Turkey should abandon its nuclear energy adventure
by Ali Yurttagül*

A similar debate had erupted after the Chernobyl disaster. But in order to prevent the Chernobyl disaster from becoming a disaster for the energy sector, the nuclear energy lobby argued that the underlying cause of the problem was not “security” but the “backward technology” of the Russians and said a disaster like that would not happen in the more developed West.

This defense strategy failed with the recent developments in Japan, one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, revealing the risk and danger involved with nuclear power plants once again.

When we look at the debates in Germany, which has cutting edge technology in this sector as well, we see a growing concern about the possibility of a similar disaster occurring in Germany. In the wake of the disaster, Germany not only decided to impose a three-month moratorium on nuclear plans to discuss nuclear energy issues but also agreed to shut down seven old reactors and stop using this risky technology as soon as possible. At the basis of this decision is not the fear of an earthquake but the belief that other natural disasters or human factor risks can cause a similar disaster.

If Germany is abandoning this nuclear technology even though it has spent billions of dollars on it, then it means the time has come for Turkey, which has signed deals for the construction of nuclear power plants, to discard its plans. The power plants to be built in Akkuyu and Sinop are located in coastal areas just like the plants in Japan, sparking concern that a similar disaster can happen in Turkey.

What makes the issue more serious is that both these regions are located on fault lines, again just like the plants in Japan. After explaining that aside from earthquake risks in Turkey, this technology is not only dangerous but also expensive and unclean, I would like to discuss why Turkey should stop continuing its mistake and then underline how staying away from nuclear technology provides an opportunity both in terms of safety and Turkey’s foreign policy.

I can almost hear some columnists, politicians and “scientists” arguing that an earthquake as big as the one in Japan will not happen in Turkey. I suppose there is no need to point out that an argument like this is not only disrespectful to nature and, for those who believe, to God, but is also charlatanism from the perspective of science. A closer look at Turkey’s recent past is enough to understand the magnitude of earthquakes in this country.

An earthquake is a “measurable” phenomenon that is still filled with scientific mysteries. The tsunami part of the incident is a disaster in and of itself. It is the outcome of the earthquake that triggered the nuclear disaster. The claim that a similar disaster is not possible in Turkey lacks seriousness and responsibility. Japan, which is without a doubt one of the most experienced countries in dealing with earthquakes, had planned its nuclear power plants according to the possibility of an 8.3 magnitude earthquake. But the recent earthquake had a magnitude of nine and now Japan is trying to grapple with the risks posed by the Fukushima 1, Fukushima 2, Onagawa and Tokai power plants.

‘Like Doomsday’

The term “apocalypse,” which EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger used to describe the scale of the ongoing nuclear disaster, after which his press spokesperson tried to play it down in order to calm the markets, is a term that properly reflects the size of the disaster from two perspectives. This term reveals the destruction and pain an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster can cause and it shows how lonely and vulnerable people are against nature. At the time I was writing this article, the cooling system had failed at four reactors and helicopters were dumping water over the reactors as if trying to put out a forest fire. At this point, people are helpless and engineers have no other option but to pray.

We don’t know if this disaster will be as big as the Chernobyl disaster. But even in the best-case scenario, the area within 30 kilometers of the plant has become contaminated and is no longer inhabitable. There’s nothing we can do other than pray that this disaster stays within those 30 kilometers. In Europe and the world there are two different attitudes about the disaster and nuclear energy and its risk. The first of these attitudes is prevalent in Western Europe and America, where democracy is practiced. This attitude centers in on the fears and concerns of the public, tries to understand the phenomena of earthquakes and tsunamis and examines the risks these phenomena create for nuclear power plants. Not every country is debating the issue as radically as Germany. But all countries where nuclear energy is the main source of energy are discussing nuclear energy and its potential risks.

When we take a closer look at debates, we see that this inquiry is not exactly new, but rather started after the Harrisburg disaster in America in 1979 and gained ground after Chernobyl. Despite the subsidy policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations, the last time a nuclear power plant was opened in the US was in 1973 and, despite government incentives, not a single dollar was transferred to nuclear technology from the billion dollars worth of energy investments.

The reason the energy sector in the US has been reluctant to invest in nuclear technology is not due to environmental concerns like in Germany. The sector in America, which has the most advanced nuclear technology, prefers to stay away from nuclear power plants due to very rational grounds. Nuclear energy is not just expensive, it is a polluting and risky energy type; in other words, it is not economical. This is not just the US’s attitude, but the attitude of all Western countries. It is just a matter of time before the West completely abandons this technology, which it no longer invests in. Even in France, where has the strongest nuclear energy lobby, constructions have not been under way for several years and new projects are not being introduced.

But the signs from China and Russia are quite worrisome. The political leaders of these countries do not even feel the need to investigate the risks of nuclear energy, let alone try to understand the causes and effects of the ongoing disaster. While this attitude does not mean debates similar to those in the West are not being held in these countries, it does shed light on two aspects of the issue. Russia and China own close to 90 percent of nuclear power plants being constructed around the world. If political leaders start questioning nuclear energy, they will be opening their weaknesses and mistakes up to debate. But neither China nor Russia has that kind of culture.

What is even more serious is that these countries lack a democratic mechanism and public opinion that can force political leaders to rectify their mistakes. If these countries don’t feel the need to debate how the danger and risks posed by nuclear power plants are incomparable to the ordinary risks involved with a plane or train crash and have the scope to affect future generations even after the disaster in Japan, then the problem does not arise from a lack of intelligence but rather a lack of respect for human life and nature. It is upsetting that a similar discourse is under way in Turkey. We don’t know how the energy minister can claim that the power plant planned to be constructed in Akkuyu does not have any risks when he hasn’t yet fully understood the scale of the recent earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crises. I suppose the basis for his claim is the confidence he has in Russian technology or the “assurance” he has given Russia. A similar disaster can happen in the power plant to be built in Akkuyu. Akkuyu is located on the fault line that is the breaking point of the Africa and Anatolia-Asia plates and in a region where some of the worst earthquakes have occurred.

There are reports that one of the deadliest earthquakes in time occurred in Antioch, which is very close to Akkuyu and is located in a region with two fault lines, sometime between May 20 and 29, 526. According to various sources, 250,000 to 300,000 people died in that earthquake. If we consider that the world population was between 200 million and 300 million at the time, it gives us an idea about the intensity of the earthquake. These figures may seem inflated, but such high figures have never been reported for any other earthquake in chronicles, which gives us some insight into the scale of the disaster.

Traces of this earthquake, which caused damaged in Mardin, located hundreds of kilometers away, can be seen in the Daru Zafaran Monastery. A potential earthquake or tsunami on the coasts of Hatay could cause a disaster in Akkuyu and the region [1]. The time has come to question the main reasons for nuclear energy investments in Turkey.

Defending nuclear power

The nuclear energy lobby in Turkey had all up until the last tender been defending nuclear power plants for three reasons. These reasons were “energy independence,” “cheap energy” and “technology transfer.” But ever since the last “tender,” no one has been talking about a decline in dependence on Russia and other foreign countries or “cheap” energy. In fact, not only is Turkey still dependent on Gazprom, it is now going to be dependent on Rosatom as well.

I don’t think I need to point out that Russia is hoping to obtain political, not economic, gains with the nuclear power plants that it is trying to sell to Turkey by offering loans and that Russian technology is not the most advanced or safest. It’s no coincidence that no other company other than Rosatom took part in the bid, as nuclear energy is not something cheap. If the Turkish “state” is still investing in this sector even though it is dangerous, dirty and expensive, it must be because of the third reason -- namely, “technology transfer,” and because of the “strategic importance” of this technology. But when we look at this aspect of the issue, we see a major mistake in the political reasoning.

Turkey should not cast a shadow on its new peace-oriented foreign policy, which it is implementing successfully, and should avoid joining the “nuclear armament” process that started with Iran’s nuclear journey and has pushed other Arab states to invest in nuclear fields. It is difficult for Turkey to explain that it wants nuclear technology transfer solely for energy-based reasons, even if it did, it would not be convincing. A second and more important issue is that Turkey should stand against this technology in order to get rid of old nuclear plants in its neighbors like Bulgaria and Armenia and should force these countries to close these plants with their own means and through the EU and the US. This kind of pressure can be possible and persuasive only if Turkey abandons its own nuclear program. These power plants are like ticking bombs and pose a danger for Turkey.

Surely Bülent Ecevit’s last minute decision to not continue with the nuclear program is going to be written in his good deeds book. Even if the “state” were to put pressure on this topic, the decision maker is Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Then again, Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu is just as responsible since he agrees with the prime minister and supports Turkey’s nuclear adventure. But history will hold Erdoğan accountable for potential nuclear energy disasters.

Perhaps a lesson from the disaster in Japan or a “divine” message will make the prime minister, who appears to be very responsive politically, abandon this adventure. Nuclear technology has helped people get to the core of the matter, but it hasn’t helped them get to the “soul” of the matter. The secret to nature and life is not hidden in the core of the matter, but in the balance of nature. By using nuclear technology, human beings threaten this natural balance like a child playing with fire. The most important lesson we should take from the disaster in Japan is the need to stay away from the dangerous, dirty and expensive nuclear energy adventure and to invest in alternative energy technologies.

[1] Mohamed Reda Sbeinati et al, “The historical earthquakes of Syria: an analysis of large and moderate earthquakes from 1365 B.C. to 1900 A.D.,” Annals of Geophysics, Vol. 48 3, June 2005.

*Ali Yurttagül is a political advisor for the Greens in the European Parliament.