Nuke ‘em? (11)

By Stewart Johnson
Published: 06.05.2011 10:00

Photo: AFP / US Archives / Scanpix

See Also

Estonia is discussing a nuclear reactor. But are they capable of properly building one?

Today in Tartu I took a stroll down the promenade along the Emajõgi River and noticed a new structure—rather tall, sleek and modern—that indicates how high the water level is. This water meter forces its user to look up, and not down, to see what is already in front of their eyes. Closer inspection reveals that the shiny panels are already loose (it was erected only a few months ago), the pedestal has exposed Styrofoam padding and its border is held together with duct tape.

Surely the money I have paid in taxes over the past twelve years could be put to better use. I understand the government’s need to economize while conducting a procurement, but I would like to know if there is a line that can be crossed—any line really, even a shady buffer zone—in terms of what is and isn’t acceptable quality in the construction industry.

I would consider myself a reluctant fan of nuclear energy. Atomic power on paper is perfect. There is no obstacle that cannot be overcome in the design stage. Earthquakes and tsunamis can be accounted for (the Japanese reactors in question both survived these catastrophes), but not human error. The problem in Japan is a result of inadequate protection of the backup cooling generators, which were destroyed by the tsunami because of a design flaw: they were outside and relatively unprotected in a region prone to powerful flooding.

Maintenance of the Japanese plant is also an issue. Government inspectors repeatedly issued warnings regarding the safety flaw with the backup generators. Nothing happened. After the tripartite disaster in that country, it became evident that the owner of the Fukushima Daiichi plant—the Tokyo Electric Power Company—had routinely falsified safety reports and covered up near mishaps in their various nuclear facilities.

Japan has one of the best worldwide reputations for innovation and quality. Higher than Germany or any other country in the European Union, including Estonia. And as Anne Applebaum asked in Slate, “If the Japanese can’t build a completely safe nuclear plant, who can?”

Estonia now wants to build a nuclear plant. There are no natural disasters here that I can think of. Occasional flooding and semi-strong winds can be easily overcome with foresight. And if the unthinkable does happen? Nuclear technology has greatly advanced since its inception. There are smaller reactors specifically designed not to go into meltdown in the event of a thousandfold spike in output. The fissile material used today has a much shorter half-life, meaning contamination won’t last as long, and feasibly wouldn’t happen at all with continuing technological advancement.

But these new technologies are expensive. Nuclear energy is only truly safe if every effort is expended to prevent disaster. There can be no cost-cutting. There can be no economization on construction. There can be no Makroflex foam to fill in the gaps.

Human fallibility is a certainty and will thus forever leave doubt in my mind—and it should in yours, too. The only thing we can really do is make less dangerous decisions. Oil shale for electricity is one of the nastiest, dirtiest sources of carbon dioxide pollution known. Obviously this has to be changed. Even if cleaner production technologies for oil shale are developed, the destructive effects of mining it on Estonian soil remain unavoidable. But is going nuclear really in Estonia’s best interests? My concern is what is not even perfect on paper: people. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are perfect examples.

I don't want to be a fearmonger, but there are obvious questions the people of Estonia must ask themselves, and which would be applicable anywhere in the world. Is it worth the risk, despite the safety advances? Do they trust a member of parliament to make the right choice when the budget for the nuclear plant is exceeded and cuts need to be made? Does that politician know anything about what is necessary to shore up gamma radiation emitted by radioactive isotopes in nuclear waste? Can any politician be trusted to not siphon funding from the multi-billion-euro price tag for construction in order to pay off parking fines for their Mercedes-Benz E 350?

The Estonian government has a practice of buying the cheapest materials for jobs, including used machinery such as busses and trams. It probably would be a bad idea for the reactor to have a label that reads “Made in Ukraine.”

What resources does Estonia have at its disposal in the event of catastrophe? The most dangerous road in the EU—the Tallinn–Tartu highway—still remains so today. The government clearly is less than enthusiastic about public safety. And while Estonian universities are launching a nuclear-energy master’s program with mostly imported instructors from the Czech Republic and Hungary to teach in English, only a dozen or so students are expected to enroll. A typical nuclear facility requires hundreds of employees. Nukes cannot be the answer to unemployment. 

The “field houses” of the boom time, the Solaris Center and its collapsing roof, brand new roads that are covered in potholes before summer ends, the Freedom Monument, which it seems will never be free of defects—there is no indication that construction competence is improving. A better use for the money used to build Tartu’s river meter would have been a gauge measuring this construction competence. You can’t build a nuclear reactor containment building out of drywall, after all.


Stewart Johnson firmly believes all Estonians should have the continuing right to live… in Estonia.

Comments

For adding comments,enter the ERR website with your user name and password , or use the form below to comment without logging in.


Guidelines for commenting can be found here.

Comments (11)

  • Huxley

    06.05.2011 12:38

    Stanford's Atmosphere and Energy Program ran simulation models showing that a combination of wind, concentrated solar, geothermal, photovoltaics, tidal, wave and hydroelectric energy could more than meet all the planet's energy needs within 20-40 years IF we can get societal and political will to swing radically. Instead of investing in nuclear energy, build a supergrid, with long-distance transmission and efficient management, thus building a bigger renewable-energy infrastructure to match peak hourly demand and use the off-hours excess electricity to produce hydrogen for the industrial and transportation sectors. Combining them as one commodity and using hydroelectric to fill in gaps, 'base load' demand will be easily met. The German energy sector is already working towards this. Realizing a nuclear power plant is a decade-lasting, subsidy-ridden, regulatory nightmare, SINGLE project. Estonia has all the geographic features to support a small renewables revolution in the EU, through STEP by STEP, MULTIPLE PHASE implementation, fully taking their socio-economic limits into account.

  • Andrus P.

    06.05.2011 12:50

    Seeing that any major purchase or contract in this country is a multiyear thing, I doubt we can efficiently build a nuclear power station. I work as engineer in Finland and I have little faith in Estonia's building standards and building codes seeing how strict things are here in Finland. And in case of an accident, Estonian plant operators would probably just sit there thinking 'not my meltdown'.

  • bernard cleary

    06.05.2011 13:41

    The theme of "can't be trusted with nuclear power" is rather insulting. I don't buy the premise that because some construction is rushed or slipshod, they can't build a safe nuclear reactor.

  • moonstalker

    06.05.2011 14:07

    Indeed, that essay sounds like colonial paternalism of the worst kind - unless it was meant as a joke, of course, which is hard to tell in this case.

  • Kristel

    06.05.2011 14:15

    @ Bernard. The author was talking about trust with regards to politicians. I take it you trust Estonian politicians? Because that would be about as smart as the 'rushed or slipshod' construction of an Estonian nuclear power plant. It's not an insult if it's true.

  • Vabamees

    06.05.2011 14:16

    It's condesending yes, but writer has a point, is there any reason at all to believe Estonian government can safely erect the atomic reactor? Not based on anything what I have seen.

  • Kalevipoeg

    06.05.2011 14:31

    I also see colonial paternalism. But I think it would be impossible for a foreigner to make this point without sounding that way. An Estonian could possibly not make this point--he would be cast as a traitor. A foreigner making this point is a paternalistic colonist. But the author's question is a valid one.

  • Protivnik Naroda

    07.05.2011 01:33

    Looks like the Estonian sense of proportions has gone out the window as soon as they joined the EU and the Euro. Of note: the population of Estonia is no larger than that of Montreal. The territory of Estonia would fit a good DOZEN of times in the Great Lakes. ANY Great Lake, even the ones in Africa. First, count the amount of households that are still using FIREWOOD for heating and cooking. That means that many households that will need to be retro-fitted for electricity. Second, ask yourself whether these households have the revenue to retro-fit (or is the Government going to pay for that too?) Third, count the amount of people who are dying off, and-or leaving Estonia. That should give you the metrics to tell you whether you need nuclear power or not. OH! I forgot! This is Estonia! The home of subdued machism and testosterone-fuelled egotism. Well, *** THAT. Put the women in charge and lock up those bozos before they really hurt themselves or others.

  • avatar

    knut_albers

    09.05.2011 10:14

    "Nothing happened. After the tripartite disaster in that country, it became evident that the owner of the Fukushima Daiichi plant—the Tokyo Electric Power Company—had routinely falsified safety reports and covered up near mishaps in their various nuclear facilities." Typical of authoritarian knitted authorities is the sparse information to the public and the attempt to monopolize information, as we currently see it with such serious accidents as in Fukushima. However, a favorite topos of both the local nuclear power lobby as well as some former News Magazine is the so-called "German Angst." But in times of the Internet, information flows can be controlled only to a very limited extend and incomplete statements on the part of those responsible create fomenting distrust among people rather than to soothe them. This experience also face the Chinese authorities again and again at different topics. In any case, energy companies are less and less willing to approve of nuclear power. Tepco at least will hardly recover financially. And more money for less effort through less energy supply at increasing electricity prices (possbile by energy efficiency and so called "renewable energy") are more welcome by the shareholders anyway as they promise higher profits at less risk to such extends as we have it now in Fukushima.

  • no to atom!

    16.05.2011 10:40

    Enough, atom power is not a solution, it is a disaster in itself, say no to it and invest heavy to reasearch alternative technologies, even more into self sustained houses and not big grids.

  • Edvin

    02.06.2011 00:33

    Estonia could supply more than twice of its energy demand just by going all renewable. There is no need for nuclear, and even no need for oil shale if Estonia goes renewable. The nuclear power station would be a black hole for the Estonian budget, taking 70% of it, and draining all available funds for the development of renewables.