The Japan Atomic Energy Commission:

A New Leader at the Helm

The House of Representatives of the Japanese Diet recently passed a bill appointing three new Commissioners to the Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC).  Yoshiaki Oka, who is presently a professor of nuclear engineering in the science and engineering faculty of Waseda University was appointed as chairman of the JAEC.  In addition, Tomoko Nakanishi, a professor at the Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Tokyo and Nobuyasu Abe, director of the Center for the Promotion of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation at the Japan Institute of International Affairs, were appointed as JAEC Commissioners.

It is important to note that these 3 individuals will take over their new duties during a time of change and uncertainty, not only for the role of nuclear power in Japan, but also for the role of the JAEC itself.  My understanding is that the JAEC will no longer be charged with promoting nuclear power, but rather, "will focus in various ways on particular aspects of nuclear-related issues."

What this will mean in practice, I am not sure.  One hint may be that on February 14, coincidentally (I assume) the same day as the Diet acted on these appointments, the Radioactive Waste Working Group of the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy, which is under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), identified a role for the JAEC as a third-party evaluator, or "referee," for issues related to geologic disposal.  

Nor do I know all the new Commissioners or their capabilities.  However, I do know the new Chairman, Yoshiaki Oka, quite well, having worked with him in organizing one conference, participating in another conference, and working together on several American Nuclear Society activities, and I can attest to the fact that he comes to this position with strong credentials.  His background includes bachelor's, master's and doctorate degrees in nuclear engineering from the University of Tokyo (in 1969, 1971 and 1974, respectively); a career as a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Tokyo from 1974 to 2010; and his current position as a professor of nuclear engineering at Waseda University since 2010.

In addition to these positions, Professor Oka has been active in several professional societies, and has served as president of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan (2008-9) and as a member of the Board of Directors of the American Nuclear Society (2001-4).  He has led research projects on super-critical light water reactors, as well as a Japanese-government funded Global Center of Excellence (COE) on "Nuclear Education and Research Initiative," and has authored or co-authored several books on nuclear reactor design and technology.

Of course, the challenges of running a government agency are different from that of working in an academic institution or running a research program, and the challenges of redefining the mission of an organization are that much greater.  Nevertheless, it is very helpful for a person leading the JAEC to start from a strong technical base, and the new chairman certainly has those credentials.  As a friend and colleague through a variety of activities over several years, I wish him great success in this new endeavor.  I also wish the best to his colleagues.

And to the outgoing JAEC Chairman, Dr. Shunsuke Kondo, who I also know for many years, I extend my congratulations on his successful completion of a remarkable 10 years as Chairman, including his role in leading the JAEC in the difficult time since the Fukushima accident.  I also extend to him my best wishes for whatever new challenges he undertakes.

***

Fusion in 30?:

What the "Breakthrough" Means

It was interesting, in more ways than one, to read some of the coverage of the recent news from the fusion research community.  The National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California announced in the journal Nature that they had used lasers to compress a pellet of fuel and generate a reaction in which more energy came out of the fuel core than went into it.

This was indeed a significant breakthrough--though still, by the admission of most of the community, a long way from a practical way to generate energy.  Most researchers and others described it that way.  Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), titled their article on the achievement, "Baby Steps on the Road to Fusion Energy."  Other articles, and many quotes in those articles, agreed both that this was a significant breakthrough, and that much more still needed to be done.

One spokesperson, however, appeared considerably more optimistic.  The Washington Post quoted Stewart Prager, director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, as saying, "In 30 years, we’ll have electricity on the grid produced by fusion energy — absolutely."

That got my attention big time.  Why?  Because when I was in graduate school--more than 30 years ago--people were saying EXACTLY the same thing.  Fast forward to 2014.  No fusion energy.

To be fair, Prager's quote was the only quote I've seen that said that.  Everyone else expressed caution.  The Washington Post article itself reported several of those cautious statements.  Other publications did as well:  This is a "baby step."  There is a factor of 100 to go.  There are still a lot of hurdles ahead.

Even Prager really undercuts his own prediction, saying, "I think the open questions now are how complicated a system will it be, how expensive it will be, how economically attractive it will be."

In the real world, those are the key questions that distinguish a successful demonstration from a marketplace success.  So it seems that Prager does understand that there are going to be economic hurdles on top of the technical ones.  But even if he meant to say only that there could be fusion-generated electricity available in 30 years, he seems to be way ahead of most of the fusion community.

Optimism is good for people working on the development of a challenging technology, and we can all hope that, in 30 years, we will have more and better energy supply options of all sorts available to meet our needs for power.  And maybe things are really different now than they were 30+ years ago. 

However, in the meantime, the research community needs to be aware that the one sound bite that is likely to be remembered is the dramatic one.  And if it happens to be sound bite that has already been around for 30 years, it is even harder to convince anyone that things are different this time around.

I only hope that I'm around in 30 years to see if, this time, the prediction was true.

February 15 addition:  I have just found an interesting analysis of the energy dynamics of the experiment at NIF suggesting that the achievement is still far from breakeven when the full energy chain is considered.  It points out that the "net energy" was calculated only based on the energy absorbed by the pellet compared to the energy emitted by the resulting fusion action.  However--and this is a big however--the energy used to power the lasers was 28,000 times the energy generated.  This number illustrates the magnitude of the task that still lies ahead before we can even achieve a system that can really produce more energy than it requires to operate it--much less, do so on a commercially viable basis.

***
 

The Tokyo Election:

What it Means for Nuclear Power in Japan

The election results are in for the hotly contested election for governor of Tokyo, and the "nuclear-neutral" candidate has prevailed by a significant margin.  Since the election had seemingly morphed into a plebiscite on nuclear power, one could reasonably now ask what this vote may mean for nuclear power in Japan.

My own assessment is that it may mean less for nuclear power than the pro-nukes might wish or the anti-nukes might fear.  Perhaps what it means most is simply that the electorate of Tokyo acted rationally and decided that nuclear power wasn't really an appropriate election issue for Tokyo.

By explanation, let's recap the election briefly.  The winning candidate, Japan's former Health Minister Yoichi Masuzoe, is a former member of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's Liberal Democratic Party.  He was running against former Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa, who had made opposition to nuclear power the central issue of his campaign.  By contrast, Masuzoe had not made energy policy a key issue, although he did state an interest in reducing the use of nuclear power in the medium to long term.  This was consistent with Abe's position on nuclear energy.

So, does this mean that the population of Tokyo backs nuclear energy?  Hardly.  In the first place, Masuzoe's didn't really support nuclear power, so much as indicate he felt Japan needed to tolerate it for the time being.  This position probably resonated with the electorate.  In the second place, surveys have shown that the public continues to be against nuclear power, but they are more concerned about jobs and the state of the economy.  Masuzoe's platform focused on these issues.  It should also be noted that there was a pro-nuclear candidate on the ballot--he came in a very distant fourth.  (A further possible factor is that voter turnout has been reported as low.  The role of the snowfall in Tokyo the day before, which was nearly a 50-year record level, is being debated.)

What the election results really mean is that the Tokyo public put their economic interests above their concerns about nuclear power.  In reality, since there are no nuclear power plants in the Tokyo area, it would have been foolish for them to make nuclear power their primary issue anyway.  [*This is in contrast the significance of the issue of nuclear power in other parts of Japan.  See note at end of blog.]  Voting for an anti-nuclear ticket in Tokyo might have been a "feel good" vote for an anti-nuke, but it was unlikely to have any practical value.  Therefore, in my view, the vote mainly means that the Tokyo electorate voted based on reason, and not on emotion.

As a result, it would be unwise for either the pro-nuclear camp or the anti-nuclear camp to make too much of the results of this election.  It is not a ringing endorsement of nuclear power.  The anti-nukes are not going to feel their cause is lost and slink away in defeat.  The path to restarting the shuttered nuclear power plants in Japan is still not clear or easy.  What happens in the nuclear arean will continue to depend on the on-going dialogue between the utilities the Nuclear Regulation Agency in Japan and on the local jurisdictions around each of the power plants.

Likewise, had the vote gone for Hosokawa, it would unlikely have had much impact on the activities already in process to try to gain approval to restart some of the idled plants.  However, it certainly would have reinforced the image that the Japanese population put their highest priority on shuttering the existing plants, and in that sense, would have created an additional psychological hurdle.

Therefore, the fact that vote went the way it did provides a ray of optimism for the future of nuclear power in Japan.  It demonstrates that nuclear power isn't the key issue for the general population, and it gives some hope that, if plants are restarted and run smoothly, the anti-nuclear sentiment may become less and less of a priority among the voters of Japan.

[*Note:  In contrast to other countries, local jurisdictions in Japan do have a role in decisions on nuclear power plant operations--and other industrial or infrastructure-related activities--in their areas.  Therefore, this type of vote could have an impact in areas of Japan that host nuclear power plants.]

***

Nuclear Power and Earthquakes:

A Contribution to the Dialogue

When I studied nuclear engineering in grad school, I thought that nuclear power was an intersection between different science and engineering disciplines--nuclear, mechanical, chemical, electrical, systems, etc.

At the time, that scope seemed plenty broad to me.  Little did I realize that, over the years, I would find my work affected by international and domestic politics, the electricity market, regulation of all types, public perception of risk, and a variety of other external factors.  While I can't claim to have become an expert in all of these areas, I have tried to develop at least a rudimentary understanding, and I do try to keep up with the news.

Therefore, I was very pleased to get a message from Woody Epstein providing me with a recent article he co-authored on an analysis of active faults and nuclear power plants.  Earthquakes, of course, are yet another external factor that is important to nuclear power.

Woody lives and works in Japan and has been active on a number of risk assessment issues.   The paper he sent me, which is entitled Active Faults and Nuclear Power Plants, was co-authored by Neil Chapman (MCM Switzerland), Kelvin Berryman (GNS Science, New Zealand), Woody Epstein (Lloyd’s Register, Japan) and Hideki Kawamura (Obayashi Corporation, Japan).  (This is a submission version of a paper for  Eos Transactions, American Geophysical Union.  That version indicates two additional authors, Pilar Villamor and Lloyd Cluff.) 

Although the title is generic, the article primarily covers the geology and seismic vulnerability of the site of the Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant.  For me, it provided a very useful and understandable tutorial of how a major fault is analyzed to determine when it was last active and what other considerations are important.  Understanding such arguments is critical to understanding the discussions now underway in Japan that underlie the decisions on whether some of the currently closed nuclear power plants will be permitted to restart. 

In the case of Tsuruga, the paper briefly walks the reader through the steps that lead to the conclusion that the Japan Atomic Power Company (JAPC) was correct when it determined that there was no evidence of movement at the site in the last 120,000-130,000 years.  The paper also briefly addresses other issues, such as the presence of smaller faults.  And although the authors don't go into specific detail, they do note that the earthquake issue should not be viewed as a simple "guilty or not guilty" issue.  Likewise, they point out that, where active faults are found nearby, there can be consideration of whether and how the risk can be mitigated. 

Japan, of course, is not the only country that faces serious seismic concerns.  Therefore, at least some of the discussion in this paper may be useful to understanding the situation elsewhere as well.  Of course, we must keep in mind that different locations around the globe have very different geologic and seismic characteristics.  Furthermore, the authors point out that different countries have different definitions of "active faults."  Nevertheless, for those of us who struggle to understand the basis for some of the discussion going on in Japan, this paper makes a useful start.

Thus, Woody and his colleagues have not only contributed to the analysis of the particular situation at Tsuruga, but they have produced an assessment that can help more of us become familiar with the issues involved.  While one paper can't turn a nuclear engineer into a seismologist, I certainly think it will help me understand better the reports I am hearing from Japan on their seismic assessments, as well as reports I may hear from elsewhere.

***

Good News from Asia:

Mostly

Last week, I reported on a couple of pieces of good news for the nuclear community coming from Europe.  This week, Asia reasserts itself, with mostly good news, although there is also an additional piece of good news from Europe.

The biggest good news comes from South Korea and China.  Specifically, South Korea has approved the construction of 2 new reactors at the Kori site.  These are the first new reactors approved in Korea since the Fukushima accident almost 3 years ago, and of course, the first since the falsification scandal during the past year.  This troubled backdrop makes Korea's move all the more noteworthy.  It will be critically important, of course, to the smooth progress of these new reactors, for Korea to make sure it has completely addressed the roots of the falsification problem and that there be no recurrence of such problems. 

China also reported on progress on resuming approvals for new nuclear power plant construction.  China had previously lifted its post-Fukushima moratorium on new approvals, but the recent move seems to represent a further, more aggressive action, involving the introduction of more measures to promote the construction of nuclear power plants in coastal areas.  China's actions, of course, are driven by its continuing, very serious, air pollution problems, and its efforts to curtail the use of coal, or at least hold it steady, despite the continued growth of energy demand.

The "mostly" in my subtitle reflects two factors--not all the good news came from Asia, and not all the news from Asia was completely positive.  Specifically, Poland also made a step forward in their plans for nuclear power, and one country in Asia, Vietnam, confirmed a delay in their nuclear plans.  In both cases, these are not brand new actions, but rather, are further steps in previously announced plans.

In the case of Poland, the recent announcement reflects a cabinet decision on some of the details for the planning of the new reactors, including a timetable for some of the critical steps and a recognition of the need for Poland to develop the critical regulatory infrastructure needed.

The news from Vietnam does not represent a major change.  Rather, it represents a delay of a couple of years in the previously announced construction schedule for their first nuclear power plant.  They indicate that this delay is a result of stock-taking they did following the Fukushima accident.  Therefore, this news should not be surprising and should not be over-interpreted. 

Overall, the year has started with some good signs for the nuclear industry--and, I might add, for the energy supply situation in the countries involved.  It is a signal that governments are beginning to put the Fukushima situation into perspective. 

***

Good News from Europe:

Reasoned Approaches to Energy Policy

Two optimistic pieces of news regarding energy policy emerged from Europe in the last week or so.  One of them was a European Union decision that scrapped binding renewable energy targets for the future.  The other was a report that the Swiss public recognizes the contribution nuclear power makes to their energy security and that they want a say in decisions about the future of nuclear energy in Switzerland.

The EU decision was a major breakthrough.  Targets for 2020, previously established, known as the "20-20-20" targets, set three key objectives for 2020:

• A 20% reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels;
• Raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20%;
• A 20% improvement in the EU's energy efficiency.

These overall targets were supported by a layer of individual national targets based on the wealth of individual EU member countries, with the wealthier countries required to commit to higher renewable energy goals.

The 2020 targets will still stand.  The hotly debated issue in this round was how to set the targets for 2030 and beyond.  Countries like Germany and Italy were pushing for further individual targets for renewable energy sources, while countries like the United Kingdom pushed for more flexibility.  It appears that the arguments for flexibility won the day this time around.  The European Commission set a 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target of 40% over 1990 levels.  There is also an EU-wide target of 27% of energy consumption from renewable sources--BUT, there are no individual national target commitments.  Instead, each nation retains the flexibility to do what makes most sense in that country.

Although here are further steps ahead in finalizing this new plan, this is a major step and a significant change in policy from the past.  It removes the discrimination for and against specific energy technologies, and allows each country to chose a mix that best suits their needs based on their climate, population density, indigenous sources, and other factors.  This is a welcome change in direction.

The news from Switzerland also represents a step forward in having rational discussions on energy supply and demand.  In a series of questions on nuclear power in Switzerland, a majority of the respondents said that Switzerland's nuclear power plants were essential in meeting the country's energy demand, that the reactors should remain in operation, that the population does not want to be dependent on other countries for its energy supply, that the existing mix of energy sources should be retained in the immediate future, and that they want to be able to vote on Switzerland's future nuclear energy policy.  In most of these cases, the percent favorable response has gone up since the last such survey.

This again appears to be at least somewhat of a break with past policy--the current plan in Switzerland is to phase out nuclear power by not replacing the current reactors with new nuclear power plants as they are retired--and a recognition that a nation's energy supply must consider a complex set of interacting factors.  In the case of Switzerland, energy independence and security were highlighted. 

While it is far too soon to project what further developments will follow the EU decision or the Swiss survey, and what the ultimate result will be on the mix of energy sources, it is a welcome breath of fresh air to see the dialogue shifting from a preordained solution to one where energy supply decisions take into account the unique circumstances of each country and all the complex considerations that affect, or are affected by, a nation's energy choices.

***

Fire and Risk:

Environmental Impact Assessments in the Stone Age

One of my not-so-enjoyable tasks over the recent holiday period was trying to tackle some of the accumulation of an entire career that I have stashed haphazardly in the dark recesses of my basement over the years.  My husband will be quick to tell you that I did not make as much progress as he hoped I would, but I did unearth one forgotten gem that I'd long since forgotten about.  To my utter amazement, the piece I found, which was written--well, let's just say several decades ago--reflects the same sentiment that has been the theme of a number of my blogspots--that is, everything has some impacts.

The piece was an outline purporting to be the table of contents of a report by none other than Dr. A. Troglodyte, the man or woman who had first discovered how to control fire and who now had the unenviable task of documenting its environmental impacts.

The outline for A. Troglodyte's report included the following chapters:

Chapter 1.  Accidental burns:  Especially to those who regularly handle fire, and to children or others who are unable to heed instructions to maintain a safe distance from the heat source.

Chapter 2.  Conflagrations:  The uncontrolled spread of fire can potentially result in large-scale loss of human life, and/or of human or animal habitat.  Potential impacts include loss of hunting or gathering grounds.

Chapter 3.  Air Pollution:  The emissions from controlled fire can cause respiratory illness in those who stay too close to sources for too long.  On a larger scale, with widespread use, the air pollution can have as yet unknown weather and climatic effects, as well as widespread incidence of respiratory diseases.

Chapter 4.  Carcinogens in Cooked Food:  Recent evidence points to the existence of potential carcinogens in the charred exterior layer of meats barbequed over open fires.

Chapter 5.  Physical Impacts on Members of the Genus:  Over several generations, the reliance on cooked food, which is softer and therefore easier to chew and digest, may lead to natural selection for physiognomic characteristics that would make it difficult for members of the community to survive without fire.  Furthermore, accustoming the body to warmer environments could reduce the ability of the species to endure without the constant availability of heat, thus potentially reducing the combat effectiveness of warriors, who might not be able to use fires on battlefronts without revealing their locations.

Chapter 6.  Socioeconomic Impacts:  One can envision the control of fire leading to the emergence of a "fire priesthood" which could potentially have unprecedented levels of control over fellow members of their tribes.  In addition, it would exacerbate class distinctions, with the privileged class having the ability to barter for fire and the less privileged having to do without.  Furthermore, the existence of fires is likely to lead to family units spending more time in their caves interacting only with their own members, and to reduced athletic activity, thus leading to more societal isolation and a more passive culture.

Chapter 7.  Depletion of Resources:  While the current need for fuel is limited and there appear to be adequate amounts, widespread use of fire could lead to depletion of forests, resulting in both the economic consequences of resource scarcity and the environmental consequences of widespread forest destruction.

Now, the casual reader may think I was poking fun at the excesses of environmental impact statements (EIS), but the truth is, my intentions were to demonstrate that, if we knew then what we know now, even something as basic to the story of human life as controlled fire might have been viewed with suspicion and alarm.

The message should not be that fire is evil, but by the same token, neither is nuclear power, and neither are any of the other energy sources, even though I have written a number of blogposts about various risks from each energy source as I learn of them.  We are no longer troglodytes (I hope!).  The real message is that we need to take this environmental impact statement to the next step to determine 1) what is the relative significance of each of these impacts, 2) how does it compare to the impacts of other competing sources, and 3) how might we reduce the impacts. 

***