Energy in Crisis: The fallout from Fukushima

The fallout of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster, although occurring more than a decade ago, highlights the interplay of geopolitics and energy, with the latter often wielded to advance the former.

2011 earthquake

On 11 March 2011, a powerful 9.0 magnitude earthquake hit Japan, with its epicentre approximately 130 km east of Sendai, located in Miyagi prefecture.

This seismic event triggered a devastating tsunami that severely damaged the backup generators at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

The loss of electrical power led to the failure of the cooling systems in the plant’s reactors, resulting in the release of harmful radiation.

It was not until December 2011 that the facility was finally declared stable after successfully achieving a cold shutdown of the reactors.

Post-disaster nuclear water treatment

Following the disaster, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) continually pumped the plant with water to cool down the fuel rods in the reactors. This ongoing effort has resulted in the production of a substantial volume of contaminated water, which is now stored in over 1,000 tanks.

To address this issue, Japan has implemented a disposal strategy involving the filtration of contaminated water to remove isotopes, leaving only tritium behind. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that is difficult to separate from water.

As part of the treatment, TEPCO then dilutes the water until tritium levels fall below established regulatory limits before safely releasing it into the ocean from a coastal site.

In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that the tritium concentration in the water discharged was far below the operational limit of 1,500 becquerels per litre, and that limit is six times less than the World Health Organisation’s limit for drinking water, which is at 10,000 becquerels per litre.

Importantly, the practice of releasing water containing tritium is a routine procedure employed by nuclear plants worldwide. Regulatory authorities, including the IAEA, endorse this method as an appropriate and responsible approach to managing the Fukushima water situation.

Between now and March 2024, there are four scheduled releases, with the first having taken place on 24 August, however, the entire process is expected to take at least 30 years.

China response

Despite the above safety measures, the move has caused regional upset, with one of the biggest vocal opponents being China. In response to the water release, China banned Japanese seafood, citing the water release as an “extremely selfish and irresponsible act”.

The ban is expected to cause significant economic damage, given that Mainland China and Hong Kong together import more than USD1.1bn of seafood from Japan every year, which makes up nearly half of Japan’s seafood exports. As of 19 September, the ban has already taken its toll, with a 67% drop recorded in China’s seafood imports from Japan since the last month.

In addition to the ban, over 400,000 nuisance calls have been made to the Japanese Embassy in Beijing since the release of the treated water, as reported by Japanese government sources. Japan has repeatedly requested that the Chinese government deal with the calls, saying they impede operations at the embassy, but the situation has yet to improve.

In most cases, callers harshly criticised Japan over the Fukushima water release or remained silent. Some calls of a threatening nature have also been made to the embassy.

Chinese surveillance against Japanese nationals, specifically those involved in the water discharge negotiations has also been stepped up, following a revised counterespionage law that took effect in July this year, broadening the scope of what constitutes spying under Chinese law.

Outside the ban, the above methods align with the Chinese government’s typical tactics of harassment and intimidation, as evidenced in previous instances involving Hong Kong protest participants and Uyghurs residing overseas.

More than just safety concerns, China’s stern reaction should be viewed within the broader context of a deteriorating relationship between China and Japan. This deterioration is particularly pronounced as Japan strengthens its ties with the United States and expresses support for Taiwan, both of which have likely driven China’s harsh response.

Nonetheless, it is anticipated that the ban will be short-lived, as China’s mounting economic challenges hinder the longevity of trade restrictions, particularly as China wants to limit the negative impact on Chinese importers and business sentiment.

Other regional responses

China is not the only opponent of the water discharge, and as the below ocean currents map shows, several countries may be affected by the water release.

Both North and South Korea have criticised the decision, with protests even taking place in South Korea, when protesters attempted to storm the Japanese embassy. North Korea has also warned that Japan will be held accountable for an “unforgivable crime against humanity,” despite North Korea’s own questionable nuclear safety history.

This was exemplified in 2017 when documents related to the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste in the waters near Taiwan in the 1990s were declassified, revealing that the Italian arms dealer Giorgio Comerio exchanged 200,000 barrels of North Korean nuclear waste for USD230 million.

Irrespective of their own past, it is clear both nations are unhappy with this decision. Considering North Korea’s history of conducting provocative missile tests, especially in the Sea of Japan, it is feasible that they may increase these tests to antagonise Japan.

While Japan has implemented multiple safety measures for the water discharge, the real consequences, if any, of this undertaking will only become apparent over the course of many years. This decision raises legitimate environmental and safety concerns, while also serving as a tool in the diplomatic strategies of various countries in their relations with Japan, as exemplified by the actions of China.

‍

Each week, our Threat Intelligence team will be analysing a different energy industry as part of our Energy in Crisis series (including Oil, Gas, Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric and more). Follow us here or on LinkedIn to stay up-to-date with the latest analysis.