Response: Climate change could spell the end for nuclear power, not vice versa: The nuclear industry can offer no guarantee against a repeat of Japan's disaster, says Natalie Kopytko

• Published in: The Guardian (London)
• Main Author: Natalie Kopytko i
• Format: Newspaper Article
• Language: English
• Published: London (UK) Guardian News & Media Limited 18.03.2011
• Subjects: Glover, Julian
• ISSN: 0261-3077

Julian Glover says of the Fukushima crisis: "This accident may prove nothing but could signify everything: the illogical fear that the nuclear genie can never be controlled" (The world's nuclear fate rests in Japan, 14 March). I carried out a research project that examined how extreme climatic events impact nuclear power plants. Glover, like many other supporters, claims nuclear power can help our fight against climate change: "Without more nuclear plants there is no chance of this country ridding itself of fossil fuels." But I wonder how nuclear power would handle a changing climate. As a result of my research, I hold my breath every time a hurricane approaches a nuclear power plant. Chernobyl was blamed on the Soviets and the design of their reactors. Fukushima will be blamed on the sheer scale of the disaster and perhaps the design too. The nuclear industry will address the design issues in some patchwork way and then reassure us that everything will be fine. They'll also claim that new reactors will be safer than the older models at Fukushima: Glover himself says engineers are not "making it up when they say modern designs are better".