In this blog post, we will examine whether we should continue to use nuclear power, focusing on its cost-effectiveness, safety, environmental impact, and policy issues.
Nuclear power has been used as a method of power generation that reduces fossil fuel consumption and contributes to a stable power supply. It is also regarded as helping to maintain stable electricity production costs due to the low proportion of fuel expenses. However, as demonstrated by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, concerns about the risks of nuclear power continue to be raised, given that a single major accident can result in immense damage and long-term consequences. In Hiroaki Koide’s ‘The Hidden Truth About Nuclear Power’, the author criticizes nuclear power, citing the negative environmental impacts of nuclear power plants and the government’s advocacy for expanding nuclear power for political purposes. Through this book, the author reexamines various assumptions we have long taken for granted and presents a new perspective on nuclear power. In particular, I agree with his argument that sufficient electricity can be supplied using other energy sources without relying on nuclear power. However, he did not sufficiently address the issue of economic viability as a basis for opposing nuclear power, nor did he delve deeply into the reality that, following the Fukushima disaster, many countries have reviewed their nuclear policies or pursued a phased reduction in nuclear power. To address these shortcomings, I reviewed three newspaper editorials, summarized their content, and examined the authors’ perspectives. I believe that the expansion of nuclear power must be approached with caution when considering not only economic factors but also political and social aspects; for this reason, I oppose the expansion of nuclear power.
It is difficult to conclusively state that nuclear power is more cost-effective than other forms of power generation when hidden costs are taken into account. Nuclear power plants incur enormous costs from the construction phase through operation and on to decommissioning after the end of their operational life, and the safe storage and management of spent nuclear fuel also entail long-term costs. Therefore, it is inappropriate to assess nuclear power as the most economical option based solely on a comparison of the cost per unit of electricity generated. To assess economic viability, one must consider not only the construction, operating, and fuel costs but also the costs across the entire life cycle, including decommissioning costs, radioactive waste management costs, and spent nuclear fuel management costs. The report “The Future of Nuclear Energy” by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) also emphasizes the need for a comprehensive economic assessment that includes these factors. Furthermore, the post-operation phase of nuclear power generation includes decommissioning costs, radioactive waste disposal costs, and nuclear fuel management costs, all of which tend to increase over time. When considering the entire process—from construction to operation to decommissioning—it is difficult to conclusively assert that nuclear power is necessarily the most economical form of power generation.
Furthermore, nuclear power has a significant environmental impact. While nuclear power plants are classified as low-carbon power sources with very low direct carbon dioxide emissions during the power generation process, a certain level of greenhouse gas emissions occurs when considering the entire life cycle, including construction, fuel mining, enrichment, and decommissioning. Additionally, the issue of radioactive waste management remains a critical challenge that must be addressed. In Hiroaki Koide’s ‘The Hidden Truth About Nuclear Power’, the author introduces various common misconceptions about nuclear power and points out their flaws before delving into the main argument. The author argues that nuclear power is not an absolutely safe energy source and that the issue of radioactive waste is also extremely serious. In particular, he takes a critical stance toward the common belief that nuclear power produces little waste and emits almost no carbon dioxide.
The author explains that carbon dioxide is emitted throughout the entire nuclear power plant cycle, and that fission products—known as “ashes of death”—are generated. He also argues that nuclear power plants have low thermal efficiency and release significant amounts of waste heat along with cooling water, which can impact the ecosystems of surrounding waters.
The issue of spent nuclear fuel disposal also remains a challenge to be addressed. Disposal facilities capable of ensuring long-term safe management are necessary, and this requires both financial resources and social consensus. South Korea also operates numerous nuclear power plants, and securing storage space for spent nuclear fuel remains an ongoing national challenge. To address these issues, South Korea continues to conduct public consultation processes and research to develop spent nuclear fuel management strategies, and discussions regarding interim storage facilities and permanent disposal facilities are ongoing. Considering these factors, nuclear power can be viewed as a form of energy generation that entails significant social costs and long-term responsibilities, not only during the power generation process but also in terms of spent nuclear fuel management.
There have been cases where countries have abandoned or scaled back nuclear power following the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, and there are also instances where opposition to nuclear power stems from political reasons. Germany is the most prominent member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to have pursued a nuclear phase-out policy. Following the Fukushima nuclear accident, Germany implemented a phased nuclear phase-out policy and ended commercial nuclear power operations in 2023 by shutting down its last nuclear power plant. With the disappearance of nuclear power plants—which once accounted for a significant portion of Germany’s electricity production—discussions continue regarding the expansion of renewable energy, grid stability, and energy security. The Fukushima nuclear accident had a major influence on the Merkel administration’s decision to shut down nuclear power plants, even though it had been pursuing a policy of extending the operational lifespans of such plants as recently as 2010. Since then, there has been vigorous political debate within German society regarding nuclear safety and energy policy, and public perception of nuclear power has undergone a significant shift.
Furthermore, as demonstrated by the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents, it is extremely difficult to fully contain or recover from the damage caused by a major nuclear accident. Although accident response systems are constantly improving, there are still limitations to fully predicting or controlling the scale of an accident and the extent of the damage. Furthermore, social conflicts over the expansion of nuclear power often arise due to the economic interests of governments and power companies, and there are many cases where opinions for and against nuclear power are sharply divided. In Japan, civic groups and the media have consistently raised concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants and the methods used to promote them, and social debates surrounding nuclear policy continue. On the other hand, arguments that nuclear power should be actively utilized to address climate change are also being consistently raised in the international community. Therefore, nuclear power is not simply a matter of “for” or “against”; rather, it is an energy policy that requires careful judgment, taking into account economic viability, safety, environmental impact, and energy security all at once.
In the above discussion, we examined various issues surrounding nuclear power in countries such as Japan, the United States, Germany, and South Korea through the work of the author of ‘The Hidden Truth About Nuclear Power’ and three newspaper editorials. The author argues that nuclear power generates radioactive waste and impacts the environment, and that there are many problems that need to be resolved in terms of thermal efficiency and waste management. The author also emphasizes that a nuclear accident could result in long-term damage and significant social costs. From an economic perspective, nuclear power generates various costs—including construction, operating, and fuel costs, as well as plant decommissioning, radioactive waste disposal, and spent nuclear fuel management—and the author believes all these factors must be taken into account when evaluating its economic viability.
Finally, while several countries, such as Japan and Germany, have reviewed their nuclear policies or pursued a phase-out of nuclear power for political and social reasons, some countries, conversely, are expanding their nuclear power capacity to ensure energy security and achieve carbon neutrality. Taking all these factors into comprehensive consideration, nuclear power is an energy policy that requires a cautious approach, involving a balanced review of economic viability, safety, environmental impact, and social costs; for these reasons, the author maintains a position opposing the expansion of nuclear power.
