With communities refusing to come forward to host the by-product of Japan's nuclear energy industry, the Japanese government is drawing up a map of the most suitable locations for underground repositories.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/F.Robichon
Advertisement
The Japanese government is putting the finishing touches to a map of the country identifying what its experts consider to be the safest location for a repository for 18,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste for the next 100,000 years. The map is expected to be released next month and will coincide with the government holding a series of symposiums across the country designed to explain why the repository is needed and to win support for the project.
The original proposal for a repository for the waste from the nation's nuclear energy sector was first put forward in 2002, but even then there were few communities that were willing to be associated with the dump. Fifteen years later, and with a number of Japan's nuclear reactors closed down for good in the wake of the Fukushima accident, the need for a permanent storage site is more pressing than ever.
The disaster at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant is still fresh in the memory of the Japanese publicImage: UN Photo/IAEA/Greg Webb
Radioactivity release
The disaster, in which a 13-meter tsunami triggered by an off-shore earthquake crippled four reactors at the plant and caused massive amounts of radioactivity to escape into the atmosphere, also underlined just how seismically unstable the Japanese archipelago is and the need for the repository to be completely safe for 100,000 years.
Aileen Mioko-Smith, an anti-nuclear campaigner with Kyoto-based Green Action Japan, does not believe the government can deliver that guarantee.
"You only have to look at what happened in 2011 to realize that nowhere in Japan is safe from this sort of natural disaster and it is crazy to think otherwise," she told DW.
Given the degree of public hostility, Mioko-Smith believes that the government will fall back on the tried-and-trusted tactic of offering ever-increasing amounts of money until a community gives in.
Does nuclear power have a future?
On April 26, 1986, the Chernobyl disaster released radiation across Ukraine, Russia and into Europe. It was turning point for the anti-nuclear movement. Now, 31 years later, is nuclear power becoming a thing of the past?
Image: Kerry Skyring
Deadly disaster
The worst nuclear disaster of all time, the explosion at Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine released massive amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. Areas close to the plant - in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia - were heavily contaminated. Heightened levels of radiation were also measured across most of Europe. The "exclusion zone" around Chernobyl remains off-limits to human habitation today.
Image: picture-alliance/ dpa
It happens again
After a magnitude-9 earthquake and consequent tsunami, three nuclear reactors at Fukushima power plant in Japan went into meltdown in March 2011. There were also four hydrogen explosions. The accident released 500 times as much radioactive cesium-137 as the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The clean-up is expected to take decades.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa
Sickening impact
After Chernobyl, thousands of people developed cancer. In Japan too, the heavily contaminated region of Fukushima, where 200,000 people lost their homes, saw cases of the disease escalate. The number of children with thyroid cancer there is 20 times higher than other regions.
Image: Reuters
Rallying against nuclear power
Chernobyl fueled public opposition to nuclear power, particularly in Europe. The same happened after Fukushima. Before the Japanese disaster, the country relied on nuclear for 30 percent of its power. That has fallen to 1 percent. The government wants to continue producing nuclear power and plans to reinstall some reactors. But affected regions have successfully pushed back those plans.
Image: REUTERS
Nuclear industry in crisis
Today, the nuclear power sector is deep in economic crisis. In Japan, the United States and France, nuclear power plants run at a loss, and construction projects for new reactors have been postponed.
Image: Reuters
New-build set-backs
France had high hopes for its newest nuclear reactors - called pressurized water reactors (PWRs). This technology was supposed to be safe, and the Flamanville power plant was due to be switched on in 2012. Due to security issues, that's been pushed back to 2018 at the earliest. The project will cost more than 10 billion euros - three times the original budget.
Image: Getty Images/AFP/C. Triballeau
Great Britain plans new reactors
For years, the UK has been planning to build two new PWR reactors at Hinkley Point. Costs are estimated at 33 billion euros and groundbreaking is slated for 2019. But doubts are growing over its economic viability. The electricity it produces will be much pricier than solar or wind power, and will need subsidies to compete in the market.
Image: Getty Images/J. Tallis
Aging reactors up for grabs
Nuclear power plants used to be lucrative. But now, many are old and frail. Repair costs often mean they cannot turn a profit. Swiss energy corporation Alpiq recently tried to give away two of its old plants, 33 and 38 years old, to French energy company EDF - which declined the offer.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/P. Seeger
Disasters abroad prompt German phase-out
Three decades ago, the Chernobyl disaster galvanized Germany's anti-nuclear movement, which is often cited as the roots of the country's energy transition. In 2002, Germany passed a law that would have seen the last reactor shut down in 2022. The plan was later scrapped by Angela Merkel's government. But after Fukushima, Merkel quickly reversed her decision and the phase-out was back on track.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/D. Ebener
Switching them off
So far, nine of Germany's reactors have gone offline, with eight more to follow by 2022. To finance the costs of nuclear waste disposal, plant operators must pay 23.6 billion euros into a federal fund. The operators themselves are responsible for the similarly costly process of dismantling the plants, which will take decades to complete.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/D. Ebener
Growing fear of accidents
Across the EU and Switzerland 132 nuclear reactors are still online. They were designed to operate for 30 to 35 years - their average age is now 32 years. Malfunctions and security issues are frequently detected and protestors are increasingly calling for plants to be shut down.
Image: DW/G. Rueter
China pushes on with nuclear
No new nuclear power plants have been built in the EU, Japan or Russia since the Fukushima disaster in 2011. China remains committed to nuclear, partly to replace coal-based power. But the country is also upping investment in wind and solar.
Image: Imago/China Foto Press
12 images1 | 12
Government funds
"They have been trying to get this plan of the ground for years and one thing they tried was to offer money to any town or village that agreed to even undergo a survey to see if their location was suitable," she said.
"There were a number of mayors who accepted the proposal because they wanted the money - even though they had no intention of ever agreeing to host the storage site - but the backlash from their constituents was fast and it was furious," Smith added.
"In every case, those mayors reversed their decisions and the government has got nowhere," she said. "But I fear that means that sooner or later they are just going to make a decision on a site and order the community to accept it."
The security requirements of the facility will be exacting, the government has stated, and the site will need to be at least 300 meters beneath the surface in a part of the country that is not subject to seismic activity from active faults or volcanoes. It must also be safe from the effects of erosion and away from oil and coal fields. Another consideration is access and sites within 20 km of the coast are preferred.
The government's plan is not expected to win much understanding or supportImage: Reuters
High-level waste
The facility will need to be able to hold 25,000 canisters of vitrified high-level waste, while more waste will be produced as the nation's nuclear reactors are slowly brought back online after being mothballed since 2011 for extensive assessments of their safety and ability to withstand a natural disaster on the same scale as the magnitude-9 earthquake that struck Fukushima.
Stephen Nagy, a senior associate professor of international relations at Tokyo's International Christian University, agrees that the government will have to pay to convince any community to host the facility.
"They will probably peddle it as subsidies for rural revitalization, which is a tactic that all governments use, but there are going to be some significant protests because Fukushima has created a nuclear allergy in most people in Japan," he said.
"I expect that the government would also very much like to be able to phase out nuclear energy, but that is simply not realistic at the moment," he said.
When it is released, the government's list is likely to include places in Tohoku and Hokkaido as among the most suitable sites, because both are relatively less populated than central areas of the country and are in need of revitalization efforts. Parts of Tohoku close to the Fukushima plant may eventually be chosen because they are still heavily contaminated with radiation from the accident.
