From a Guest Blogger on Nuclear Energy: Godzilla, Fukushima, and Our Not-Quite-All-of-the-Above Energy Policy
Godzilla is returning. The 60-year-old monster is responding to the call of a world that is once again grappling with questions raised by the fearsome power of the atom. But while he was born to comment on the destructive capabilities of atomic weapons, he has now arisen to join the conversation about what role nuclear energy should play in our future energy mix as the US attempts to reduce carbon emissions and increase energy independence.
Godzilla, the Nuclear Monster
The inspiration for Godzilla was partly the very successful Beast from 20,000 Fathoms and partly the Lucky Dragon No. 5 incident, in which a Japanese fishing vessel was caught in the fallout from the unexpectedly powerful explosion of the Castle Bravo thermonuclear bomb. And in that incident he was given his meaning: nuclear energy is a force too powerful for us to control.
In Godzilla vs. Destroyah (1994), he experiences a meltdown, and in Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack (2001) his fiery breath is represented with the characteristic flash and mushroom cloud associated with an atomic bomb. In Godzilla 1985 (aka The Return of Godzilla), it is revealed that he feeds on nuclear power plants (which are likely the only source that could meet Godzilla’s large energy demands).
Godzilla, Fukushima, and the MUTOs (Spoilers)
Although the upcoming Godzilla film was approved and started to move forward before the earthquake and tidal wave that led to the Fukushima nuclear incident, the crafting of the script has been shaped since the incident occurred, and we can see the legacy of it in the crafting of the movie. Trailers for the film focus on some kind of disaster at a nuclear power plant, and we see images of people in protective suits investigating contaminated debris.
The final writer for the project, Frank Darabont, noted that he was working to connect Godzilla to a contemporary issue, and it turns out that this issue is whether we can safely use and contain nuclear energy.
The movie begins with an earthquake-like event at a nuclear power plant, forcing the evacuation of the area, then flashes forward 15 years to revisit the site. We are shown something very much like the area around Chernobyl, populated with wildlife, and seemingly serene, where most life progresses on just fine, except for the humans that have abandoned the site. But at the center of it is all is a sleeping monster, which then breaks free and flies away.
We later find that there was a second monster, which was studied then stored at the nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain. But this waste will not stay buried, and it breaks free to rampage through Las Vegas.
These are the MUTOs–Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms–and is they, not Godzilla, who carry the nuclear message in this film, and the message is very clear: there is no way to contain a nuclear disaster.
A World That Is Backing Away from Nuclear Energy
After the Fukushima disaster, Japan shut down all its nuclear power plants, which had accounted for nearly a third of the country’s electricity. The country had been planning to increase its reliance on nuclear energy to account for up to half of the country’s electricity, but now it is trying to decide how quickly it can reduce its dependence on nuclear energy.
Although some reactors likely to come back online in 2014, it’s unclear how much energy Japan will ultimately produce using nuclear reactors, and how much it will count on conservation and renewables to try to meet its domestic power needs.
Also after Fukushima, Germany has decided to shut down all its nuclear power plants because of safety-related concerns. The projected date for completion of this is 2022. This is likely to be an expensive proposition because the nuclear industry has not had time to set aside all the money necessary for the decommissioning process. Instead of nuclear, Germany plans to turn back to coal, which, because of huge domestic reserves and an excess of carbon credits, has become a much more economically viable alternative.
Even in China, which has announced ambitious nuclear goals, there is a scaling back of atomic ambitions, matched by a subpar performance.
The US Remains (Sort of) Committed to Nuclear Power
If you listen to the rhetoric of the Obama administration, the US is still going forward with its “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. Obama reaffirmed his commitment to the strategy in this year’s State of the Union, and the US Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz backs this up, and in February announced $6.5 billion in loan guarantees for the first new nuclear facilities in nearly three decades. Combined with other nuclear plants already under construction, this represents a total of 8218 MW of new gross power production from nuclear.
But this barely matches the likely reduction in nuclear production we are facing. When the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) announced its permanent closure after 2012 inspections revealed a recent upgrade had failed, it represented the loss of 2254 MW of generating capacity. Combined with Crystal River, also closing because of a botched upgrade, Vermont Yankee, and Oyster Creek (set to close by 2019 at the latest), we have lost or are losing a total of 4354 MW.
When we look at other likely closures in the near future, we could lose a total of 10,220 MW, resulting in a potential net reduction in nuclear power generation. Even if other planned projects go forward and come online over the same timescale as these closures, the increase in nuclear power generation will be modest at best.
As California Goes
The actual shape of the new all-of-the-above energy strategy is likely to be predicted by the direction in which California is meeting its energy needs. SONGS accounted for half of California’s nuclear generating capacity, producing about 18,000 GWh of electricity a year, 9% of the state’s total energy production. Its shuttering should have created a major problem in the state’s energy supply, but it was barely noticed.
The California Energy Commission dismissed the significance of this change in the same sentence as decreased hydroelectric generation from reduced runoff because of the drought, simply noting that increased natural gas offset them both.
Nuclear’s Big Promises and Shortcomings
For as long as Godzilla has been stomping across the screen, nuclear energy has been promising that it would give us limitless cheap energy to power our industries and homes, but this promise has simply not materialized.
If you listen to people promoting the nuclear industry, though, this promise has come true. The World Nuclear Association promotes figures showing that nuclear power is cheaper than all forms of power generation.
The problem is that if this were actually the case, why would so many plants be closing or considering closing because they cannot compete with cheaper energy, such as Vermont Yankee because of natural gas or Oyster Creek because of wind?
And if nuclear power essentially runs with little or no investment once the initial construction capital has been recovered, what about the expensive upgrades gone wrong that fouled SONGS and Crystal River? These additional costs contribute to a sense that nuclear energy is often a very expensive boondoggle, something as toxic to its reputation as the potential health risks.
A Deal with Diablo
And these potential health risks have gotten additional time in the spotlight because of Fukushima. When people became aware of debris from Japan washing ashore on the West Coast, it created a minor wave of hysteria, including sudden concern about a floating island of radioactive debris the size of Texas floating off the coast of California (which Fox News described as a “Japan’s ‘toxic’ monster”), though this proved to be of no concern whatsoever.
In addition, people have become more concerned about the dangers of radiation to people living near nuclear power plants. In particular, a research paper on the increased health risks associated with the Diablo Canyon plant, California’s remaining nuclear facility, made headlines.
The story claims many risks associated with the plant, including:
- Increased levels of strontium-90 in children’s teeth
- Increased cancer rates in the area of the plant, giving San Luis Obispo County the highest cancer rate in southern California
- Increased mortality rates closer to the plant than further away
And other potential health risks.
The report has been branded as “junk science” by its critics, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn’t have an updated report of its own to refer to. It has requested a study from the National Research Council, it is several years from completion. SONGS is one of the plants considered in the study, but its data will hardly seem relevant now that the plant has closed. The long time between its studies of this critical issue, and the slowness with which it is looking at the issue now have an air of not wanting to reveal what it expects to find, and contributes to the uneasiness many feel about the issue.
Which brings us back to Godzilla, who has conveniently risen again, ten years after his supposedly last appearance in Godzilla: Final Wars (2004), but this time washing up on America’s West Coast, like the debris from Fukushima.
As he stomps across an American landscape and the American subconscious to vanquish another nuclear-powered threat, he tells us how we really feel about the nuclear power deal with the devil. To rescue us from this bargain we need the help of a god. A sometimes very angry god with a high, screeching roar.
