Intuitively, the Fukushima disaster should have a major impact on the future of the nuclear industry. This paper argues that there are four possible answers to the question what will Fukushima change: everything because the nuclear industry cannot survive another Chernobyl; the impact will vary according to location; it is too early to determine the impact; and the nuclear industry was facing serious problems that Fukushima will do no more than exacerbate. We focus on the last answer, arguing that the new designs that were expected to be so attractive as to power a ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ were already failing. The promises that they would be safer, but simpler, therefore cheaper and more buildable were unachievable and the Renaissance in the West had already failed. If the nuclear industry is to have a future, it might be through a shift in locus from North America and Western Europe to China, Russia and India. However, it is not clear that these countries can avoid the techno-economic issues that have derailed the nuclear industry in the West. The prospect that the nuclear industry can be saved by a radical new generation of designs is a long way off and still a remote possibility.
[1]
Jose M. Barrutia,et al.
Nuclear power threats, public opposition and green electricity adoption: Effects of threat belief appraisal and fear arousal
,
2013
.
[2]
Bettina Wittneben,et al.
Nuclear energy in the European Union after Fukushima : political and economic considerations
,
2012
.
[3]
Alexandre Szklo,et al.
Will Venezuelan extra-heavy oil be a significant source of petroleum in the next decades?
,
2013
.
[4]
Larry Hughes,et al.
The policy responses to the Fukushima nuclear accident and their effect on Japanese energy security
,
2013
.
[5]
Zsuzsanna Csereklyei,et al.
Measuring the impact of nuclear accidents on energy policy
,
2013
.
[6]
Steve Thomas.
The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor: An obituary
,
2011
.
[7]
A. Verbruggen.
Belgian nuclear power life extension and fuss about nuclear rents
,
2013
.