Chernobyl 25th Anniversary

An aerial view of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in April, 1986, with the red glow towards the center showing the heat from Unit #4. Source: epa.gov

The Chernobyl Disaster was a nuclear accident which occurred on April 26, 1986. It occurred in the Ukraine Republic (formerly part of the former USSR (Soviet Union)). Now the Chernobyl site is part of the country Ukraine. Today marks the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster.

It is particularly compelling to consider the impacts of Chernobyl today, twenty-fives years later, as we witness the unfolding of another nuclear disaster at Fukushima, Japan, following the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011. The two disasters arose from different circumstances and unfolded differently, however they share in common the impact of a low probability-high risk event.

They are set apart in both time and space, one occurring in vastness of the then-Soviet Union; the other set on the more densely populated island of Japan. The Chernobyl Disaster and the Fukushima disasters were both were graded as a 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale. (Fukushima was raised from a 5 to a 7 on April 12, 2011, one month and a day following the earthquake and tsunami on March 11th).

How do we fathom such events as we seek to understand the risks of pursuing nuclear energy? How do we internalize these low probability-high risk events so that we carefully assess risks yet do not fall prey to unwarranted fears and suspicions? Do we hide our heads in the sands of improbability and ignore the potential of a very small yet very dangerous risk? Do we pour millions and billions of dollars to hedge against a risk that may never, in our lifetime occur? Do we even care about the impact of our decisions on those ancestors who may follow us many generations down the turnpike?

It is critical how we answer these questions, because our fate and the fate of our planet may hang in the balance. With the burgeoning population on this planet, the growing scarcity of resources, and the challenges presented by rising carbon dioxide levels, and other indications of planetary strain, we must find a way to make informed decisions that appropriately incorporate the low probability/high risk event in our search for and use of energy resources.

In my last blog posting, Emperor Penguin Energy-Risk Model - Part 2 , I discussed mathematical modeling, random variables and evolved a stochastic model of emperor penguin energy-risk behavior. I discussed some of the variables that may be considered in the emerging emperor penguin population, including mortality, morbidity and accident. I introduced the concept of a low probability event into the model (an eruption of an Antarctic volcano), and discussed the values of the stochastic process in informing results. The post was intended to discuss energy seeking behavior in a different (emperor penguin) population as an energy seeking risk example using stochastic modeling.

In my last post I stated “The objective of the stochastic processes is to help us inform our decision making process, to help us understand the impact of variables under a wide range of assumptions, conditions, and scenarios. Thus a stochastic process should inform us about the expectations of the model under a wide variety of conditions, including the impacts of low probability / high risk events.”

However, a stochastic process cannot inform without reasonable assumptions. Assumptions must be developed to allow the stochastic process to produce a credible range of results that will indeed be informative for the intended usages. There are many variables to consider, and assumptions to be made in analyzing risk. For a variety of reasons it may be difficult to obtain a robust set of assumptions that everyone agrees with for all potential uses.

Energy Choices and Risk

Japan’s March 11, 2011 Tohoku 9.0 earthquake, ensuing tsunami and nuclear incident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant have reminded us all that nuclear plants are subject to risk. This should be no surprise, as all sources of energy are subject to some degree of risk. In fact, just about everything in life has some degree of risk attached to it. However, nuclear plants, with their added radioactivity risk, present a considerable challenge in managing the lower probability, higher impact events.

We face global, environmental challenges in managing climate change issues. These climate change issues affect both micro-climates and have a planet-wide impact. In order to meet these considerable challenges, nuclear energy must be a part of the solution along with other energy options. We must seek to understand and mitigate risks facing nuclear plants as we go forward to solve the larger planet-wide problem which affects us all.

It has been almost 25 years since the April 26, 1986 nuclear incident at Chernobyl, in the Ukraine. That incident was ranked at “7” on the International Event Scale. The Three Mile Island Accident, beginning on March 28, 1979 ranked as a “5”. That incident, occurring exactly 32 years ago, took place at the Three Mile Island Plant in Middletown, Pennsylvania. The Fukushima Nuclear Accidents have so far been ranked as high as a “5”, and the situation has not yet been resolved .

In the midst of the efforts to bring the Fukushima Reactors under control, there have been calls to reexamine the safety of nuclear power plants. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called for a meeting before the summer to discuss an assessment of the Fukushima accident, lessons to be learned, strengthened safety measures and strengthened responses to future incidents.

As the Japanese workers worked on the reactor, rating agencies Moody’s Japan K.K. and Standard and Poors downgraded Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco’s) long term debt. Moody’s indicated that it saw risk in GE’s nuclear business, although it did not downgrade GE, which contributes 1% of GE’s annual $100 billion revenue. GE was the designer of the Fukushima nuclear power plants., and the supplier of reactors 1,2 and 6.

At the same time, ongoing issues regarding the storage of the nation’s nuclear waste are unfolding. This waste includes waste from commercial nuclear plants and military/defense waste products. The waste is stored in a variety of locations, ranging from storage on site to storage at the Hanford Site, in Washington State, where two-thirds of the nation’s high-level radioactive waste is stored. The storage issues are complex, involving the removal of the nation’s only designated nuclear waste repository from consideration, and related litigation by states (Washington and South Carolina) and regulators (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners).

We should develop an energy strategy that optimizes the risk profiles of the various types of power generation (including nuclear). This strategy should be science-based, above politics, in the interest of the nation (and world) as a whole, reflecting our responsibilities to the environment both in theory and in practice, and appropriately reflecting risks in pricing decisions.