It’s 11 years since the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) accident. Who imagined at that time that the accident would eventually lead to a war in Ukraine?
Some countries became concerned about the safety of nuclear energy generation because of the FDNPP accident and decided to pause their nuclear plants temporarily for safety checks (e.g., Japan) or decided to decommission those plants entirely, moving toward renewable energy generation (e.g., Germany).
In the case of Europe, that move increased their reliance on natural gas exports from Russia. Ukraine became heavily entangled in this energy-security battle. The background of this battle is well summarized in a US Congressional Research Service report, although the country’s geopolitical tug-of-war has centuries of history.
Many countries have been working on the transition from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy even before the FDNPP accident. But that accident accelerated the transition plans, adding denuclearization to those plans resulting in energy insecurity in the process, at least in some countries. Even if the FDNPP accident had not occurred, countries would have proceeded along similar transition paths, however at a slower pace, moving from a phase to phase, ensuring that the countries’ energy securities were not compromised.
Due to recent events in Ukraine, some argue that we need to accelerate renewable energy transition to avoid future conflicts over fossil fuel energy resources or natural gas. Others argue that we should restart nuclear plants that we shut down after the FDNPP accident as a non-fossil fuel source energy with less CO2 emissions. These proponents claim that the nuclear accident risk is negligible.
Setting aside those arguments motivated by the war, in general, the media and the public have supported the renewable energy transition from two perspectives: less CO2 emissions and risk aversion from nuclear energy. Reality is not that straightforward. Simplified arguments (CO2 and risks) about the energy transition could lead to haste and ill-informed decision-making by the public and the policymakers.
Here I attempt to summarize the factors that we need to consider when discussing the energy transition.
1. Energy Resource Aspects
- Available natural resources (volume/intensity and distance)
- Resource procurement ability (financial, transportation)
- Operational resource availability (water, electricity, fuel, etc.)
2. Infrastructure Aspect
- Available feasible locations for a facility
- Temporal ranges of construction and future decommissioning
- Transportation for construction materials and workforce
- Energy transportation (grids)
- The impact on the environment
- The impact on local community
3. Technological Aspects
- Availability of technology (current, future)
- Workforce availability and workforce skills
- Technological and physical upgrade availabilities
- Probability and severity of risks to humans and the environment
- Temporal and spatial ranges of possible risks
4. Financial Aspects
- Costs of infrastructure construction and operation
- Cost-benefit analysis on energy source conversion
- Funding source
- Financial benefits or burdens to local community
5. Social Aspects
- Public support
- Governmental support
- External factors (government policy changes, conflicts, etc.)
6. Energy Future Aspects
- Capacity, durability, and reliability as an energy source (continuous natural resource availability, site stability, infrastructure durability, social stability, etc.)
7. Decommissioning or closing (not only nuclear power plants but also renewable energy plants)
- Costs of facility closing and clean-up (disposing of, storage, recycling)
- Availability of technology and space for decommissioning
- The impact of decommissioning on the environment
- The impact of decommissioning on local community
- Availability of alternative energy sources
Not all factors are covered here.
The current events unfolding in Ukraine have renewed energy resource discussions. Societies can’t function on unstable or frail energy sources. Societies need to weigh the risk even if it’s a 0.001% chance that the risk might devastate an area in the absolute worst-case scenario. We need to step back and evaluate so that we will not provoke another war because of hasty or misguided decisions on energy policies.