Nuclear meltdown? What Fukushima suggests about future of atomic energy

Grief and sorrow accompanied the gray skies of Tohoku last Sunday morning as citizens and dignitaries throughout all of Japan commemorated the one year anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami, which devastated the country's northeast and triggered the most harrowing nuclear disaster since Chernobyl, 26 years ago.
In the wake of Japan's most disastrous catastrophe since World War II (the earthquake was one of the five strongest recorded in human history, and it shifted the Earth on its axis by about four inches), 16,000 people have been confirmed dead, and 300,000 survivors have been displaced, forced to become refugees with absolutely nothing but their tattered attires.
Unfortunately, however, the aftermath extends far beyond the number of casualties: Japan, one of the most energy-thirsty nations in the world, is now facing a rapidly diminishing source of energy - nuclear power. Since the mid-1900s, Japan has harnessed the peaceful use of nuclear technology to provide a reliable source of energy in the form of electricity. Prior to the disaster last year, 30 percent of Japan's electricity was produced by its own nuclear reactors, while 84 percent of its total energy needs were met by imports, mostly oil from the Middle East. When considering that Japan lacks the natural resources for its own energy production, it is unsurprising to find the country particularly vulnerable to even minute fluctuations in oil prices. And it's for this reason why energy self-sufficiency through the expansion of nuclear technology was a national strategic priority for Japan since 1973.
But that goal has been "under review" since last March when the Fukushima meltdown in Okuma staged a terrifying show to the world, with Japan, of course, in the front seat.
Located along the seaside coast of northeast Japan is a small town called Okuma, a once pleasant community of around 10,000 middle class residents, including engineers and technicians employed by the local nuclear power plant, Fukushima Daiichi.
Today, a 20-kilometer radius around the power plant (called the exclusion zone) prohibits entry into the barren, tsunami-leveled remains of what used to be Okuma. In accordance with officials' declaration that the population count of the town will remain zero for the next several decades, a satellite image of Okuma conjures movie-like scenes of a nuclear wasteland -uninhabitable, beyond salvation and perhaps teeming with mutated, unrecognizable life forms.
The fear of this disastrous scene reoccurring elsewhere is understandably great, but it has become the most significant threat to Japan's nuclear energy industry.
Since last March, Japan's nuclear industry has skidded to an abrupt halt. With all but two of the 54 commercial reactors being disabled since the disaster, it's somewhat irritating when reports understate the situation and declare the industry crippled; a better description would be "crushed."
Granted, the reactors will most likely be back online in the future, but when recognizing the fact that Japan is the only country to have fully suffered the destructive consequences of nuclear technology during war time, the irony becomes blatantly obvious. It explains why the Japanese government has already faced strong opposition from traumatized citizens. It explains why a majority of Japanese citizens oppose the restarting of the nuclear reactors. On a fundamental level, Japanese citizens have lost faith in nuclear power as a safe source of energy.
In a country where a tragic history with atomic power will be forever vivid, the technology to  harness nuclear energy will face ceaseless doubt. And especially now, with a serious commercial accident adding fuel to the fire of fear, nuclear energy will certainly not be welcomed until the Japanese government somehow convinces the public of its safety. I'm confident that this won't happen for a very long time - if ever.
Now with the summer season fast approaching, it's possible that Japan is in for an energy crisis. Though drastic conservation practices to minimize energy demands have been encouraged since the disaster first struck, the country still operated 19 nuclear plants last summer. With only two plants left now, Japan should immediately focus on searching for alternative sources of energy supply.
Importing oil is a given, but liquefied natural gas (LNG) seems like another viable alternative that's gaining more and more appeal. The United States has one of the world's largest natural gas reserves. Boasting advancements in shale gas extraction technologies and about a dozen LNG terminals, the U.S. could certainly supply Japan with the energy to at least get by this summer with minimal energy shortages.
Japan's problems aren't just confined to the archipelago, however; they've spread around the world. Today, eight of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors have been decommissioned, and Switzerland has taken a similar route by promising a slow phase-out of nuclear power. Both countries have set goals to eliminate nuclear power from their energy sources by 2022 and 2019, respectively.
Interestingly, however, the U.S. has expressed little hesitation in continuing its operation of reactors. Instead, a long litany of security measures has been proposed immediately following Fukushima. The tragedy that struck Japan has acted as a much needed wake up call for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the independent agency which governs nuclear safety in the U.S. with regulations backed by federal law. The United States should take this as an opportunity to improve existing safety measures and ensure a reliable source of energy from atomic technologies.
Shutting down American nuclear reactors and impeding the construction of additional ones, however, is an illogical and impractical solution to the nuclear energy scare.
As of today, there are no known casualties of the Fukushima disaster, which is hardly the case in the coal industry. For over a century, thousands - if not millions - of coal miners have died from accidents, lung disease and exposure to other hazardous byproducts of coal production. Other populations near coal mining sites too have been exposed to enormous health risks due to air pollutants and water contamination. The whole world, in fact, is at risk, because coal consumption spews greenhouse gas exhausts capable of accelerating global warming.
What's more, if we shut down our nuclear reactors, the cost of our rate of energy consumption would soar to an unimaginable level, shaking an already fragile economy.
So why is nuclear energy vilified?
Perhaps for the same reason that we demand infinite safety measures in air travel, yet we thoughtlessly accept the fact that thousands more die each year in automobile accidents than in air crashes.
Especially with the most recent reports declaring U.S. nuclear reactors safer than they were before and ready for even more improvements, it seems as though the measures imposed on the nuclear power industry have effectively brought reforms for better energy security and health safety for America's future.
France is evidence that nuclear energy can be safely used. 78.8 percent of its energy is produced by the uranium cores of its 56 nuclear reactors, providing the country with cheap, carbon dioxide-free energy. At the very least, France has been capable of providing a reliable source of energy without becoming a massive radiation wasteland like the exclusion zone encompassing Okuma.
The point here isn't that nuclear energy should become the dominant player in the U.S. energy mix like it is in France. But the U.S. should approach the Fukushima disaster prudently, using it as a chance to call for tightened oversight by the NRC and reformed safety measures in line with the latest technologies. This safe supply of nuclear energy can then be joined by an increasing supply of natural gas and advanced solar and wind energy technology. With these careful steps, U.S. dependence on fossil fuels will most likely diminish while its energy security increases.
This whole idealized process, though, will not occur overnight, but rather over a period of several decades.
Just as the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico didn't put an end oil drilling, the Fukushima disaster shouldn't become an impediment to the advancement of nuclear energy in the U.S.