Let’s Talk about Fukushima: 21 Questions to Understand Fukushima Quantitatively

Centre for Nuclear Engineering Seminar Series, Imperial College London 28 March 2018: London, UK
Let’s Talk about Fukushima:
21 Questions to Understand Fukushima Quantitatively
Centre for Nuclear Engineering Seminar Series, Imperial College London
28 March 2018: London, UK
Shutaro Takeda
takeda.shutarou.55r@kyoto-u.jp

This slide is an abridged/reconstructed version of a seminar for Imperial College
Centre for Nuclear Engineering Seminar Series delivered on March 28th, 2018 in
London, U.K.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author’s and do not
reflect the positions of Kyoto University nor the Japanese Government.

This presentation contains reconstructions of two fantastic books by
Prof. Hiroshi Kainuma.
Published by イースト・プレス (2015) Published by 太田出版(2016)
(Kainuma, 2015) (Kainuma et al, 2016)

Assistant Professor, Kyoto University, Japan
Ph.D. in Energy Science
A.L.M. Candidate, Sustainability, Harvard University Extension School
takeda.shutarou.55r@kyoto-u.jp / stakeda@g.harvard.com
Research Field
Nuclear Fusion: Plant Design, Environmental & Economic Assessment
Publications
Shutaro Takeda, Shigeki Sakurai, Ryuta Kasada and Satoshi Konishi, Plasma Control Requirements for Commercial Fusion Power
Plants: A Quantitative Scenario Analysis With a Dynamic Fusion Power Plant Model. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 2018.
PP(99): p. 1-6.
Shutaro Takeda et al., “Limitation of Fusion Power Plant Installation on Future Power Grids under the Effect of Renewable and Nuclear
Power Sources”, Fusion Engineering and Design, Elsevier (2016)
Shutaro Takeda et al., “Dynamic Simulation-Based Case Study of Fusion on Small-Scale Electrical Grids”, Fusion Science and
Technology, American Nuclear Society, Vol. 68, Number 2 (Sep. 2015)
Shutaro Takeda et al., “Requirements for DEMO from the Aspect of Mitigation of Adverse Effects on the Electrical Grid”, Plasma and
Fusion Res., JSPF, Vol. 10, 1205070 (July 2015)
Shutaro Takeda PhD FRSA
Japanese Nuclear Energy Policy
Shutaro Takeda et al., “A Policy Recommendation towards a Stable US-JAPAN Nuclear Cooperative Relationship after the Expiration of
US-JAPAN 123 Agreements for Peaceful Cooperation”, A Sasakawa Peace Foundation Research (in press, 2018)
Renewable Energy in Developing Countries
Shutaro Takeda et al., “The Success of Link Model in Rural Bangladesh: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Development Policy and
Practice, 2018. 3(2): p. 1-24.

 7 Questions to understand Fukushima Daiichi quantitatively!
Q1: How many years would the decommission process take?
Q2: What is the exposure level of on-site workers?
Q3: How many workers are working on-site?
Q4: How many companies are involved in the decommission project?
Q5: How much budget will be spent for Fukushima Daiichi?
Q6: How much water is poured into reactors to keep them cool?
Q7: What is the radiation level of seawater near Fukushima Daiichi?

7 Questions to Understand Fukushima Daiichi
 Three pillars for Fukushima Daiichi decommissioning:
• Removal of all fuels (molten or not)
• Containment of the contaminated water
• Dismantling and clearing of the site
A1: 35 to 45 more years. (40-50 years in total)
Currently the process is envisioned to finish between 2051 – 2061.
(Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, 2017)

Average monthly exposure level (courtesy of TEPCO)
A2: On average 0.47 mSv / month.
Max. allowed exposure level for nuclear-related workers in Japan is 50 mSv / year.
[mSv/month]
Distribution of the monthly exposure level
Averagemonthlyexposurelevel
Max. [mSv]
Avereage [mSv]
Total Count
< 1 mSv
1 to 5 mSv
5 to 10 mSv
10 to 20 mSv
20 to 50 mSv
50 to 75 mSv
75 to 100 mSv
> 100 mSv
Category [mSv]
Dec. 2015
TEP
CO
Cont
ract
Total
(Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. (TEPCO), 2016) (TEPCO, 2016)
(Kainuma et al, 2016)

26 March 2018 23:20 (TEPCO)(1 mSv/h = 8.7 mSv/year)
mSv/h
0.857
1.431
0.892
1.670
1.132 0.482
0.850
0.814
 Radiation level is low on the perimeter and the most of the area!

(1 mSv/h = 8.7 mSv/year)
 ...not so much around the reactor buildings.
(TEPCO & Japan Space Imaging, 2017)
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
Chest-high Radiation Level

Averageno.ofworkersperday
A3: 6500 to 7000 workers/day.
201520142013
Year
A3: ~1500 companies.
*Out of 1500, only ~40 are tier-1 companies.
(TEPCO, 2016)
(TEPCO, 2016)

After Fukushima
A5: 205 billion dollars.
Decommission – 76 billion
Compensation – 75 billion
Decontamination – 38 billion
Interim Waste Storage Facility – 14 billion
(cf. Japanese national budget 1,931 billion/year)
(Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2016)

Decontamination – 38 billion
(Ministry of Defense, cited from http://www.mod.go.jp/gsdf/neae/neahq/saigai/decontamination.html in 2018)

Interim Waste Storage Facility – 14 billion
(The Sankei Shimbun, 2017, cited from https://www.sankei.com/photo/story/news/170222/sty1702220023-n1.html in 2018)

A6: 3.0 m3/hour per reactor.
~35 Olympic-size Swimming Pool / year
(TEPCO, 2017)
(The Asahi Shimbun, 2017)

 Contaminated water (cooling + underground) must be contained!
All retrieved water to be stored,
filtered and then stored again(!).
Cooling: 78,840 t/year
Underground: 54,750 t/year
Frozen ground
Low temp.
fluid
The “Frozen Ground Wall”

A7: It’s been ND (non-detectable) for more than a year.
(It had been ND 90% of the measurements in March 2013 already)
(TEPCO, 2018)

 6 Questions to understand Fukushima area quantitatively!
Q1: How many evacuees have returned to the area?
Q2: What is the exposure level of returned residents in Naraha (within 20km radius)?
Q3: Are people fleeing out of Fukushima area outside of evacuation zone?
Q4: What is the radiation level of rice from Fukushima area?
Q5: What is the radiation level of seafood from Fukushima area?
Q6: What is the effect to the agriculture/fishery industry in Fukushima Pref.?

6 Questions to Understand Fukushima Area
A1: 114,224 out of 164865 (69%).
Daily life returned for many.
Culture festivals New Supermarkets
AgriculturesNaraha
(Fukushima Pref., 2018)

A2: Additional 0.7 mSv/year.
The radiation level in the rest of Japan (incl. Tokyo) is lower than London or Paris since 2014.
Max. 0.99 mSv/year Min. 0.66 mSv/year (July-Aug 2015)
Nov. 2017April 2011
[mSv/h]
(Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science
and Technology & Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, 2018)
(Town of Naraha & Fukushima Med. Univ., 2015)

Q3: Are people fleeing out of Fukushima area outside of the evacuation zone?
A3: The year-on-year population change rate has returned to its original trend.
Population Trend of Iwaki City
Total Population
Change Rate
Total Population Change Rate [%]
-1
-2
-3
(Iwaki City., 2016)
(Kainuma, 2015)

 Iwaki City
> 300,000 populationIwaki City

A4: Zero out of 9,916,283 packet of rice surpassed 50 Bq/kg in 2017.
(New) Japanese Limit for food: 100 Bq/kg (EU Limit 600 Bq/kg, US Limit 1,200 Bq/kg)
[Bq/kg] < 25 25-50 51-75 76-100 Total
No. of
Inspection
9,915,930 33 0 0 9,915,963
(Fraction) 100 % 0.0003 % 0 % 0 % 100 %
Radiation Level of Rice from Fukushima
(Fukushima Prefecture, 2018)

 100% Inspection + they are labeled as “This is from Fukushima.
It passed the examination is safe.”

 On top, cooking will reduce the radiation level by 90%.
RelativeRadiationLevel(Cesium)
Whole rice grain Polished rice Cooked rice
(Fukushima Prefecture)
(Kainuma, 2015)

A5: Zero samples has surpassed 100 Bq/kg since April 2015.
Since 2016, more than 95% of samples has been ND.
No.Samples
> 100 Bq/kg
< 100 Bq/kg
> 100 Bq/kg [in %]
ND [in %]
Apr.‘11
Jan.‘12
Jan.‘13
Jan.‘14
Jan.‘15
Jan.‘16
Jan.‘17

 ~200 samples per week are examined since April 2011 by government.
(Total 46,000 samples)
10 km radius
Fukushima Daiichi
Only species with enough
sampling to statistically
conclude that they are safe
can be harvested.

A6: ~20% decline for agriculture, ~90% decline for fishery.
Fukushima Pref.
Japan
Tohoku region
“Availability factor” of rice fields
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2001
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2010
2017
Seafood Landings in Fukushima
Grave stigmatization issues for food product from Fukushima.
Is it impossible for science to convince the general public?
(Fukushima Prefecture, 2018)(Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2017)

 4 Questions to understand Japan after Fukushima quantitatively!
Q1: How many reactors are online in Japan?
Q2: What fraction of electricity was produced by nuclear in Japan in 2017?
Q3: How much people have negative opinions on nuclear power plant in Japan?
Q4: How has the public image changed for nuclear power plant?

4 Questions to Understand Japan after Fukushima
Q1: How many reactors are online as of 1 March 2018 in Japan?
Q1: 5 out of 54 reactors
Two reactors were backed in operation in the last two weeks
In Operation
Stopped
Waiting for Decommission
Availability Factor of NPP in Japan
(National Institute for Environmental Studies, 2017)

×10 TWh
Renewables
Nuclear
LNG
Oil
Coal
PHS
Hydro
Q2: What fraction of electricity was produced by nuclear in Japan in 2017?
Q2: 0.7% (as oppose to 32% in 2010).
0% in 2014
32% in 2010
0.7% in 2017
(Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2017)

Q3: How much people have negative opinions on nuclear power plant in Japan?
A3: ~70% (up from ~25%).
Cf. 29% in UK in 2013 (UKERC, 2014)
1980
2010
1990
2000
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
2011
2012
(Atsuko Kitada, Journal of AESJ (in Japanese), Vol. 12, No. 3, p. 177-196 (2013), doi:10.3327/taesj.J12.039)
Percentage of people with negative opinions on NPP
(Each legend represents different polls.)

Q4: How has the public image changed for nuclear power plant?
A4:
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2006
Beneficial
Necessary
Dangerous
Concerning
Untrustworthy
Unnecessary
Negative Images
Positive Images
(Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization,
2017)
~20%
~10%
~10%
~10%

Q3: Are people fleeing out of Fukushima area outside of evacuation zone?
Q1: How many reactors are online in
Japan?
Q2: What fraction of electricity was
produced by nuclear in Japan in 2017?
Q3: How much people have negative
opinions on nuclear power plant in Japan?
Q4: How has the public image changed
for nuclear power plant?
21 Questions to Understand Fukushima
Thank you so much for your
kind attention!

Let’s Talk about Fukushima: 21 Questions to Understand Fukushima Quantitatively

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Let’s Talk about Fukushima: 21 Questions to Understand Fukushima Quantitatively

Similar to Let’s Talk about Fukushima: 21 Questions to Understand Fukushima Quantitatively (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Let’s Talk about Fukushima: 21 Questions to Understand Fukushima Quantitatively