Japan's nuclear power plants risks and the energy panorama

The risks caused by nuclear power plants in Japan given the recent earthquake are giving new strength to anti-nuclear power activists. While it's true that nuclear power has some of the biggest potential risks in energy generation, the energy problem can't be simplified to just such arguments.

Energy is critical to one country life and Japan "must import over 80% of all primary energy needs" (1). Given its small amount of natural resources, it's almost certain that Japan would have never be such a strong economy without nuclear power. Actually, "nuclear power accounts for approximately one-third of the country's total electric power output" (1), which is a key factor for both quality of life and economic development in the country. So the question is not whether nuclear power is to risky or not; the question is if the risk is worth the benefits, in this case being the 3th economy in the world despite having very few natural resources.

The difference in these questions is that the risk is put in context. On one hand it shows what might be lost if we don't take the risk of nuclear power; on the other hand it allows to evaluate different energy source options in the same way. So along the nuclear power question we can ask, if the current oil dependence is a risk we are all wishing to take or should we move away from that technology too?

With this in mind, the arguments are no longer whether we know how to handle radiactive waste or if nuclear power plants are safe enough. The point is which options do we have? If Japan would have accepted not to be the 3th strongest economy in the world, or if he had found a way to do it without nuclear power, then he could avoided having 55 reactors operating as he does. But then again, how many "oil wars" and greenhouse gas emissions could have been saved if developed countries (specially United States as we can see in the graphs ahead) would given up their quality of life to reduce their oil comsuption.

click on the graph to make it bigger

Via the Guardian (2)

Furthermore, 87% of our energy sources have a clear limit (3). As the FEPC mentions "recoverable energy reserves of oil are forecast to last only another 40 years, natural gas for 61 years, coal - by far the most abundant energy resource - for 227 years, and uranium for 64 years" (1). Decreasing energy use can extend these periods, but still, resources are limited so eventually we are going to run out of them.

click on the graph to make it bigger

With this panorama, it's clear that whether we want to decide for or against nuclear power, or if we want to think in a sustainable energy strategy for the long run; considering our options for reducing energy consumption and diversifying our energy sources is crucial to be able to decide which risks we are willing to take.

1. Web site of The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC), specific web pages consulted are:  http://www.japannuclear.com/nuclearpower/program/ and http://www.japannuclear.com/nuclearpower/program/why.html

2. More info about this graph and its data source at BP energy statistics: the world in oil consumption, reserves and energy production

3. Share of total primary energy supply in 2008, IEA. (http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/29TPESPI.pdf)

Step by Step – Where to begin

Sustainable development has to be sustainable itself. Failing to do this is not just ironic but would eventually lead to the end of the program. To do this, sustainable development shall start with something that requires little or not extra effort and that gives quick and useful benefits. The best way I can think to do this is through an appropriate solid waste management.

Solid waste implies an effort in any community. Even one single house has to take the trash outside. Separating organic and non-organic waste requires minimal extra effort. Some inmediate benefits come with organic waste separation: first non-organic trash will no longer smell as bad and the health risk of this kind of trash will greatly reduced. Recycling this trash is much more easy now if this is the path you want to follow.

However recycling would usually require more effort. Organic waste on the other side can be turned into a productive and valuable fairly easy using vermicompost. Vermicompost means using earthworms to degrade organic waste into highly nutrient soil (humus). The good thing about this is that most of the work is done by the earthworms. The only thing required is to bury the organic trash and put some earthworms there. Burying the trash is important because earthworms can't “eat” the waste in open air which causes the organic trash decomposes instead of being degraded. The difference is that when it decomposes, organic waste smells bad and attracts insects. This doesn´t happen when organic waste is degraded. That´s why is very important that the organic waste is completely covered by soil.

Earthworms will reproduce and convert organic waste into nutrient soil. This soil can be sold, or used to plant or as fertilizer.

Separating waste is easy as you only need to throw to a different trash can the stuff you want to separate. Vermicomposting needs very little care, although a little extra effort has to be done to properly bury the organic waste. The result of this is reducing the trash you generate (environmental benefit), getting very nutrient soil (economic benefit) and reducing the smell and health risk of your trash (social benefit).

What do you think?