̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - nuclear

From family archive to stage: ̽��ֱ��remarkable journey of ‘Not for a cat’ play at the Cambridge Festival

zs332 — Mon, 31 Mar 2025 09:20:39 +0000

A recently rediscovered play, Not for a Cat: A Play for the Nuclear Age, will be premiering at the Cambridge Festival. The play was originally written in the 1950s by Wallace R. Harper, a student at the Cavendish Laboratory at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge in the 1920.

Gone to the dogs

zs332 — Mon, 24 May 2021 23:00:00 +0000

A story of finding unexpected companionship at the site of the worst nuclear accident in history, Chernobyl.

Opinion: Five years after Fukushima, there are big lessons for nuclear disaster liability

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:25:32 +0000

As four reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power plant suffered catastrophic cooling failures and exploded in March 2011, the world watched in disbelief. For Japan, this was not just the greatest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. It was “the most severe crisis … since World War II.”

Five years on, the nation continues to struggle with the effects. Towns up to 40km from the plant remain a dead-zone: desolate and uninhabited. As many as 100,000 people still remain displaced, unable to return to their homes. Workers at the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO)still don claustrophobic masks and rubber suits to venture into the Fukushima facility. Their job is to decommission the plant safely, a task that plant manager Akira Ono recently said was “about 10% complete”.

̽��ֱ��task is beset with setbacks and spiralling costs. In December 2011 the government estimated that managing Fukushima would cost US$50 billion. By 2014 this had nearly doubled to include US$19 billion to decommission the Fukushima plant; US$22 billion to decontaminate the surrounding area; US$9 billion to build temporary storage facilities for nuclear waste; and US$43 billion to compensate the victims. Today even this looks hopelessly optimistic.

Compensation

Julius Weitzörfer, a fellow of Law at Cambridge ̽��ֱ��, reports that Fukushima is now the biggest civil liability case in history. More than two million people have sued TEPCO and US$50 billion has already been paid out. This is roughly equivalent to 49 Exxon Valdez oil spill settlements, and experts predict the total cost of compensation could rise to US$120 billion.

One notable subplot has been compensation for cases of suicide. A court’s landmark decision that TEPCO pay US$470,000 to the heirs of a 58-year-old farmer’s wife named Hamako Watanabe could prove much more costly. ̽��ֱ��Watanabe family were evacuated from the village of Yamakiya in April 2011, losing their farm and leaving them with a US$140,000 mortgage on their now uninhabitable home. Watanabe became severely depressed and during an authorised one-night visit to their home in June the same year, she burned herself to death.

Other bereaved families have also come forward. Two similar cases are now underway, and the Japanese government anticipates that as many as 56 suicides could be tied to the disaster. And this looks conservative: the NHK broadcasting service has put the number at 130. What is certain is that the number is rising. A further 19 evacuees took their lives in 2015 and there is no reason to believe 2016 will be any different.

Who pays

Officially the buck for everything stops with TEPCO. Under Japanese nuclear-liability law, the nuclear operator is responsible for the full cost of an accident, even if it is not proven to be negligent.

In practice, the Japanese taxpayer is bearing a significant share of the burden. Speakers at “Fukushima Five Years On” - an expert workshop recently hosted by Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� - emphasised that whilst TEPCO’s liability is unlimited, its assets are not. Despite the country’s seismic history, TEPCO’s private insurance policy did not cover earthquakes or tsunamis. And in accordance with regulations introduced in 2009, TEPCO was insured –through both private policies and state indemnities- for up to just US$1.1 billion: about a fiftieth of the damages paid out so far.

̽��ֱ��government has been forced to prevent TEPCO’s bankruptcy – over and above all of its other Fukushima-related outgoings. It has bought a majority share and has continued to finance compensation payments through a series of indemnity agreements and loans in the form of government compensation bonds. ̽��ֱ��state has also taken the extreme measure of enacting retroactive legal guidelines that obligate other power companies and financial institutions to contribute to the compensation effort.

One has to ask whether the concept of unlimited liability has any real meaning when the operator’s capacity to pay is so limited. It also raises questions for other parts of the world. In the UK, for example, nuclear liability is capped at a mere US$220m, less than two hundredths of what TEPCO has already paid in compensation claims. Japan is evidently not the only country that should be taking lessons from Fukushima.

̽��ֱ��article originally said that the TEPCO payouts to date are 400 times that of Exxon Valdez, as opposed to 49. It also said that the dead zone around the plant was 10km, but now says 40km.

Makoto Takahashi, Pre-doctoral researcher, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Makoto Takahashi (Department of Geography) discusses the impact of the Fukushima disaster and Japan's nuclear-liability laws.

Wikimedia Commons

̽��ֱ��Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant after the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Facing up to Fukushima

bjb42 — Fri, 20 May 2011 15:07:13 +0000

With daily media coverage of the earthquake aftermath focusing on Fukushima power plant and possible worst-case scenarios, the question of safety in nuclear energy has returned to the forefront of many people’s minds around the world. Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan recently announced that his government will be ‘starting from scratch’ with its energy plans and the country’s reliance on nuclear power following the crisis.

Tony Roulstone, course director of the nuclear energy graduate programme at Cambridge, argues that the Fukushima reactor may have long held the potential for an incident of this nature, being an old power plant with a flawed design, which doesn’t reflect contemporary nuclear capability.

“ ̽��ֱ��safety standards that these old reactors were built to are nothing like today’s standards. Fukushima is the second oldest Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) in the world, completed in 1971. Some of these early models have a weak design. At the very time you need the containment facility to protect you, when the core is overheating, you have to vent pressure and consequently possible radiation to prevent explosion.”

“ ̽��ֱ��reactor and the radiation containment should last at least a week after an incident without external help; this is the way modern reactors are designed. Nuclear safety is very simple: Don’t damage the core, make the containment effective. But what do you do about these old reactors? We can use our ingenuity to try and fix them, or shut them down, but either way we need to address the problem.”

̽��ֱ��earthquake didn’t damage the reactors themselves, but did take out mains electricity. ̽��ֱ��ensuing tsunami knocked out the diesel generators and other back-up systems that were used to pump water around the core, keeping it cool. Once that power failed, the core overheated and was critically damaged a mere 26 hours after the tidal wave hit.

Roulstone calls this ‘common cause ’, where the initiating event triggers a domino effect that inevitably leads to core damage. In this case: tsunami hits, grid goes down, batteries fail, cooling pump stops, core damage results. “You can’t have a reactor which destroys itself within 26 hours when all you need to do is pump water in – this is unacceptable. More batteries, more diverse pumping systems, whatever the cost. If all you have to do is get water into the reactor and heat out, then that’s what you’ve got to do!”

Nuclear engineering has come a long way since the construction of the Fukushima plant. Modern reactor design has focused on the threat from ‘external hazards’ during the last 20 years: Earthquake, terrorism, plane crash, flooding, and so on. Safety systems, such as the pump and generators that went down at Fukushima, are now built to the same robust standards as the reactors, preventing the potential for a ‘common cause’ cascade of failure.

When the Fukushima plant was built forty years ago, core damage frequency was predicted as once in every 1,000 reactor years. Following the meltdown at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979, reactors were modified to reduce the likelihood of core damage to at least one in 10,000 years.

According to Roulstone, the trend has continued to increase dramatically: “Plants from the 80’s and 90’s such as Sizewell in the UK have an expected core damage of once every 100,000 years, and the new generation of nuclear plants are being built to once every 1 million years, as good as we can do.” In fact, Japan itself is home to the first (3rd generation) advanced reactors, which have been operating since 1996.

But this still leaves the question of what to do with old reactors such as Fukushima, and how to address the worldwide perception of nuclear power following coverage of such disasters in a media-saturated age, which tap into the public fear of nuclear radiation still prevalent from the Cold War and tragedies like Chernobyl.

For Japan, a heavily industrialised island nation with very little natural energy resources, there are no easy answers. “ ̽��ֱ��Japanese committed to nuclear power because they had no other option,” says Roulstone. “Post-Fukushima, all they can do in the short term is import gas and fossil fuels. ̽��ֱ��only way they’ll reassure the public about nuclear energy is by saying: ‘we don’t care about past energy policy, we need to look at everything on its merits right now as they stand’.”

This openness in communication to the public from governments and the nuclear industry is something that Roulstone sees as crucial, on a local and global level. “In nuclear, what happens in one country affects everyone else. ̽��ֱ��Japanese haven’t yet been open enough with the global community; they need to get more international people involved. ̽��ֱ��industry needs to be seen to be learning from this, the only way we can progress effectively is by being open and responsive.”

For Roulstone, the question of how to deal with ageing reactors such as Fukushima is a thorny one, but this is not the time to shy away from these issues. “As an industry, we need to learn from this and make things substantially better, not just a little bit better. We learned a hell of a lot about operating and designing reactors from Three Mile Island… the game is to learn from accidents – making these so remote that the public can trust nuclear to generate the energy we need”

“You don’t live without risk; the question is what you do about it in these situations. You either give up or you tackle things and make progress.”

Tony Roulstone will be giving a public lecture on events in Japan entitled Fukushima - New wine in old wineskins? on Tuesday 24 May at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London.

In the wake of the disaster at the Fukushima reactor, Japan and other nations are re-evaluating their attitude to nuclear energy. Cambridge academic Tony Roulstone believes it is vital for governments and industry to proactively and openly develop nuclear strategy in light of this incident.

̽��ֱ��industry needs to be seen to be learning from this, the only way we can progress effectively is by being open and responsive.

Tony Roulstone

Thierry Ehrmann from Flickr

Japan of the apocalypse

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Calls for a global nuclear renaissance in new study

bjb42 — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0000

̽��ֱ��scientists suggest a two-stage plan in their review paper that could see countries with existing nuclear infrastructure replacing or extending the life of nuclear power stations, followed by a second phase of global expansion in the industry by the year 2030. ̽��ֱ��team say their roadmap could fill an energy gap as old nuclear, gas and coal fired plants around the world are decommissioned, while helping to reduce the planet's dependency on fossil fuels.

̽��ֱ��researchers suggest in their study that based on how technologies are developing, new types of reactors could come online that are much more efficient than current reactors by 2030. At the moment, most countries have light water reactors, which only use a small percentage of the uranium for energy, which means that the uranium is used inefficiently. ̽��ֱ��team suggest that new 'fast reactors' could be developed that could use uranium approximately 15 times more efficiently, which would mean that uranium supplies could last longer, ensuring energy security for countries.

Another idea is to develop reactors with replaceable parts so that they can last in excess of 70 years, compared to 40 or 50 years that plants can currently operate at. Reactors are subjected to harsh conditions including extreme radiation and temperatures, meaning that parts degrade over time, affecting the life of the reactor. Making replaceable parts for reactors would make them more cost effective and safe to run over longer periods of time.

Flexible nuclear technologies could be an option for countries that do not have an established nuclear industry, suggest the scientists. One idea involves ship-borne civil power plants that could be moored offshore, generating electricity for nearby towns and cities. This could reduce the need for countries to build large electricity grid infrastructures, making it more cost effective for governments to introduce a nuclear industry from scratch.

̽��ֱ��researchers also suggest building small, modular reactors that never require refuelling. These could be delivered to countries as sealed units, generating power for approximately 40 years. At the end of its life, the reactor would be returned to the manufacturer for decommissioning and disposal. Because fuel handling is avoided at the point of electricity generation, the team say radiation doses to workers would be reduced, meaning that the plants would be safer to operate.

̽��ֱ��scientists believe the roll out of flexible technologies that could be returned to the manufacturer at their end of their shelf life could also play an important role in preventing the proliferation of nuclear armaments, because only the country of origin would have access to spent fuel, meaning that other countries could not reprocess the fuel for use in weapons.

In the immediate future, the researchers suggest the first stage of the renaissance will see countries with existing nuclear energy infrastructure extending the life of current nuclear power plants. ̽��ֱ��researchers suggest this could be made possible by further developing technologies for monitoring reactors, enabling them to last longer because engineers can continually assess the safety and performance of the power plants.

̽��ֱ��researchers say new global strategies for dealing with spent fuel and radioactive components will have to be devised. Until now, countries have not developed a coordinated strategy for dealing with waste. One suggestion is to develop regional centres, where countries can send their waste for reprocessing, creating new industries in the process.

Professor Robin Grimes, from the Department of Materials at Imperial College London, says: "Our study explores the exciting opportunities that a renaissance in nuclear energy could bring to the world. Imagine portable nuclear power plants at the end of their working lives that can be safely shipped back by to the manufacturer for recycling, eliminating the need for countries to deal with radioactive waste. With the right investment, these new technologies could be feasible. Concerns about climate change, energy security and depleting fossil fuel reserves have spurred a revival of interest in nuclear power generation and our research sets out a strategy for growing the industry long-term, while processing and transporting nuclear waste in a safe and responsible way."

Professor Grimes adds: "In the past, there has been the perception in the community that nuclear technology has not been safe. However, what most people don't appreciate is just how much emphasis the nuclear industry places on safety. In fact, safety is at the very core of the industry. With continual improvements to reactor design, nuclear energy will further cement its position as an important part of our energy supply in the future."

However, the authors caution that governments around the world need to invest more in training the next generation of nuclear engineers. Otherwise, the nuclear industry may not have enough qualified personnel to make the renaissance a reality.

Dr William Nuttall, ̽��ֱ�� Senior Lecturer in Technology Policy at Cambridge Judge Business School, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, concludes: " ̽��ֱ��second phase of the 'Two-Stage Nuclear Renaissance' is not inevitable, but we would be foolish if we did not provide such an option for those that must make key energy technology decisions in the decades ahead. Too often, decisions shaping the direction of research and development in the nuclear sector are made as part of a strategy for eventual deployment. As such small research capacities can become confused with multi-billion dollar plans and stall as a result. Relatively modest research and development can, however, provide us with important options for the future. Such research and development capacities need to be developed now if they are to be ready when needed. While some good measures are already underway, the possible challenge ahead motivates even greater efforts."

To listen to an interview with Dr Nuttall, please follow the link on the upper right hand of the page.

Scientists from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and Imperial College London today outlined a 20-year master plan for the global renaissance of nuclear energy. Their research was published in the latest issue of the journal.

Too often, decisions shaping the direction of research and development in the nuclear sector are made as part of a strategy for eventual deployment.

Dr William Nuttall

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes