rapidly rising demand for energy. This was accompanied by environmental pollution, due to heavy industries (iron and steel works, mining and coal fired power stations), which is difficult to imagine in Europe today (China in particular currently has exactly the same problem). I experienced this personally: in 1952 as a five year old I remember one of the last of London’s infamous smog. This arose due to a pronounced inversion weather system in winter, when many houses like ours were heated mainly with open, coal-burning fires. We were warned on the radio not to leave our homes if possible, the smog lasted 5 days, from 5th till 9th of December. I also remember going into our garden in the middle of the day, stretching out my arm into the vile smelling, yellow sulphurous smog and being barely able to see my hand! Visibility was officially recorded as being 30 cm! Around 100,000 people suffered severe respiratory problems and 12,000 deaths were recorded. A large-scale disaster that today would certainly occupy international media intensively!
In this situation it seemed that nuclear power offered the chance to guarantee energy supplies and escape from pollution. It appeared to be safe, clean and unlimited. It was even suggested that electric power would become so cheap that metering would be unnecessary - pay a flat rate and use as much as you like! The whole concept was clearly extremely attractive and enjoyed wide acceptance. In itself neither nuclear power nor the authorities and industry promoting it can be accused of failings, a viewpoint frequently adopted by opponents, reflecting the degree of polarisation that has taken place. In fact, nuclear power programs made a real contribution to solving the serious problems presented by rising energy demands and pollution in the medium term. The few critical voices raising safety issues and doubts as to the wisdom of nuclear energy as a long term solution were largely ignored, as either living in the past or just being plain cranks! There was a profound and absolute, (but uncritical) trust in technology, which could solve all problems.
However it is better to end on a positive note; alternative, renewable sources of energy clearly exist, although much development and enormous investment is needed. Surely a worthwhile goal? Germany may take on a leading role in switching dependence on energy supply from nuclear and fossil fuels to wind, solar and other regenerative sources. In this context, nuclear power can be seen as a bridging technology (bridges can be long or short and each country must decide for itself on this issue.) Decentralisation of energy production is becoming important; solar installations on private buildings and scattered wind turbines provide energy locally and thus avoid difficulties connected with transport of electricity over large distances. In some ways a step back into the past, as 100 years ago Germany had around 20,000 windmills and many thousands of waterwheels. At that time in Europe total estimates list 200,000 windmills and 500,000 waterwheels (Low-tech Magazine: http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/10/history-of-industrial-windmills.html), so perhaps this is part of the energy future again.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
