In this blog post, we’ll examine whether we should continue to rely on nuclear power, focusing on its economic efficiency, safety, environmental impact, and political issues.
Is nuclear power really an economical form of energy generation?
Nuclear power is recognized as a method of generating electricity that can reduce fossil fuel consumption and curb rising electricity rates, and it is utilized in many countries around the world. However, as seen in the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident and the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident, a single major accident can result in immense damage and long-term consequences. For this reason, concerns that nuclear power is a high-risk form of energy generation are consistently being raised.
In Hiroaki Koide’s ‘The Hidden Truth About Nuclear Power’, the author criticizes nuclear power, citing its environmental impact and the reality that governments advocate for its continuation for political reasons. The author critically examines various assumptions we have long accepted as fact and, citing a range of statistics, argues that a sufficient power supply is possible even without nuclear power. I find myself in agreement with many aspects of this argument. However, the book does not sufficiently address the issue of economic viability as a reason to phase out nuclear power, nor does it provide a detailed explanation of the trend in which many countries have reviewed their nuclear policies or pursued a nuclear phase-out following the Fukushima nuclear accident. To address these gaps, I reviewed three newspaper editorials and, based on their content, organized my thoughts on nuclear power. Even when considering both economic and political factors, nuclear power is a form of energy that requires a cautious approach; for this reason, I oppose the expansion of nuclear power.
It is difficult to assess the economic viability of nuclear power based solely on its apparent generation cost. Significant costs are incurred not only during construction and operation but also during the decommissioning process following the end of operation, and facilities for the safe storage and management of spent nuclear fuel also require enormous expenditures. Only by including these hidden costs can the actual economic viability of nuclear power be assessed.
In the past, following the Fukushima nuclear accident, Japan suspended operations at most of its nuclear power plants and conducted a comprehensive review of its nuclear policy. Although some plants have since resumed operations, public debate regarding the safety and economic viability of nuclear power has intensified in the wake of the accident. Therefore, a more accurate assessment of the economic viability of nuclear power can only be made by including not only plant construction, operating, and fuel costs but also decommissioning costs, radioactive waste management costs, and spent nuclear fuel management costs.
The “Future of Nuclear Power” report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) also explains that when evaluating the economic viability of nuclear power, construction costs, financing costs, and decommissioning costs must be comprehensively considered. In particular, recent analyses suggest that as nuclear power plant construction costs rise, nuclear power may become less economically viable than other energy sources, depending on the country and region.
Furthermore, the post-operation phase of nuclear power involves ongoing costs such as nuclear power plant decommissioning, radioactive waste disposal, and spent nuclear fuel management. Because these costs require long-term management spanning several decades or more, it is difficult to assess economic viability based solely on the costs incurred during the power generation process.
When considering the entire lifecycle—from construction to operation, decommissioning, and waste management—the economic viability of nuclear power is not straightforward, and evaluations may vary depending on national policies and cost calculation methods.
Furthermore, while nuclear power generates very little direct carbon dioxide emissions during the power generation process, a certain level of greenhouse gas emissions is produced throughout the entire lifecycle, including plant construction, uranium mining, fuel processing, and decommissioning. In his book ‘The Hidden Truth About Nuclear Power’, Hiroaki Koide critiques various misconceptions about nuclear power based on these points. Before delving into the main discussion, the author introduces common misconceptions about nuclear power and argues that nuclear power is by no means a completely safe form of energy or one that produces little waste.
The author specifically critiques two misconceptions. The first is the simplistic belief that carbon dioxide is the sole cause of global warming, and the second is the claim that nuclear power generates less waste and imposes a smaller environmental burden than other forms of power generation. Among these, the author places particular emphasis on the second misconception. The author explains that while nuclear power generates few direct carbon dioxide emissions during the power generation process, it produces byproducts—spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste—that require long-term management, and the issue of heat discharge resulting from the use of cooling water is also a subject of environmental debate.
Furthermore, spent nuclear fuel—which must be managed safely over the long term—is one of the major challenges facing nuclear power. Because spent nuclear fuel remains radioactive for a long time, facilities for safe storage and final disposal are absolutely necessary. This can also lead to a significant financial burden.
South Korea, too, is continuing discussions on establishing interim storage and final disposal facilities to prepare for the ongoing generation of spent nuclear fuel. Relevant policies and technological development are currently underway, and establishing a long-term management system remains a critical task for the future. Therefore, when discussing the economic viability of nuclear power, one must consider not only the simple cost per unit of electricity generated but also the costs associated with spent nuclear fuel management and final disposal.
How have nuclear policies in various countries changed since the Fukushima nuclear accident?
Following the Fukushima nuclear accident, some countries pursued policies to scale back or phase out nuclear power, while others chose to maintain or expand nuclear power generation, citing energy security and carbon neutrality as reasons. In other words, nuclear policies have evolved in different directions depending on the country.
Germany is a prime example of an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member country that has pursued a nuclear phase-out policy. Following the Fukushima nuclear accident, Germany decided to phase out its nuclear power plants and ended commercial nuclear power operations in 2023 with the closure of its last reactor. During this process, the country also implemented policies to replace the electricity previously generated by nuclear power with renewable energy and other power sources.
The Fukushima nuclear accident was the primary factor behind the German government’s significant shift in policy direction—a government that, as recently as 2010, had sought to extend the operational lifespans of its nuclear power plants. Following the accident, concerns about nuclear safety spread widely throughout German society, and the political sphere, reflecting this social sentiment, pushed forward with a nuclear phase-out policy. This is regarded as an example demonstrating how political decisions can significantly influence energy policy.
Meanwhile, the difficulty of fully predicting or recovering from the damage caused by a nuclear accident remains a major point of contention surrounding nuclear power. The Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents continue to affect the environment and local communities even decades after they occurred, and the long-term social and economic costs of a major nuclear accident remain a subject of ongoing debate.
Furthermore, there has been consistent criticism that the government and power companies emphasize only the advantages of nuclear power while failing to adequately explain its risks or long-term costs. Conversely, there are also arguments that nuclear power is essential for achieving carbon neutrality and ensuring a stable power supply. In fact, the number of countries expanding nuclear power or constructing new nuclear power plants—citing climate change mitigation and energy security as reasons—has been increasing recently. Therefore, rather than simply categorizing the debate over nuclear power as “for” or “against,” it needs to be approached from a comprehensive perspective that takes into account economic viability, safety, environmental impact, and energy security.
Is it advisable to continue expanding nuclear power?
Based on the arguments presented in ‘The Hidden Truth About Nuclear Power’ and related articles, we have examined the economic, environmental, safety, and political issues surrounding nuclear power.
The author argues that nuclear power imposes an environmental burden that is by no means smaller than that of other power generation methods. In particular, the author points out that spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste must be managed safely over the long term, and that these issues could affect future generations. Furthermore, the author explains that heat emissions from nuclear power plants and waste management issues are also important environmental factors that must be considered.
From an economic perspective, nuclear power cannot be evaluated based solely on the unit cost of electricity. One must consider not only the construction and operating costs of power plants but also long-term costs such as decommissioning, radioactive waste management, and the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. When all these costs are factored in, interpretations of nuclear power’s economic viability vary, and evaluations may differ depending on the country, policy, and cost calculation methods.
Political considerations are also a key factor in determining nuclear power policy. Following the Fukushima nuclear accident, some countries have opted to phase out nuclear power, while others are pursuing policies to expand nuclear power citing energy security and carbon neutrality as reasons. Ultimately, nuclear power policy is significantly influenced not only by economic viability and safety but also by social consensus and political judgment.
While nuclear power offers the advantages of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring a stable power supply, it also poses challenges, such as the potential for massive damage in the event of an accident and the need for long-term, safe management of spent nuclear fuel. Therefore, the decision to expand nuclear power should not be based solely on the cost per unit of electricity generated; rather, it must be made after comprehensively considering safety, economic viability, environmental impact, social acceptance, and energy security.
I believe that, when these factors are taken into account comprehensively, we must proceed with caution regarding the expansion of nuclear power. This is because nuclear power cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of economic viability; long-term social costs and safety issues must also be considered. Future energy policies should also be pursued not by favoring a single power source absolutely, but by objectively comparing the strengths and weaknesses of each power source while taking safety and sustainability into account.
