Nothing new on the job front today, but I was taken by an article from the BBC talking about nuclear plans in Europe in view of the disaster in Japan, which is where I got my inspiration for today's blog.
In light of the catastrophic consequences of Japan's earthquake on Friday, many countries have considered a review of their own current or prospective nuclear plans. As Japan struggles to deal with the aftermath of an earthquake, tsunami and impending nuclear disaster, many European countries are now doubting whether nuclear energy is actually a smart idea. Yesterday Angela Merkel took the decision to shut down seven of Germany's nuclear plants over safety concerns and green campaigners are putting pressure on the UK government to reconsider the decision made last year to install 8 plants across the British Isles.
The question I propose is should Europe really reconsider its nuclear energy plans because of one natural disaster that happened thousands of miles away?
The unfolding events and increasingly likely nuclear disaster in Japan is devastating, and my heart goes out to the country that has already fallen victim to a nuclear catastrophe only 60 years earlier. However, Europe is not exposed to the danger of such extreme natural disasters as Japan. Japan lies well within the "Ring of Fire" and experiences hundreds of earthquakes each year. Europe isn't positioned on any borders of tectonic plates, so although we experience earthquakes, they aren't as intense.
France has been advocate of nuclear power for many years and it is currently the country's primary source of energy with over 50 plants. Although nuclear incidents have occurred in the country, these have not been severe enough for France to reconsider its nuclear strategy. So it raises the question, is nuclear energy really that bad?
When the words "nuclear power plant" are mentioned people immediately think "Chernobyl". The explosion of the nuclear reactor in 1986 caused devastating effects that we are still witnessing today, which is why the situation in Japan seems so grave. However, many of the deaths in this catastrophe could have been prevented if it wasn't for the secretive ways of the Soviet Union. The SU kept the explosion a secret for three days and it wasn't until scientists in Western Europe started to pick up heightened radiation that the Union had to come clean. The habitants of the surrounding towns weren't provided with any advice or precautions during those first three days and carried on as normal, leaving more time for radiation poisoning to kick in. The days of the Soviet Union are days of the past and I would hope that in the 21st century a situation like that would never occur within Europe. Similarly, the Japanese government has kept its public informed about radiation levels and sent out evacuation orders and advice to stay indoors.
Nuclear energy is a relatively new form of power so it is difficult to assess the long-term effects of a small leakage for example, as has been seen in France. However, relying on fossil fuels is not possible forever, and with vital oil reserves lying in tempestuous areas such as Libya and Iran, Europe is in need of finding another solution to its energy dependence. As has been seen in the last month the price of oil rocketed as a consequence of the unrest in Libya.
As we have seen the earthquake in Japan has not only affected one country, many other nationals are missing, and the consequences have sparked political debates around the globe. The question of nuclear power will indefinitely become a hot-topic in Britain again and has doubled the work-load of lobby groups, think tanks and PR agencies employed to promote nuclear energy. I guess it's just a case of watch this space.
6. Budget airlines. Spain in 2 hours, you couldn't even fly across half of Mexico in that time.
