Special to The Asahi Shimbun
Special to The Asahi Shimbun
Nuclear power generation was long touted as safe, but it now threatens our very lives with the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
The Asahi Shimbun interviewed Hiroshi Komiyama, the chairman of the institute, the Mitsubishi Research Institute and former president of the University of Tokyo, about what questions the nuclear accident raises about the status of science and technology as well as how we should deal with science after the Great East Japan Earthquake and subsequent tsunami.
Excerpts of the interview follow:
* * *
Question: The government, electric power companies and experts have all said that nuclear power plants were "absolutely safe." What is your thoughts about that?
Answer: My wife told me, "You all said it was safe, but it was a lie, wasn't it?" I also feel that and wonder, "How did this happen?"
In a sense, I did believe the words of experts who said, "We have implemented many layers of safety measures." However, looking at the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, we realize that having two emergency generators does not mean there are two layers of safety measures.
If they had thought about the possibility of a tsunami, one should have been placed atop a hill and the other should have been made to use wind power and batteries. It can only be called multi-layered safety measures if the locations and types are varied.
I think it would have been better if there had been greater cooperation with people in other sectors of science and technology.
Q: What do you think are the reasons that prevented that from happening?
A: Scientists have become much too specialized and each individual scientist is like a needle. That trend is especially noticeable among experts in nuclear energy. They have built up walls not only against society, but also against scientists and engineers in different sectors to create a stone-walled "nuclear energy village."
I feel they have dug themselves into foxholes. I believe the weak points of such a system have been revealed through the latest accident.
Q: Why do you think a "nuclear energy village" was created?
A: People naturally tend to form groups. On top of that, because of the anti-nuclear movement, nuclear energy experts have gradually tended to close themselves off from experts and engineers in other fields. As society took a harsher view of them, they began to associate only among themselves. I believe that the current structure was an unavoidable result.
Q: You serve as an outside auditor for Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the Fukushima plant. From that standpoint, what are the things that concern you most now?
A: I have said the same thing to TEPCO. Don't become reclusive, but create a forum for discussions that can include specialists from nuclear energy basic science, nuclear engineering as well as fundamental engineering and ecosystems.
Q: What was their response?
A: I believe they listened to what I said as the general opinion of a former university professor. When things are going good, people do not think seriously. But, with the situation as it is, I believe they will seriously think about it from now. I believe people will grow amid those circumstances.
Q: Was there a nuclear energy village within TEPCO?
A: I did feel the existence of such a group. There was evidence of such characteristics. I pointed it out previously. They have to open up everything from now. I hope that after they make things more open, they will proceed in a direction of greater discussions with experts in other fields.
Specifying problems leads to solutions
Q: Nuclear power generation is a gigantic system that was created by the science and technology of the 20th century. While we have enjoyed major benefits of that science and technology, we now face a possible disaster from a nuclear power plant that was born out of that science and technology. What is your view about that development?
A: I am optimistic. Every item within science and technology has a light and a shadow. For example, the discovery of penicillin and its applications have saved countless lives. On the other hand, it has created a large number of bacteria resistant to antibodies. The question is whether humans can control such developments. Such issues are found constantly in science and technology.
Q: Can we use science to control a runaway development created by science? Is this not a sign of the limits to what science and technology can do?
A: I think it is still too early to reach a conclusion on that. Obviously, because of the effects of radiation, the latest accident is now in a very tough situation. But, I believe that no matter how difficult the situation, if the problem itself can be made clear and specific, we can find an answer. The more specific a problem has been made, humans and science have found solutions until now.
Q: But, some feel as though we have created a monster that we can no longer control.
A: There is no need to think like that. Although it will take time, I believe we can get this situation under control. Three weeks have passed since control rods were inserted in the reactor core so a major disaster has been avoided. The overall radiation level is also decreasing. Looking at the situation over the past few days, it appears the situation is settling down. There is absolutely no need to think about a monster that has gotten out of control.
Q: The Fukushima accident has occurred even though the world witnessed the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979 and the Chernobyl accident in the former Soviet Union in 1986. Can humans and science and technology prevent future nuclear accidents?
A: That is a difficult question. I cannot say that we will absolutely prevent an accident in the future. However, what might provide a point of reference is the 1986 explosion of the space shuttle Challenger. Seven people were killed and the shuttle project was suspended. NASA looked thoroughly for the cause of the accident. They broke the problem down into specifics and pursued the matter until they could no longer find any possible danger points. They put together measures to resolve the problems and shuttle flights were resumed. I hope that experience is used as a lesson.
The cause of the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant must be thoroughly pursued. We might even introduce an immunity system that would absolve anyone of criminal responsibility. Questions must be asked of when, where and how various decisions were made in the past to find out what went wrong. The lessons can only be passed on to the future if not only the process of dealing with the accident but also problems from the design stage are revealed.
Nuclear energy is only a 'bridge'
Q: Is there no alternative but to continue with nuclear energy development and nuclear power plants?
A: I believe nuclear energy will serve as an energy source until the middle of the 21st century. Basically, natural energy sources, such as solar power, are better. The sun provides us with energy that is about 10,000 times the amount consumed by mankind now. Nuclear energy is only a "bridge" until the commercialization of natural energy sources. I am very confident about this point.
I proposed a "Vision 2050" plan seeking a low-carbon society. What is most important is not a choice between fossil fuels or nuclear energy, but improving energy efficiency itself. While the goal for the plan is set for 2050, under the current circumstances, we may have to push forward the goal to 2030.
Q: Isn't it a fact that society and business also sought out nuclear energy?
A: That structure definitely exists. Contemporary society requires energy and it is better for capitalism if consumption increases.
When we think about the energy situations this summer, or if we think about the growing energy consumption in the newly emerging economies and developing nations, there will be a need for a specific "answer" to the question of what Japan does for energy.
We will not be able to survive if Japan alone has to bear an economic handicap. It will be difficult under the present circumstances to go without nuclear energy. It will not be realistic to stop all nuclear power plants in Japan. The only alternative will be to implement the maximum level of safety measures and continue with nuclear energy until we can put natural energy sources into practical use.
Q: With energy necessary and doubts being raised about nuclear energy, what specifically should we do?
A: This is what I would do if I were president of an electric power company. I would buy a large number of solar cells and install them on the roofs of homes and buildings. I have suggested this idea to electric power companies. The utility company would become one with a concentrated power generation system in addition to a dispersed generation system. It would not have to be very profitable as long as it did not record losses.
We would do everything possible, such as installing a large number of light-emitting diode (LED) light bulbs and installing two-pane windows in offices to improve heat insulation by any means possible. Speed is of the essence.
Q: Let us ask you once again. How should nuclear power development proceed?
A: Let us conduct thorough discussions about whether we should continue or not until everyone is satisfied. If the decision is then made to continue, let us continue. But if the decision is made to end such development, let us have the courage to end it.
This nation does not have sufficient discussion that starts from zero, nor that is conducted by mature adults and that is based on specific grounds. This is an excellent opportunity for such discussions. We have reached an agreement of sorts on global warming measures. We should now conduct a thorough discussion on whether we are serious about nuclear power plants and about continuing to use nuclear energy.
It would be most beneficial to Japan, I believe, if the process involves not just experts in nuclear energy but also specialists in other aspects of science and technology.
(This interview was conducted by Masaaki Tonedachi, a senior staff writer, and Satoshi Ozawa.)
* * *
Hiroshi Komiyama is chairman of the institute, the Mitsubishi Research Institute, and former president of the University of Tokyo. He specializes in chemical system engineering and geoenvironmental engineering. His published works include "Tei-tanso Shakai" (Low-carbon society).