Viewing the Future of Nuclear Power Plants Following the 2011 Disaster in Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant


Concerning the increasing global energy demand, the current paper considers nuclear energy as a solution. Within this context, the 2011 disaster in Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant and, particularly, the technical disorders in boiling water reactors are explained. The deficiency of safety technique in boiling water reactors is explained. The deficiencies in safety procedure of this type of reactors manifested during 2011 earthquake and subsequent tsunami are explained. To complete the discussion, the newer technologies of reactors enabling them to act more safely during natural disasters are introduced. These investigations indicate that despite improvement in the fission reactor technologies, the danger embedded in them still remains. Therefore, the nuclear fusion using Deuterium-Tritium reaction is the best way forward for energy production in the future, and the best candidate of this type of reactors is Tokamak.

Share and Cite:

Goudarzi, S. , Dadgarnejad, F. and Babaee, H. (2015) Viewing the Future of Nuclear Power Plants Following the 2011 Disaster in Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 5, 220-225. doi: 10.4236/ojapps.2015.55022.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] McCracken, G. and Stott, P. (2005) Fusion: The Energy of Universe. Elsevier Academic Press, Massachusetts.
[2] World Energy Council (2006) Energy Policy Scenarios to 2050. World Energy Council, London.
[3] Jriedberg, J. (2007) Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[4] Ten Hoeve, J.E. and Jakobson, M.Z. (2012) World Wide Health Effects of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident. Energy & Environmental Science, 5, 8743-8757.
[5] Ryan, M.E. (2001) The Tokaimura Nuclear Accident: A Tragedy of Human Errors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31, 42-48.
[6] Mould, R.F. (2006) Chernobyl Records: The Definitive History of the Chernobyl Catastrophe. Taylor & Francis, London.
[7] Gudikson, P.H., Harvey, T.F. and Lange, R. (1989) Chernobyl Source Term, Atmospheric Dispersion and Dose Estimation. Health Physics, 57, 697-706.
[8] Stone, R. (2001) Living in the Shadow of Chernobyl. Science, 292, 420-426.
[9] Simon, A.P. and Wilson, H. (1986) Tracking the Cloud from Chernobyl. Journal of New Science, 1517, 42-45.
[10] Ayoma, M., Hirosa, K., Susuki, Y., Inoke, H. and Sugimera, Y. (1988) High Level Radioactive Nuclides in Japan. Nature, 321, 819-820.
[11] Cember, H. (1983) Introduction to Health Physics. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
[12] International Atomic Energy Agency (2003) The Chernobyl Forum. IAEA, Vienna.
[13] Socor, V. (2014) Rosatom Lands Nuclear Energy Project in Hungary by Western Default. Eurasia Daily Monitor, 11, 25.
[14] Simons, A. and Bauer, C. (2012) Life Cycle Assessment of the European Pressurized Reactor and the Influence of Different Fuelcycle Strategies. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 226, 427-444.
[15] Rahim, F.C., Rahgoshay, M. and Mousavian, S.K. (2012) A Study of Large Break LOCA in the AP1000 Reactor Containment. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 54, 132-137.
[16] Wesson, J. (2006) The Science of Jet. 2nd Edition, JET Joint Undertaking, Abingdon.
[17] Niu, K. (1989) Nuclear Fusion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[18] Miyamoto, K. (2004) Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.
[19] Wesson, J. (2003) Tokamaks. 3rd Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
[20] Ariola, M. and Oironty, A. (2008) Magnetic Control of Tokamak Plasmas. Springer, Berlin.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.