Nuclear Power Plants - Always actual and mostly controversial1 Nuclear Power Plants - Always actual and mostly controversial Nuclear power plants in comparison to other daily used

1

Nuclear Power Plants -

Always actual and mostly controversial

Nuclear power plants in comparison to other daily used energy supplier

and

How the catastrophe of Fukushima changed the political thinking about nuclear energy

A semester project for the lecture Energy Economics and Policy by

Andrea Colombo

Supported by Prof. Thomas Rutherford

2

Contents

1. Abstract ................................................................................................................ 3

2. Basic idea ............................................................................................................ 4

3. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 5

3.1. How does an AKW work? The nuclear power plant as energy supplier ........ 5

4. The nuclear power plant in comparison with other energy supplier ..................... 6

5. Environmental impact of energy sources, a comparison ...................................... 9

6. Which stance take up various countries in the world before and after the nuclear

accident in Fukushima, Japan? ................................................................................ 11

6.1. The position of the USA ............................................................................... 11

6.1.1. Before the disaster in Fukushima, Japan ....................................... 11

6.1.2. After the disaster in Fukushima, Japan .......................................... 11

6.2. The position of central europe on the example of Germany ........................ 12

6.2.1. Before the disaster ......................................................................... 12

6.2.2. After the disaster ............................................................................ 12

6.3. The position of eastern europe on the example of Poland .......................... 12



6.4. The position of Switzerland ......................................................................... 13

6.4.1. Before the disaster ................................................................................... 13


6.5. The position of Japan .................................................................................... 14



7. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 15

3

1. Abstract

These days nuclear power plants (AKWs) are again very controversial – for the supporter AKWs generate the cleanest energy after hydro power stations, for the antagonist electricity generated by nuclear power is very dangerous and irresponsible for human being, fauna and flora.

This work gives an insight to the AKW-situation after the disaster in Japan. First it will

show how an AKW in general is built, how it works and what conditions must be

fulfilled for the construction of nuclear power plants. Then a comparison with other

energy producers is made. It tries to show why nuclear power plants were and are

popular to some degree. After this, the political situation in some countries before and

after the disaster in Japan is given attention. The focus will be on whether and what

has changed after the disaster in Fukushima, how the policy in Switzerland and other

different countries has changed in regard to nuclear power plants.

4

2. Basic idea

Since March 2011, the nuclear issue is on everyone's lips and all over the world the

continuation of nuclear power plants (short AKW) has been largely discussed. This

discussion was triggered through a great earthquakes in Japan and the

consequences of it. The earthquake caused a tsunami which reached a height of up

to 15 meters. This tsunami hit the nuclear power plant in Fukushima which was only

protected by defensive walls up to 5.7 meters.

Picture 1: Epicentre of the earthquacke in Japan and the consequences1

After the disastrous tsunami and the failure of the emergency generators TEPCO

(Tokyo Electric Power Company) reported that it had come to a nuclear emergency

at the nuclear power plant Fukushima. Because of the earthquake it had come to an

automatic emergency shutdown of the reactors 1, 2 and 3. TEPCO announced that

the external power supply had failed. The emergency power diesel generator had

started at first but then had malfunctioned through the water flooding of the tsunami.

Because of this failure bloc 1, 2 and 3 and later on bloc 4, 5 and 6 too couldn’t cool

down enough therefore it came to an overheating of the reactors and probably to a

partial meltdown of at least one of the nuclear reactor. The nuclear power plant

Fukushima is now evaluated to a dangerous rank of 7 which means that the impact

on the environment and health threat in a wide area is to be expected. This “Super-

Gau” ist equated with the disaster in Tschernobyl (Ukraine, 1986). The concatenation

of this enormous natural disaster with the following huge AKW-disaster raise serious

doubts about the safety of nuclear power plants and has triggered a hot debate in

many countries about the future of nuclear power plants. Because of this alternative

energy is now on everyone's lips.

1 http://geistdergesetze.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/erdbebenkatastrophe-in-japan/

5

3. Introduction2

13% of global electricity demand is currently being produced by approximately 210 nuclear power reactor with 442 blocs. The number of nuclear power plants continued to rise until the final of the 1980's, the peak was reached in 1989 where 423 reactors were in operation. Since then the number has increased even more, but much slower than up to this point. 2008 was the first time since 1960 that not one new power plant got into operation. But in 2009 were already 436 reactors in operation. At present, according to the World Nuclear Association, are 443 reactors in operation, 62 under construction and 158 planned

3.1. How does an AKW work? The nuclear power plant as energy supplier345

A nuclear power plant is a thermal power station to produce electrical energy from controlled nuclear fission. In a nuclear power plant a differentiation between a nuclear part and a secondary part is made. In the nuclear part energy is produced mainly by nuclear fission. Nuclear fission takes place in a nuclear reactor. The reactor is needed to control the chain reaction in a safe and efficient environment and to contain the released energy. In addition, the reactor has to cope with the heat exchange. The nuclear reactor is a thick-walled reactor pressure vessel, where the nuclear fission takes place. In nuclear fission a heavy atomic nucleus, for example uranium, is split into two lighter atoms by neutrons. Thus, energy is released in the form of heat. This energy comes from the difference in the binding energy of the original heavy atom and the splitted lighter atoms. For that usually uranium is taken because his nuclear energy stimulation has the same energy value as a slow neutron. This means with shooting slow neutrons to uranium and the conversion of uranium into the two lighter parts energy is constantly releasing. The released energy, as already mentioned, deliver heat. In a light-water-reactor the nuclear fuel elements have to be always surrounded by water. The fuel elements get cooled down with the water on the one hand. On the other hand water slowes down the neutrons. Is water missing the nuclear fission stops because the neutrons have to slow down to get further reaction. Also water transports the heat generated by nuclear fission to the steam turbines. In the secondary part of the nuclear power plant the heat is transformed into electricity. A steam turbine starts to rotate by the above-described water. With the rotation of the turbine the connected turbine generator also rotates. Therefore the generator converts the kinetic energy into electricity. To start rotating a steam turbine the temperature and pressure differences before and after the turbine must be as large as possible. Therefore the steam has to be cool down after leaving the turbine so that the water vapor becomes liquid again. This cooling is possible with either river water or with a cooling tower. AKW’s don’t produce exhaust-gas or greenhouse-gas like CO2. That means, apart from the radioactive waste, nuclear energy is one of the most environmentally friendly methods of electricity production.

2 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk 3 http://nes.web.psi.ch/files/ETH_Energiebroschuere.pdf 4 http://www.kernenergie.ch/de/akw-technik.html5http://www.kernenergie.ch/de/energieeffizienz.html 5http://www.kernenergie.ch/de/energieeffizienz.html

6

Additionally, Uranium has a very high energy content. The amount of energy that is in one kilogram of uranium deliver the same amount of energy as 10,000 kilograms of coal, 7,000 kilograms of heavy oil or 4,900 kilograms of natural gas. Although, only about one third of the released heat is converted into electricity, nuclear energy is a front-runner beside water- and windenergy in relation to energy efficiency. In Switzerland the nuclear power plant as an energy supplier has a strong presence. It is the second largest power source after hydroelectric power plants. About 40% of electricity is generated from the five Swiss nuclear power plants. But Switzerland looks out for a more or less balanced mix of electricity to prevent a strong dependence on only one electricity producer.

4. The nuclear power plant in comparison with other energy

supplier678910

In this chapter the nuclear power plant should be compared with other energy sources. In doing so, costs for constructing the plant of the energy supplier, costs for raw materials and energy costs the consumer finally has to pay will be considered. Additionally, advantages and disadvantages of the different energies are discussed. The different energies which are discussed here beside the nuclear energy, are hydropower, natural gas, coal and crude oil. These are the most common energy suppliers. Switzerland has an energy mix made of nuclear energy 41%, hydro energy 55% and other fossil energy sources 2.2%. The renewable energy like wind or sun makes 0.5% and 2% comes from refuse. The missing percentages originate from not identifiable energy sources. Because the renewable energy percentage is so small there is a limitation on nuclear energy and hydro energy. As an opposite to this climate friendly energies, fossil fuels are taken in this comparison.

6 http://www.immergenugstrom.ch/contents/energiezukunft 7 http://www.kernenergie.ch/de/wirtschaft-strommix.html 8 http://www.kernenergie.ch/de/wirtschaft-zahlen-fakten.html 9 http://www.kernenergie.ch/de/schweizer-strommix.html#anchor_KIDHVO 10 http://www.bfe.admin.ch/energie/00588/00589/00644/index.html?lang=de&msg-id=16105

Picture 2: Percentage of

The costs for constructing the plantdetermine.1112 Costs of constructing the plant, costs for the raw material, costs transport of the raw material and other equipment, costs for developing new and efficient technologies, costs for the final closing of the plant and at the most costs for final disposal and its technology add upFor a nuclear power plant tThese costs are very high in comparison to other power plants. closing of nuclear power plants is very hhas to be treated very careful. million euro depending on the capacity of a power plant. costs for disposal of a nuclear power plant are bigger than of other for example renewable energy. To pay the costs for disposal themore centime per kWh. For the opposition of nuclear power plants these price ilow. The reason for this thoughts are that costs for eposterior costs for humans are not calculated in that price. Because each form of energy extraction has its price, it’s not surprisingly that the Swiss state add some money. Switzerland add approximatelyenergy. Thereof, 21.7% are spent for crude oil fuel, 33.4% for power fuel, 23.6% for electricity, 12.1% for gas and 9.2% for remaining energy supplier.

11 http://www.vimentis.ch/d/publikation/209/Atomenergie+in+der+Schweiz.html 12 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk

7

Percentage of the renewable energies in 2008

costs for constructing the plant of different energy sources is very difficult to Costs of constructing the plant, costs for the raw material, costs

transport of the raw material and other equipment, costs for developing new and efficient technologies, costs for the final closing of the plant and at the most costs for

technology add up. For a nuclear power plant the construction is approximately 7-10 billion Swiss francs. These costs are very high in comparison to other power plants. The

of nuclear power plants is very high as well, because all contaminated parts has to be treated very careful. Thus, costs for a disposal have an amount of 750

lion euro depending on the capacity of a power plant. Furthermore, the amount of uclear power plant are bigger than of other for example

To pay the costs for disposal the energy consumer hFor the opposition of nuclear power plants these price i

The reason for this thoughts are that costs for environmental damage and posterior costs for humans are not calculated in that price.

Because each form of energy extraction has its price, it’s not surprisingly that the Swiss state add some money. Switzerland add approximately 5.1% of the BIP for energy. Thereof, 21.7% are spent for crude oil fuel, 33.4% for power fuel, 23.6% for

city, 12.1% for gas and 9.2% for remaining energy supplier.

http://www.vimentis.ch/d/publikation/209/Atomenergie+in+der+Schweiz.html

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk

in 2008

of different energy sources is very difficult to Costs of constructing the plant, costs for the raw material, costs for the

transport of the raw material and other equipment, costs for developing new and efficient technologies, costs for the final closing of the plant and at the most costs for

10 billion Swiss francs. The costs of final

igh as well, because all contaminated parts have an amount of 750

Furthermore, the amount of uclear power plant are bigger than of other for example

energy consumer has to pay one For the opposition of nuclear power plants these price is too

nvironmental damage and

Because each form of energy extraction has its price, it’s not surprisingly that the 5.1% of the BIP for

energy. Thereof, 21.7% are spent for crude oil fuel, 33.4% for power fuel, 23.6% for

http://www.vimentis.ch/d/publikation/209/Atomenergie+in+der+Schweiz.html

Picture Costs for the raw materialdecreased 37% in 2009. For nuclear energy the raw increase because of lack. This would increase the total costs of nuclear enprice of crude oil and other fossil fuels will increase because after the crisis in economy these raw materials are be as much as possible because on one hand there is an abundant supply for crude oil and on the other hand supply and demand are in balance at the moment. The consumer has to payamount of payment for nuclear energy is approximately the same as the payment for hydro energy. and for the hydro energy 4-depending on the prices of gas and thmeans of these reasons, the price fluctuatecentimes per kWh. The different energy sources have different with a nuclear source is mostly without fluctusource is climatic and environmentathe reservoir power can easily turned oas current supplier for basic services as well as for temThe advantage of coal is the to higher efficiency

13 http://www.eon-kraftwerke.com/pages/ekw_de/Innovation/Neubau/Neubauoptionen/_Vor_und_Nachteile_Kohle_und_GuD_Kraftwerke/index.htm

8

Picture 3: Expenditures for energy research

Costs for the raw material increased 27% in the annual average after they

For nuclear energy the raw material, uranium, is relatively cheap.increase because of lack. This would increase the total costs of nuclear enprice of crude oil and other fossil fuels will increase because after the crisis in

raw materials are very popular again. However, the increase will not be as much as possible because on one hand there is an abundant supply for crude

n the other hand supply and demand are in balance at the moment.

consumer has to pay different payment for the different energy sources. The amount of payment for nuclear energy is approximately the same as the payment for hydro energy. The payment for nuclear energy is 4-5 centimes per kWh

-13 centimes per kWh. The price of natural gas is strongly depending on the prices of gas and the additional requirements to reduce means of these reasons, the price fluctuate. The price is an average between

The different energy sources have different advantages. The production of current with a nuclear source is mostly without fluctuations. Another advantage is that this

and environmentally friendly. The advantage of hydro energy is the reservoir power can easily turned on and turned off. The natural gas can be used as current supplier for basic services as well as for temporary climaxes of demand. The advantage of coal is the to higher efficiency13.

kraftwerke.com/pages/ekw_de/Innovation/Neubau/Neubauoptionen/_Vor_und_Nachteile_Kohle_und_GuD_Kraftwerke/index.htm

increased 27% in the annual average after they

material, uranium, is relatively cheap. The price will increase because of lack. This would increase the total costs of nuclear energy. The price of crude oil and other fossil fuels will increase because after the crisis in

However, the increase will not be as much as possible because on one hand there is an abundant supply for crude

n the other hand supply and demand are in balance at the moment.

he different energy sources. The amount of payment for nuclear energy is approximately the same as the amount of

centimes per kWh natural gas is strongly

e additional requirements to reduce CO2. By The price is an average between 8-12

The production of current ations. Another advantage is that this

friendly. The advantage of hydro energy is that The natural gas can be used porary climaxes of demand.

kraftwerke.com/pages/ekw_de/Innovation/Neubau/Neubauoptionen/_Vor-

9

The disadvantages of the energy sources are manifold. The disadvantage of a nuclear source is obviously that the subject of the final disposal of nuclear fuel rods is not definitively resolved. In addition, the nuclear power is very dangerous for the whole world if there is a loss of control. The disadvantage of hydro energy is that the production of current is depending of the amount of water. The natural gas cannot be retained in capacious amount, which is very disadvantageous. Additionally, the use of natural gas produce a lot of CO2. This fact is the same for crude oil and coal. A problem is that the fossil fuels have a finiteness in their reserves. To sum up, the combustion technology will stay the dominant competitor in the market of energy for a quit long time. Increase of efficiency and minimization of pollutants should be the final goal. But unfortunately, mostly the goal is to maximize the profit and to control the market and this is more successful with fossil fuels.

5. Environmental impact of energy sources, a comparison14

To make this comparison the same energy sources are analyzed as seen in “4. The nuclear power plant in comparison with other energy supplier”. This part has the assignment to explain questions about the CO2-emission and other environmental damage. To take a look to the emission of CO2 of the different energy sources, the nuclear energy and the hydro energy are very favorable. The nuclear energy only make a contribution to CO2-emission with an annual amount of 8 gram per kWh. The hydro energy add 4 gram per kWh to the CO2-emission. Fossil fuels, namely natural gas, crude oil and coal, contribute a lot of CO2. The reason for this is, that they are burned up to fabricate energy. Generally, carbon dioxid arise if a burning process with carbon is made. This is the case with fossil fuels. The following picture 4 shows the different energy sources and their contribution to the production of CO2.

14http://www.immergenugstrom.ch/contents/kernkraftwerke?gclid=CMWVtfyFnKgCFQEhfAod

tTzPHg

Picture 4: Different energy sources com

CO2 is not the only harmful gas. There are additionamethane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbon (FCKW) and sulfur heof this, picture 5 shows the amount of contribution to green house gases of each energy source.

Picture 5: Contribution of each energy source to

15 http://www.kernenergie.ch/de/klimaschutz.html

10

Picture 4: Different energy sources compared due to their emission of CO

is not the only harmful gas. There are additional green house gases namely nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbon (FCKW) and sulfur hexafluoride

of this, picture 5 shows the amount of contribution to green house gases of each

Contribution of each energy source to green house gases

http://www.kernenergie.ch/de/klimaschutz.html

pared due to their emission of CO2.

l green house gases namely xafluoride. Because

of this, picture 5 shows the amount of contribution to green house gases of each

green house gases15.

11

Other environmental damages can occur through the mining of fossil fuels, for example. Surface mining to produce coal can result in a strong change of nature. Sometimes the nature can’t revive because there no nutrients in the ground anymore. Another example from hydro energy is the accumulation of a lake. The water line increase and the flora in this section is flooded and destroyed. The damage of a nuclear power plant is pretty clear. The leakage of radioactive material destroys the whole life in a determined radius and human can nothing do against it.

6. Which stance take up various countries in the world before

and after the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan?

After the reactor accident on March 11, 2011 in Fukushima, Japan, a rethinking about AKW’s takes place in human population and among the politicians. Some countries now want to abandon the nuclear power industry, some countries remain at the current nuclear power stations, but suspend or stop building new one and others again stick to their earlier plan and want to build further power plants. This section describes the different opinions of the various countries to nuclear power plants. From following countries the effect of the nuclear plant accident to their own nuclear policy is shown: USA, Central Europe (Germany), Eastern Europe (Polen), Switzerland and Japan.

6.1. The position of the USA1617

6.1.1. Before the disaster in Fukushima, Japan

The president of America, Barak Obama, supports new nuclear power plants in the USA. 20.2% of its electricity receive the U.S. from nuclear power. Because of environmental reasons the Americans wants to increase their electricity from nuclear power plants, therefore the government promises loan guarantees for constructions of new facilities which have a value of 36 billion dollars.

6.1.2. After the disaster in Fukushima, Japan

The Fukushima-disaster have triggered a huge debate on nuclear power in the U.S., and a lot of people did panic. The popularity of nuclear power plants sank as far as the opponents and supporters of the nuclear plants now hold the balance. But in spite of that a nuclear phaseout is ineligible. But there are no doubts that it needs a serious check-up of the existing nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, some politicians even are calling for a moratorium on new power plants. America has a strong and powerful pro-nuclear lobby which is connected closely to the government. This lobby represents not only nuclear power plant operators but also those who benefit from nuclear power too. For many years the nuclear industry supports both - Republicans and the Democrats - with contributions of millions of dollars for their election campaigns. thus, the influence of this lobby in past years has grown up. In addition, the pro-nuclear lobbying campaigns that nuclear power is the only solution to the climate crisis. The people of America accept nuclear power as a solution against global warming. The Americans think that nuclear power plants simply must build

16 http://www.faz.net/-01r1cu

17

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/0,1518,751632,00.html vom 19.März 2011

12

strong enough that it may be prepared against natural disasters. Behind this strong acceptance of nuclear power plants is first a tough realpolitik and second money, greed and power.

6.2. The position of central Europe on the example of Germany

6.2.1. Before the disaster18

Germany already had in 2001 with a nuclear law decided to end the use of nuclear energy. The atomic law stated that no power station may be older than 32 years and to stop the transport of nuclear waste by 2005. But the female chancellor Angela Merkel, the CDU/CSU and the FDP refused a nuclear power phase-out with the statement that the nuclear power plants would be needed badly for a reliable power supply. They had pointed out too that Germanys power plants would be one of the safest in the world. They argue that it makes no sense to eliminate the own secure power plants while in neighbor countries dangerous power plants exists. For these and other reasons, the government decided in 2010 to extend the running-time of the seven older power plants to eight years and to extend the running-time of the younger power plants up to 14 years.

6.2.2. After the disaster19

Now in Germany the seven oldest nuclear power plants should phase out. Rival of the female chancellor Angela Merkel say know she is demanding that only for electoral advantage because she had stated before the plants were needed urgently. The phase out means now that in future in Germany only nine power plants supply electricity. Furthermore, should there be a security check at all nuclear power plants in Germany as previously ignored studies say that there are significant doubts about the earthquake safety of German nuclear power plants. As Germany is a very large member of the European Union (EU) this turnaround could have consequences for other members. The EU Energy Commissioner already announced a stress tests for all nuclear power plants in Europe and a re-evaluation of risks like earthquakes, floods or terrorist attacks.

6.3. The position of eastern Europe on the example of Poland


Poland possess no nuclear power plant until now. They use coal as energy source. 2020 Poland wants to produce own current with an own nuclear power plant. For that purpose they have to transact their nuclear program efficient. The second nuclear power plant should be finished until 2030. These two nuclear power plant together should provide a capacity of 6000 MW. The advantages for Poland are the current-independency of Russia, the increase in energy security and the reduce of CO2-emission.

18 http://www.agenda21-treffpunkt.de/lexikon/atomausstieg.htm 19

http://www.faz.net/-01r1dd 20 http://www.co2-handel.de/article185_15742.html

13


Poland has no party against nuclear power plant because they have no power plant until now. Because of that reason, it is not surprisingly that there is no discussion about nuclear power plants after the disaster of Fukushima. Additionally, Poland is encircled with countries which work with nuclear energy as well, for example Ukraine, or which discussed the entrance in the market of nuclear energy. For example Russia build a new power plant at the moment and will install another one near the frontier of Poland. The state sees no danger for a power plant because the plant will not be built in an earthquake zone. This is another reason why Poland wants to hold on nuclear power plants.

6.4. The position of Switzerland


Actually, there are five nuclear power plants in Switzerland namely Beznau 1 and 2, Gösgen, Leibstadt and Mühleberg. These power plants are all approximately 30 years old. As mention above in the section „4. The nuclear power plant in comparison with other energy supplier“, in the Swiss current mix nuclear power plants have a fraction of 40%. Switzerland has one big problem: the use of current increase while the production of current decrease. The reasons for the increase of the current use are growth of population, increase in preferred comfort and the substitution of fossil fuels with current. The reasons for the decrease in the production of current are the final disposal of older nuclear power plants and the soon end of import contracts with foreign countries for current. To prevent such current bottlenecks a valorization of renewable energies, a balanced foreign policy for current and new power plants are needed. This is the energy policy of Switzerland.


Switzerland stopped three processes of new nuclear power plants after the catastrophe of Fukushima. In long-term, Switzerland wants to use nuclear energy for current supply furthermore. To step out from nuclear energy without any alternatives would be irresponsible and connected with dramatic outcome for economy and society. However, the government call for a deep analysis about earthquake security and cooling of reactors. If there would be defects, the power plant had to be backfitted. Additionally, methods for approval for projects of renewable energy should be simplified. Solar equipment of the private roofs shouldn’t be a subject to approval anymore. As another reaction of Fukushima, three gas power plants are propagated for the year 2020.

21 http://www.kas.de/polen/de/publications/22326/

22 http://www.kkn-ag.ch/Positionen-7-10-1_de.html

23 Auszüge aus der Medienmitteilung des Bundes vom 21. Februar 2007

24 http://www.faz.net/-01r1d5

14

6.5. The position of Japan 25


30% of the total current use in Japan are made from nuclear power plants. Because of this, Japan is worldwide the third biggest producer of nuclear energy. Japan possess 17 nuclear power plants which deliver current at the moment. One reactor is in production. A change of the nuclear energy policy of Japan wasn’t a option even they had earthquakes repeatedly and the safety of the nuclear power plants were questioned. Instead of a change in nuclear policy, the government demanded only on better security arrangements. These security arrangements came up, because it was obvious that the power plants are not made for heavy earthquakes. Previous earthquakes showed this fact. Additionally, the saved costs and work dilettantely so that they formed different hazards. The government should make inspections but they failed. The government wants to design a model where private companies makes private controles. But they forgot, that TEPCO probably wants to get more profit instead of safety.


The governmental inspections of nuclear industry were not upgraded despite previous disasters. The government interfered as recently as it came to heavy incidents. Because of this, the government was overburdened with the Super-GAU of Fukushima. Citizen accuse government of doing bad information policy and the government sent this reproval up to TEPCO. Government interventioned sooner or later and called for zones of evacuations. Additionally, they made a crisis management group which should work together with TEPCO. They appointed television transmitter to caution the citizen about the risk of radiation and advices for protection against radiation. The radiation reached in different places different values. Japanese media reported that a measurement of radiation in reactor two gave a value of more than 1‘000 Millisievert per hour. In comparison, values of radiation of 400 Millisievert would exceed the annual exposure to radiation about 400. The following picture shows which value of Millisievert has consequences for humans.

25 http://www.verivox.de/nachrichten/trotz-wiederholter-akw-pannen-haelt-japan-an-seiner-atompolitik-fest-von-lars-nicolaysen-dpa-mit-bild-vom-167-19370.aspx 26 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kernkraftwerke#Japan

27 http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/0,1518,751162,00.html 28 http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/kernschmelze-bestaetigt-strahlungswerte-extrem/3995164.html

15

Bild 6: Values of Millisievert which has consequences.

The future nuclear policy of Japan is unclear. First, the country has to deal with the extent of the earthquake, of the tsunami and the nuclear catastrophe before they can think about the Japanese nuclear respectively energy policy.

7. Conclusion2930

Fukushima changed the world. Until now, the idea was that nuclear power plants are quiet save and statistically very unlikely that a GAU happen. Now we know it better. The question still remains if this knowing better change something. Supporter of nuclear energy have the idea, that renewable energy cannot produce as much current as a nuclear power plant. The opposition of nuclear power plants are sure, that renewable energies can replace nuclear power plants if the citizens save current. The best alternative is a current mix which is made of two thirds of wind energy. For wind fluctuations hydro and biomass power plants produce extra current. The future will show if the supporter or the opposition of nuclear power plants will impact on the market of energy and will have the right strategy.

29 http://www.vimentis.ch/d/publikation/209/Atomenergie+in+der+Schweiz.html 30 http://www.fr-online.de/wissenschaft/das-elektrische-internet/-/1472788/3206214/-

/index.html

Documents

Nuclear Power Plants - Always actual and mostly controversial1 Nuclear Power Plants - Always actual and mostly controversial Nuclear power plants in comparison to other daily used