1. Post Fukushima: is nuclear
energy still a viable source
of energy for the future?
ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
NICHOLAS GIRARD
1

2. Case Study – Area of focus
1) What factors led to
Japan’s decision to return
to nuclear energy following
Fukushima?
2) How has the Fukushima
nuclear disaster impacted
the international nuclear
energy discourse?
2

3. Agenda
I. Objectives of this roundtable discussion and introduction (1 minute)
II. Background on the Fukushima nuclear disaster (2 minutes)
III. High level ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of nuclear energy (1 minute)
IV. Media interpretative packages (1 minute)
V. Overview of what is known, and what is unknown following the events of Fukushima
(3 minutes)
VI. Science / policy interface (2 minute)
VII. Roundtable discussion (10 minutes)
VIII. Final remarks and summary of objectives
3

4. Objectives of this roundtable discussion
Objectives
1. Provide the audience with a quick overview of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and its
impacts on the nuclear energy debate.
2. Acquire input from the audience on how to refine the focus of the study.
3. Determine if this case study is relevant to the policy / science interface discussion.
4

5. Nuclear energy – Why it’s worth
debating
Setting the stage
The global nuclear fleet is aging; few power plants have been built
within the last two decades
(Table 1).
Why is this relevant?
Prior to Fukushima, the nuclear energy policy discourse focused on two
themes:
• life extension of existing fleet
• construction and replacement of additional reactors
In the aftermath of Fukushima, two global energy policy discourses
emerged:
• Risk higher than the reward; countries withdraw political support for nuclear
• Review safety measures, mitigate risks, and follow up with business as usual
Crossroads
• Countries are beginning to question the viability of nuclear power as
a source of energy for the future; do the ‘pros’ outweigh the ‘cons’?
Table 1 – Distribution of nuclear reactors worldwide: 78 out of 438 have reached or will
reach the end of their 40-year cycle, the majority in the United States (Glaser, 2011).
Glaser, 2011
5

6. ‘Pros’ and ‘cons’ of nuclear energy
Pros of nuclear energy Cons of nuclear energy
Low fuel cost and high energy density – Nuclear energy
requires very little fuel to operate and nuclear power
efficiency is a thousand times more efficient than oil, gas, or
coal energy.
Nuclear and radiation accidents – This is the biggest con of
nuclear energy; three major accidents within the last 30 years
(Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima).
No GHGs/ air pollution – Nuclear energy does not produce any
GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil (e.g. coal). Attractive
source of cheap, clean and scalable source of energy.
Nuclear waste disposal – There is no full proof way to dispose
of nuclear waste after it is used in the nuclear reactors. There
are presently 430 locations around the world where
radioactive materials are stored.
High load factor – Load factor for solar and wind energy ranges
from 15-40%. Nuclear power on the other hand has a load factor
of 85-90%, which is the highest in the energy industry.
Radioactivity bi-product from normal activity – nuclear
power plants produce a large volume of low-level radiation
waste.
Nuclear power provides 15% of the world’s electricity demands Nuclear proliferation – countries have used the ruse of
nuclear energy programs to develop nuclear weapons.
Untapped potential – Nuclear energy holds more potential
than the limited and peak features of alternative forms of
energy.
Regulations – nuclear energy regulations are cumbersome
due to risks of a failure of a nuclear reactor, thus driving the
price up to generate nuclear energy.
Shah, 2011
6

7. Background on the Fukushima incident
Event
• On March 11th, 2011 the east coast of Japan was hit by a trifecta of disastrous
events: an 9.0 earthquake, followed by a massive tsunami, and the critical failure of
three nuclear reactors in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex and led to the
release of radioactive materials into the environment (Katsuta, 2015).
• Second larges nuclear since Chernobyl (1986), scoring a level 7 event classification
of the International Nuclear Event Scale
(Butler, Parkhill & Pidgeon, 2011).
Response
• Japan decided to temporarily shut down all 25 nuclear power plants (48
commercial reactors) and revaluate its nuclear safety standards.
• Four years later (August 2015), a nuclear power plant operated by Kyushu Electric
Power in Sendai restarted its power plant (Brachmann, 2015).
• More power plants will become operational once they pass new safety measures
• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33858350
7
Citizens protesting the re-opening of the Sendai
plant

8. What we know (1)
•Prior to Fukushima, about 440 reactors in 30 countries have been
operating for almost 25 years without any major incidents
(Glaser, 2011).
•Nuclear energy is time-tasted, scalable, and a low carbon power
generation source.
•Following the Fukushima incident, public opinion on nuclear energy
is at an all time (Table 2).
•Countries are more prone to revise their nuclear energy policies
following disastrous nuclear events (e.g. Germany considering an
accelerated phase out of nuclear energy by 2022).
• People are more likely to be in favor of nuclear energy if they
believe it will help in climate change mitigation.
•Value consensus on the safety and viability of nuclear energy has
not been reached by society
Figure 1 – Nuclear energy public opinion poll: respondents were asked
whether they (1) strongly or somewhat support nuclear energy or; (2) strongly
or somewhat oppose nuclear. Poll was conducted between April 6-21, 2011.
Sample size was weighted to 500 for each country.(Butler, Parkhill & Pidgeon, 2011)
8

9. Media coverage – what the ‘good’ guys are saying
Interpretative package Definition Media example
Progress frame
Dualistic notion; nuclear hold the power to do good (energy
production) and bad (weaponry and destruction).
“The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design
of poor design and corner cutting, Yet, as far as we
know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of
radiation”
Energy independence Nuclear as a viable alternative energy source. Used in media rhetoric
during the 1970s oil crisis.
“The recent disaster in Fukushima has set public
confidence about nuclear energy to levels not seen
since Chernobyl or Three Mile Island disasters. This is
really a shame, because I believe that nuclear power, if
the proper precautions are taken, could greatly lessen
the current dependency for fossil fuels, something
which is direly needed.”
Devil’s bargain Nuclear as a lesser of evils, capable of producing low carbon energy in
the context of climate change and GHG mitigation.
“If we abandon nuclear, prepare for future of future of
catastrophic global warming, imperilling the survival of
civilization and much of the earth’s biosphere.”
Table 2 – Media Interpretative packages used to frame the nuclear energy debate (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989) and media extracts from news coverage
(Butler, Parkhill & Pidgeon, 2011).
9

10. Media coverage – what the ‘bad guys’ are saying
Interpretative package Definition Media example
Soft path
Critique of nuclear energy based on the burden it places on society
(e.g. culture dependent on centralized technologies, and
environmentally destructive).
“100% renewables (and geothermal is where we
need to get to eventually—so why not seek to get
there just as soon as possible without yet another
disastrous foray into today’s nuclear cul-de-sac?”
Public accountability
Anti-corporate greed outlook.
The Japanese are increasingly raising the possibility
that a culture of complacency made the plant
especially vulnerable to the natural disaster that
struck the country on March 11.”
Cost effective Questions surrounding the economic benefits of nuclear.
“Fukushima shows us the real cost of nuclear…The
economics of nuclear power don’t add up—which is
more reason to invest in renewable energy.”
Runaway Complacency as opposed to downright opposition, just ‘grin and bear
it’.
“The twin natural disasters have also turned the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into
Frankenstein’s monster, man-made object
threatening man.”
Table 1 – Media Interpretative packages used to frame the nuclear energy debate (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989) and media extracts from news
coverage (Butler, Parkhill & Pidgeon, 2011).
10

11. What we know (2)
Japanese context
•The Japanese public is now more strongly opposed the
nuclear energy post Fukushima (Figure 2)
• By shattering the government’s long-pitched safety myth
about nuclear power, the incident increased public
awareness and the national energy debate almost
overnight.
•The Japan Scientists’ Association formally opposes
nuclear energy, and that its opposition is based upon
scientific analysis of the incident in Fukushima and its
impact.
•Very few cancers are expected to be contracted as a
result of accumulated radiation exposure.
•Current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is pro nuclear:
“Resuming nuclear energy – which supplied 1/3 of
Japan’s energy demands pre-Fukushima – is key to
lifting the economy out of two decades of anemic
growth.”
Figure 2 – Nuclear energy public opinion poll (continued): respondents who
were opposed to nuclear were then asked if they held this view previously or if
Fukushima made them oppose nuclear Sample size was weighted to 500 for
each country(Butler, Parkhill & Pidgeon, 2011)
11

12. What we don’t know
•Uncertainty in the total volume of radioactive materials released into the environment.
•Uncertainty in the long-term persistency of chemical substances near the coastline and the
geographical extent of contamination.
• Medium / long-term investments in nuclear energy and what the implications will be for global
energy markets are still uncertain (nuclear energy policy post Fukushima: phase out vs business
as usual).
• What are the long-term health impacts of the 160,000 people evacuated from the region?
When will they be able to return?
• Chernobyl as a case study – psychosomatic problems, including: radiophobia and fatalistic alcoholism.
• How long will they be evacuated?
• Will Japan’s new safety guidelines be rigorous enough to prevent a future nuclear catastrophe?
(Butler, Parkhill & Pidgeon, 2011)
12

13. Japan’s return to nuclear – Interface of
science and policy (1)
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is pushing for a return to nuclear power while polls show that most people
are against the restart
• Issue advocates: business and industry lobby groups
• “we cannot afford to continue importing huge quantities of oil and natural gas, while the growing reliance on
thermal power generation has stalled Japan’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.
Competing values and perspectives on the safety of nuclear energy
• Re-opening of Sendai plant
• The Sendai ruling to re-open the plant based on the ‘latest scientific knowledge’ and Kyushu Electric power claims that chances of a similar
natural disaster from occurring are minimal.
• Flip side: Sendai’s plant is located 50km away from one of Japan’s most active volcanoes; many volcanologists insist that it is scientifically
impossible to predict the eruption of volcanoes.
• Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA)
• New safety checks will prevent a repeat of a similar nuclear catastrophe for happening.
• Sendai authorities have not devised a comprehensive evacuation plan for more than 200,000 people living within a 30km radius.
• “The lengths to which safety issues have been ignored in the NRA’s review process for the Sendai plant restart shows how desperate the
nuclear industry and their government allies are”.
(Katsuta, 2015)
13

14. Japan’s return to nuclear - Science /
Policy Interface (2)
Competing values and perspectives on the economic
viability of nuclear energy
Pro nuclear
•According to industry, nuclear energy will help
reduce electricity prices for consumers.
•Japan has to import large quantities of oil and
coal to make up for the energy deficit which is
costly; re-opening the plants will lift that burden.
Anti nuclear
• If you factor clean up costs if a disaster were to
occur, the cost of nuclear energy far outweigh
the economic benefits.
14
Image credit: BBC News, 2015

15. Discussion topics
Opening the floor
1) Are you for or against nuclear energy? Do the benefits of nuclear outweigh the risks? Which interpretative
package best suits you?
General feedback
1) Is this a relevant topic for the science-policy interface discussion? Why or why not?
2) Can the pursuit of more scientific knowledge lead to better decision-making in the nuclear energy context?
3) Polls show that the Japanese people are more opposed to nuclear energy. Why was the Sendai nuclear plant
re-opened anyway?
4) Is there a specific topic within the case study worth exploring further? How can I refine my research?
5) Any other advice / input concerning the case study?
15

16. Bibliography
•Glaser, A. (2011). After Fukushima: Preparing for a More Uncertain Future of Nuclear Power. The Electricity
Journal, 24, 27-35.
•Shah, S. (2011, July 5). Nuclear Power Plants Pros and Cons: Europe Decides Cons too Disastrous . Retrieved
September 29, 2015, from Green World Investor: http://www.greenworldinvestor.com/2011/07/05/nuclear-
power-plants-pros- and-cons-europe-decides-cons-too-disastorous/
•Butler, C., Parkhill, K. A., & Pidgeon, N. (2011). Nuclear Power After Japan: The Social Dimensions. Environment:
Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53, 3-14.
•Brachmann, S. (2015, August 22). Four years after Fukushima, Japan Returns to nuclear power generation.
IPWatchdog. Retrieved from http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/08/22/four-years-after-fukushima-japan-returns-
to- nuclear-power-generation/id=60767/
•Katsuta, T. (2015, December 8). Why was the sendai nuclear power plant restarted?. Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists. Retrieved from http://thebulletin.org/why-was-sendai- nuclear-power-plant-restarted8644
•Nestle, U. (2012). Does the use of nuclear power lead to lower electricity prices? An analysis of the debate in
Germany with an international perspective. Energy Policy, 41, 152- 160.
16