Two years on: How nuclear sells itself post-Fukushima

LONDON Thu Sep 19, 2013 6:53am EDT

An aerial view shows Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO)'s tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and its contaminated water storage tanks (bottom) in Fukushima, in this photo taken by Kyodo August 20, 2013. REUTERS/Kyodo

An aerial view shows Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO)'s tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and its contaminated water storage tanks (bottom) in Fukushima, in this photo taken by Kyodo August 20, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Kyodo

LONDON (Reuters) - Two years after catastrophe at Japan's Fukushima plant, sellers of atomic reactors woo potential buyers with the promise that lessons learned from one of the world's worst nuclear disasters make the technology safer than ever.

The March 2011 earthquake and tsunami triggered meltdowns and radiation leaks at the plant, 150 miles northeast of Tokyo, causing widespread contamination and prompting mass evacuations.

The shockwave through the nuclear industry has not subsided and Fukushima plant owner Tepco is still struggling to contain the consequences. Last month the firm said new spots of high radiation had been found near storage tanks holding highly contaminated water, raising fear of fresh leaks.

Barbara Judge, a UK-based nuclear expert appointed by Tepco to improve its safety culture, says the disaster has made safety the top priority.

"My opinion is that after Fukushima everything will be safer and that the safety agenda will be first in everyone's minds," she said

In the aftermath of the accident many reactor developers reviewed their designs following government guidance and engaged in deep soul-searching that continues more than two years later.

Germany, with a traditionally anti-nuclear voting force, went as far as completely shunning nuclear power, vowing to switch off its nuclear fleet by the early 2020s.

As a consequence of the political rethinking on nuclear power after Fukushima, companies such as France's Areva, Toshiba's Westinghouse unit or GE-Hitachi have seen orders dry up and costs for new plants explode due to additional safety requirements set by regulators.

At the end of 2010, 120 nuclear reactors were planned across the world. By the end of last year this number had dropped to 102, according to statistics published by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) also scaled back the 2035 nuclear capacity forecast by some 50 gigawatts in its latest World Energy Outlook due to policy changes.

"The prospects for nuclear power worldwide have been clouded by the uncertainty surrounding nuclear policies after the Fukushima Daiichi accident in March 2011," said IEA analysts in the outlook.

In a bid to win new business, nuclear reactor makers largely ignore references to the Fukushima accident in marketing material, and those who do refer to it say the event has made their designs safer.

"Since March 2011, the context has changed, but the fundamentals remain the same," Areva's chief commercial officer, Tarik Choho, says in a statement in a brochure promoting the company.

Areva has long realized that chasing nuclear customers alone is not a sustainable business and has been selling renewable energy technology alongside nuclear reactors since 2006.

Its stall at the London-based annual conference of the World Nuclear Association last week had a picture of an offshore wind turbine that caught the eye before images of its nuclear plants.

In two bold examples showcasing how costly it is to build new reactors, Areva's European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) projects in Finland and in its home market in France are billions of euros over budget and years behind schedule.

"Utilities worldwide are increasingly required to reduce emissions, while adapting to regional resources and producing profitable, competitive electricity - with the utmost safety," he said.

SAFER AFTER FUKUSHIMA

Russia's Rosatom, which is now building more nuclear reactors worldwide than any other vendor, says a safety push following the Soviet Union's own radioactive catastrophe at Chernobyl in 1986 has given it an edge over reactors built at the height of the nuclear market in the 1970s.

"Chernobyl was a turning point for the Russian nuclear industry," said Jukka Laaksonen, a former Finnish regulator and now a vice president in Rosatom's export branch.

"In the 1990s, all the focus of global nuclear safety research was in Russia, testing and experiments were run here in cooperation with Western experts."

Canada's CANDU nuclear reactor design simply states in a marketing brochure that it can prevent severe accidents, while a Westinghouse spokesman said the company had developed and brought to the market technology that increases safety based on lessons learned from Fukushima.

Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor can maintain safe shutdown conditions without any manual interference and without the need for power or pumps, the spokesman said.

The only nuclear reactor designer hitting the Fukushima subject explicitly is GE Hitachi.

GE's boiling water reactors (BWR) were used at the Fukushima nuclear site, supplied by GE, Toshiba and Hitachi, putting most publicity pressure on the companies which designed and supplied the technology that was hit by the world's second most dangerous nuclear accident.

GE Hitachi's nuclear joint venture business, which sells the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR), includes four pages in its marketing material dedicated to how its design has been improved to prevent what occurred at Fukushima.

"To accomplish an enhanced level of nuclear safety, supplementary safety enhancements against severe conditions have been incorporated," the 46-page brochure reads.

"These enhancements (…) are designed to address the Fukushima-Daiichi NPP (nuclear power plant) accident caused by the huge earthquake and subsequent tsunamis on March 11, 2011," the company said.

(Additional reporting by Alissa de Carbonnel in Moscow; editing by Keiron Henderson)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (19)
JimNYC wrote:
They don’t have to “woo” anyone. Nuclear power’s record’s been out there for all to see in historic black and white and it has the lowest by far mortality and property damage score in its whole lifetime than a year of fossil fuel electric generation. This isn’t bias or guess or speculation it’s recorded fact. If people were fair and knowledgeable they’d be appalled bu fossil fuel’s accident death score — never mind incidental ongoing health consequences in _normal operation. All I ask for people is not be demonizing hypocrites or war and FUD prejudiced or carry nuclear grudges and just research the facts on your own, not dished out by groups with grudges and axes to grind.

James Greenidge
thanks atomicinsights

Sep 19, 2013 4:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jagiela wrote:
The cancellation of nuclear power plants, almost all in the West, has more to do with the collapse of natural gas prices than Fukushima. The end of the carbon tax push also has changed the economics.

And make no mistake- it is the economics which are holding nuclear power back. Economics driven by an insane push for “safety” features which truly add nothing to safety. The misapplication of ALARA in regards to radiation leakage which triples the cost of a plant is perhaps the biggest.

The future for nuclear is in those countries that take a far more rational approach to safety- nuclear is safer than the alternatives and therefore spending huge sums to make it more “safe” are unneeded.

India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and the rest of Asia plows ahead

Sep 20, 2013 8:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Lvis wrote:
‘everything will be safer’

Didn’t they say that after Three Mile Island and again after Chernobyl?

And they haven’t even started to deal with the 40 years of spent fuel stored in the rooftop swimming pool.

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself:

Can you trust the words of Tepco, the japanese government or the NRA?

The whole shebang would be a lot safer if we had pursued Thorium salt reactors in the first place instead of Uranium, but then, that wouldn’t lead to weapons grade plutonium. And that would be a shame.

Sep 21, 2013 7:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Photo

California's historic drought

With reservoirs at record lows, California is in the midst of the worst drought in decades.  Slideshow