Microsoft Word - Davis.docx


Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development 
Vol. 13, Iss. 1 (2014), Pp. 217-246 

 
 

The Need for a New, Clear Option: 
An In-Depth Analysis of Nuclear Energy 

 
Zachary Evan Davis 

Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 
davisze@vcu.edu 

 
Abstract 

The goal of the research presented here will be to provide a 
comprehensive view of the nuclear industry today. Upon analyzing data from the 
last 40 years, a pattern of irresponsible, financially untenable policymaking begins 
to emerge, highlighting the growing disconnect between the general populace, 
which is most vulnerable to the benefits and pitfalls of the nuclear industry, and the 
elected officials who make the final decision in many countries regarding nuclear 
adoption. The primary context of this article will be concerned with analyzing 
opposing views of how nuclear power normally stands to benefit mankind versus 
the impacts of a worst case nuclear disaster, as occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi 
Nuclear Plant. The author provides a brief, general overview of the theory behind 
nuclear power and its impacts before moving on to the benefits and drawbacks 
faced by adoptive communities. Next, an analysis of the financial viability of the 
nuclear industry will be offered, as well as a brief introduction of several means of 
generating electricity, and their general benefits and drawbacks. The author then 
offers an opinion on which of these options would offer the best alternative to 
nuclear power in both the short and long term. Finally, government patterns of 
dealing with nuclear power will be examined; it very quickly becomes evident that 
even in the most transparent societies, nuclear adoption encourages dishonesty 
from policy makers. In closing, the author will leave the reader with a troubling 
question: “Do we really have a say in our own future?” 
 

Author’s Note 
It is my firm belief that by examining the problems we face today from a 

holistic point of view, one where the interconnectedness of the world around us is 
fully understood and considered, we can create a better future for ourselves. I 
speak not only of the interconnectedness of the biological world, but that of the 
artificial world we have created for ourselves, that which we call “society”. Through 
the exploration and examination of how these two seemingly disparate fields are 
able to influence one another, the world can be made a much better place. It is a 
curious fact of the world that I have noted: when the world is looked at in a 
manner which truly captures the “big picture” of the moment, what we as a human 
race desire and need seems closely tied to the needs and desires of the world as a 
whole. Failure to see this tendency of the world is a failure born not out of 
ignorance, but out of society’s deception By examining the real truth of the nuclear 
industry from many points of view, it is my hope that you, the reader, will discover 
in yourself a desire to help the world at large, not just because it is the right thing to 
do for the world, but the right thing to do for yourself. The goal of a truly 
sustainable future is not one that serves all of humanity; there will always be those 
individuals in this world whose future is built upon the foundations of the past. For 
them, a sustainable future is one where they no longer hold the power. For the rest 
of the world, however, sustainability is freedom. It is with this belief in my heart 
that I thank you for your time, and submit to you the following, with the hope that 
you will gain some benefit from it. 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

 
Keywords: Nuclear power, Fukushima, sustainability, policy, economics, 
health. 

 
1. Overview 
 

For as long as nuclear power has existed, it has been a hotly debated topic, 
one whose problems are both multi-faceted and complex. While there are many 
respected individuals who have spoken out over the years as proponents or 
detractors of the nuclear industry, nuclear power has, by and large, maintained a 
steady pattern of expansion and growth over the past five decades, seemingly 
without regard for the debate which surrounds it. However, in recent years new 
information and events have brought nuclear power into the mainstream 
consciousness with renewed vigor. With the information being presented, it is hard 
to understand how nuclear power has remained at the forefront of energy 
production for so long. 
 On March 11th, 2011, a 9.0 earthquake off the coast of Japan triggered a 
massive tsunami which struck the main island of Honshu. The 15-meter high wave 
disabled power to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant (FDNP), which in turn 
caused a “loss of cooling accident” in three of the plant’s reactors. The resulting 
criticality that occurred has continued to have numerous deleterious effects on both 
Japan and much of the Pacific Ocean region. Since the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear 
Disaster (FDND) occurred, there have been mass evacuations, commercial fishing 
bans, and numerous health concerns in Japan. In addition, growing concerns over 
contaminated wildlife caught along the American west coast and rising rates of 
thyroid cancer on both sides of the Pacific Ocean have led to an increased global 
awareness of the effects that nuclear power plants can have on regions remote from 
them. 

In addition to the numerous deleterious effects on humans and other living 
creatures across much of the planet, we must also acknowledge the financial 
difficulties faced by the nuclear industry at large. One of the most important factors 
to consider with any form of energy production is its long-term sustainability. At first 
glance, a comparative analysis of the costs and benefits of nuclear power when 
compared to other major forms of energy production shows nuclear as a strong 
leader; however, when looking at the problem from a “worst-case scenario” 
viewpoint, a very different picture emerges. Even in the case of a minor incident 
(relatively speaking), cleanup costs can soar, such as in the 1979 meltdown at Three 
Mile Island, for example. Despite the fact that there were no reported injuries or 
deaths, and a long-term evaluation of more than 30,000 people from the surrounding 
area showed no appreciable impact, it was reported by the World Nuclear 
Association that cleanup still took over 12 years, at the cost of approximately 
US$973 million. While some may point out that the Three Mile Island incident was 
rated as a 5 out of 7 on the international nuclear event scale, it should be noted that a 
category 5 incident is the lowest rating which is likely to result in the implementation 
of planned countermeasures; incidents rated 4 and below are generally reserved for 
events which affect only plant personnel and/or a very limited area around the plant 
site. Even more disturbing is the overwhelming likelihood that any new nuclear 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

construction project would ultimately fail, with any money invested in the project 
being lost. 

While it can be argued that nuclear power is a strong contender for being the 
“best” form of energy production we have available today, there are many alternative 
forms of renewable energy which have grown in popularity in recent years. “Green” 
technologies such as wind and solar power, as well as the newly forming field of 
artificial photosynthesis, offer strong alternatives to nuclear power’s production 
capabilities while completely avoiding the dangers inherent with nuclear adoption. 
With so many reasons not to accept nuclear power, it is perfectly normal for an 
individual to question the methods by which nuclear adoption takes place. When 
analyzing the deciding factors for nuclear adoption, three major interest groups stand 
out: public citizens, elected officials, and private interests (primarily those individuals 
directly associated with the nuclear industry). However, there is more to the problem 
than that; it has been seen time and again throughout the history of nuclear power 
that the government has shown a tendency to mask or hide the truth entirely when it 
does not serve the best interests of the nuclear industry. 

By studying nuclear power from this consumer driven viewpoint, with voice 
given to both sides of the nuclear power debate, the reader will hopefully gain a 
greater understanding of the inner workings of the nuclear industry and discover 
how nuclear power has managed to survive in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi 
Nuclear Disaster. It should be noted that while it may seem as though greater weight 
is given to the arguments against nuclear energy, an equal amount of data for each 
section was pulled from resources in support of and against nuclear power; 
quantitative data in particular was pulled almost exclusively from sources such as the 
World Nuclear Association and Energy Policy archives, both of which have traditionally 
taken an either unbiased or slightly pro-nuclear stance in their articles. Therefore, if 
the majority of the information presented seems to skew in one direction, then that 
should be taken into consideration when formulating a final opinion based on the 
facts presented. 
 
2. A Basic Understanding of Nuclear Power 
 
2.1 Introduction 
 

One of the key arguments that has sustained the nuclear industry for so long 
is the claim that it is an “eco-friendly” alternative to the much harsher and oft-vilified 
coal, oil, and natural gas which humanity has relied on for much of modern history. 
The reader will be given a brief overview of how nuclear energy actually “works”, 
along with an impact analysis of normal operations as well as worst-case scenarios, in 
order to determine whether this is actually so. 
 
2.2 How does Nuclear Power Actually Work? 
 

Due to the radioactive nature of the fuel rods, once damage has been 
sustained it is exceedingly difficult to repair, and poses a serious hazard to both the 
on-site workers and the greater region where the plant is located. As seen in Figure 1, 
below, the nuclear power production cycle is essentially a large loop which utilizes 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

steam to turn a turbine. By splitting apart the individual atoms in the fuel rods 
(usually composed of uranium-235), massive amounts of heat are generated. Water is 
constantly pumped into the reactor and transformed into steam, which then moves 
into a turbine assembly; the steam turns the turbines, generating electricity. The 
steam then moves into a “condenser” where it passes over pipes which are kept cool 
by a constant flow of water pulled from nearby lakes, rivers, or other bodies of water. 
This condensation is then discharged back into the main body of water, or circulated 
through cooling towers, before the cycle begins again. Failure of any part of the 
system generally results in a rapid build-up of heat and pressure which results in 
either an explosion, damage to the fuel rods’ containment structure, or both.  
 

 
Figure 1: General Design of a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) 
 
2.3 When Things Go Right? 
 

Nuclear power is often hailed as the solution to our current climate change 
woes. However, this is simply not true; not only is nuclear power not carbon-free, it 
is actually more harmful to the environment than traditional coal or natural gas 
means of production. How could this be, you may ask? Mary Olson, of the Nuclear 
Information and Resource Service, tells us that, “A number of recent studies have 
found that when mining, processing, and extensive transportation of uranium in 
order to make nuclear fuel is considered, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the 
result of making electricity from uranium is comparable to burning natural gas to 
make electric power. Additional energy required for the decommissioning and 
disposition of the wastes generated increases this CO2 output substantially (Olson, 
2006). Even more disturbing, a 2003 study at MIT revealed that “expanding nuclear 
generating capacity worldwide to 1000 billion watts would be required to address the 
climate problem to any meaningful degree. This would roughly mean adding one 
new reactor every two weeks until 2050” (Olson, 2006). As you will see in the 
coming sections, such a solution is unequivocally impossible, both from a scientific 
and economic standpoint. 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

 
2.4 When Disaster Strikes 
 

Now let us take a look at the other end of the “impact spectrum”: The 
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster. As stated in the introduction, a 9.0 earthquake 
off the coast of Honshu, Japan triggered a massive tsunami on March 11th, 2011. The 
resulting wave disabled power to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant (FDNP), 
which in turn caused a “loss of cooling accident” (LOCA) in three of the FDNP’s 
reactors. For those not familiar with the term, “LOCA [involves] the safety of the 
emergency core cooling system (ECCS), a fail-safe mechanism to prevent core 
meltdown in the event of abrupt loss of primary coolant. The dramatic increase in 
reactor size in the late 1960s increased uncertainty about the integrity of the 
containment shield in the event of a meltdown” (Surrey & Hugget, 1976). Basically, 
in the event of a power outage, emergency systems (usually powered by diesel fuel) 
are designed to kick in and allow for continued cooling of the reactor in order to 
prevent an explosion. It therefore stands to reason that, “since the core of a reactor 
continues to generate heat for years, even ‘off-line’, it is vital that emergency cooling 
equipment be operable around the clock” (Olson, 2006). For reasons which remain 
unclear, the ECCS at Fukushima Daiichi either failed or was manually shutdown, 
resulting in a massive explosion which led to the largest release of radioactive 
contaminants ever recorded. Later sections will go into greater detail about the exact 
nature of the FDND’s negative impacts worldwide, so for now we will leave the 
reader with Steven Starr’s words on the continuing difficulties faced by cleanup 
crews: 

“Meanwhile, the destroyed Fukushima reactors and spent fuel ponds, which hold huge 
quantities of radioactive waste, are far from being stabilized.  Reactors #1, #2 and #3 every day 
discharge radioactive gases that emit a billion Becquerels of radiation.  The uranium cores of reactors 
1, 2 and 3, which completely melted down and then melted through the bottom of the steel reactor 
vessel, will continue to produce enormous amounts of radiation and heat for many years.  Every day, 
ten tons of seawater is poured upon each of the melted cores; the water becomes intensely radioactive 
and then rapidly leaks out of the containment into the adjacent turbine building.  It is then pumped 
trough an expensive cooling system that traps the radioactivity in filters the size of small cars, which 
become highly radioactive and are being placed in a nearby field.  Fifty million gallons of intensely 
radioactive water have already been collected and stored on site. Thousands of additional radioactive 
gallons continue to accumulate daily, and the jury-rigged pipe system connecting the storage tanks 
remains at risk, should another large quake strike the area” (Starr, 2012). 
 
2.5 Conclusion – Nuclear Power is NOT Safe 
 

At the end of the day, behind all the fancy verbiage and technological jargon, 
the goal of nuclear power as a means of energy production is to boil water, creating 
steam which then generates electricity by turning turbines. After reading the excerpt 
in Section 2.4, consider this: “There are 23 nuclear reactors of the same design as 
those at Fukushima now operating in the US, [and] US spent fuel pools contain 
many times more spent fuel than the spent fuel pool at reactor building 4 in 
Fukushima Daiichi” (Starr, 2012). These facts alone should be enough to convince 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

an objective reader that nuclear power is not the safe, reliable, or logical choice to 
make for providing electricity for our communities. 
 
3. Happiness vs. Health – A Human Perspective 
 
3.1 Introduction 
 

When examining the positives and negatives of the adoption of nuclear 
energy as a mainstream industry, it is best to first examine the impacts that the 
adoption of nuclear power has on individuals and communities, without considering 
any financial, ecological, or ethical arguments. If the goal of nuclear power is to 
benefit mankind, then it must be shown that it possesses the potential to improve 
human quality of life. For the purpose of this article "quality of life" benefits can be 
broken into two primary forms: 

1) Lifestyle Benefits – Lifestyle benefits are primarily assumed to mean better 
access to or affordability of basic utilities, such as running water and electricity. 
However, secondary lifestyle benefits could also include an improvement to either 
the infrastructure or job sectors of a given area, assuming such improvements are a 
direct impact of the adoption of nuclear power. 

2) Health Benefits – One of the most studied and discussed aspects of 
nuclear power. It must be acknowledged that any attempt to quantify the health 
"benefits" of nuclear power will by necessity be an analysis primarily of the negative 
effects which can result in an area following the adoption and proliferation of 
nuclear power. 

It will be the goal of this section to empower the reader to weigh the 
positives and negatives of nuclear power as they pertain to both individual lifestyle 
and health; and to determine which of the two carries a greater weight in society. 
 
3.2 The Benefits of Nuclear Power on Day-to-Day Life 
 

The adoption of nuclear power can lead to a plethora of lifestyle benefits in 
the communities where it occurs. In many cases, it has been found that the 
incentives and subsidies which accompany nuclear adoption can both revitalize and 
revolutionize an area. Building a nuclear power plant requires a certain amount of 
basic infrastructure, manpower, and materials; and this need can drive the vitalization 
of a community as jobs become more readily available, utility grids are overhauled, 
and roads are built (or improved) to handle new traffic to the area. Any local 
businesses which are able to supply these needs may see a great deal of growth as a 
result of commercial ordering, which in turn can lead to even more jobs. In addition, 
as mentioned above, certain areas have also seen added benefits (such as the 
construction of new community spaces) which are offered as incentives for nuclear 
adoption. 
 
3.3 The Drawbacks of Nuclear Power on Day-to-Day Life 
 

While it has been argued that the adoption of nuclear power creates many 
positive benefits for the community, this is simply not so. The local benefits are no 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

greater than those associated with any other large public works project despite the 
economic incentives linked. The amount of development which is needed to 
construct a nuclear power plant calls for huge amounts of traffic, manpower, and 
materials to enter a community very suddenly and often without regard for the 
surrounding areas. This sudden influx has the potential to create a great deal of 
economic strain on an area, as prices are driven up by increased demand for certain 
goods, and can lead to an area’s citizens becoming victims of a localized economic 
depression as their own incomes are no longer able to keep up with the changes in 
their community. Even more concerning is the cost faced by the surrounding 
ecosystems, as clear cutting for the construction zone, waste runoff, and noise/air 
pollution strangle the surrounding flora and fauna. When you calculate the effects of 
the operations of said plant, including the fact that “[t]he waste from mining, 
enrichment and spent fuel rods will be present for thousands of years, much of it 
where it was produced or utilized” (McCally, 2007), things begin to look very bleak 
for nuclear power’s new home. 

The adoption of nuclear energy poses serious health risks not just for the 
home community, but for areas and people far removed as well. When the FDND 
occurred, not only was the immediate area instantly rendered useless to everyone 
who lived nearby, but in truth nearly the entire population of Japan suffered. This 
may seem to be a wild claim, but let us examine the numbers. It was reported by the 
Japanese Science Ministry that “long-lived radioactive cesium had contaminated 
11,580 square miles (30,000 sq km) of the land surface of Japan” (Starr, 2012). This 
is equivalent to ~13% of the total landmass of Honshu, the main island of Japan and 
the one directly affected by the FDND. 13% may not seem like a lot, but consider 
this: according to census data from 2012, Honshu is home to roughly 103 million 
people, approximately 81% of Japan’s total population. Assuming a relatively even 
distribution of people on the island (with areas of large population cancelling out 
areas with few residents), we can see that as many as 13.3 million people were 
exposed to radioactive cesium following the event. However, when we analyze Fig 2, 
below, we see that the amount of land exposed to this highly dangerous, radioactive 
element was essentially “all of it”, to say nothing of the millions of gallons of ocean 
water contaminated every day. This becomes even more disturbing when the reader 
stops to consider that this was just 38 days after the FDND; we are now at 1322 days 
(as this is being written) and cesium is still leaking into the environment daily. 
 
3.4 Conclusion – No Appreciable Benefits to Nuclear Adoption 
 

In closing, it would seem that nuclear energy has a long way to go before it 
can make the claim that it offers any true health benefits, whether of a physiological 
or psychological nature. It is important to note that, although it may seem as though 
undue focus has been placed on the effects of a “worst-case scenario”, this is by 
necessity rather than a desire to paint nuclear energy in an unfair light. As is stated in 
other sections of this work, the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) does not 
consider an event below a category 5 (the rating ascribed to the reactor meltdown at 
Three Mile Island) to have any “significant” effects beyond the range of the 
employees and locale of the plant site itself. For category 4 incidents and below there 
is no expectation of a planned emergency response other than an analysis of local 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

food crops for contamination. Therefore, any analysis of the negative effects of 
nuclear energy on a community at large must be based on data from large-scale 
incidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or indeed Fukushima Daiichi. The 
argument that there is no danger to the populace so long as everything goes 
according to plan should not be enough of a “health benefit”, per se, to support the 
adoption of nuclear energy in a community. 

Though proponents of nuclear power will claim that the benefits of 
construction of a plant alone should make the option attractive to many struggling 
communities, this is simply not the case. When considering the lifestyle benefits of 
nuclear expansion, the initial benefits and drawbacks during the construction phase 
are similar to those of any other large construction project. The difference is that 
once construction has been completed, the nuclear plant offers little when compared 
to, say, a shopping mall, which creates just as many jobs while also providing a niche 
for economic growth and variation. Even the claim that there is no change in an 
adoptive community seems tenuous at best, and trying to justify an industry which 
profits off the ability of others to break even (in an optimal scenario) is somewhat 
nebulous when weighed against the risk of catastrophe. For this reason, I must 
conclude that there are no appreciable health or lifestyle benefits to nuclear adoption. 
 

 
Figure 2: Estimated Total Amount of Cesium-137 Deposited from March 11 – April 
19, 2011 (Yasunari et al.) 
 
4. Economic Advantages and Drawbacks of the Nuclear 
Industry 
 
4.1 Introduction 
 

The lack of financial viability (whether perceived or real) has haunted the 
nuclear industry for over 40 years now, and though proponents of nuclear energy 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

champion the nuclear plant as a “money-making machine”, there are many experts 
who say that the numbers just don’t add up. When analyzing the pros and cons of 
nuclear economics, it is important to tackle the problem from several angles: 
 

A) Capital Costs – These are the initial costs of any nuclear plant; the amount of 
time, money, and manpower required for such a project to reach operational 
status. 

B) Costs to the Consumer – The cost of electricity generated by ANY plant is 
directly related to the presence or lack of competing interests, the overall 
economy of an area, and the amount of money which must be recouped by 
the plant to pay for capital costs. 

C) C) Local Economic Impact – What effect, if any, such a project would have 
on the economy of the area where it is being built. This could include, but 
not be limited to, the creation of new jobs in the area for the construction 
and/or continued operation of the site as well as the depreciation of 
surrounding properties. 

D) D) Incidental Costs – Incidental expenses could be the cost of insurance, 
repairs, and the general maintenance of a nuclear plant, as well as the 
secondary costs which occur in the event of a major incident, such as the one 
which occurred at Fukushima Daiichi. These secondary costs could take the 
form of cleanup costs, property loss, contamination of agricultural 
production zones, and psychological or health impacts related to the disaster. 
 
The goal of this section will be to help the reader gain a better understanding 

of the arguments for and against the economic viability of nuclear power. 
 
4.2 Economic Advantages of Nuclear Energy 
 

The capital costs associated with the construction of a new nuclear plant are 
the same as those of any other major public works project, such as a mall, school, or 
hospital. The seemingly high costs associated with nuclear energy are primarily due 
to the high costs of concrete and steel, which are both needed in enormous 
quantities for a building project of this magnitude. The construction costs associated 
with nuclear power plants increased worldwide after the Fukushima accident, driven 
by the public’s demand for additional safety measures (Hayashi and Hughes, 2013). 
What sets the nuclear industry apart, however, is the number of highly beneficial 
subsidy programs (such as the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in the United States) evident 
in many parts of the world which help to offset these costs in a way that many other 
forms of electricity cannot match. 
 While it is true that competing interests in an area can have an impact on the 
costs of electricity, this is rarely an issue for nuclear power plants. It has been shown 
time and again that the monthly savings produced by the introduction of nuclear 
power to an area can have a huge effect on the average family. What’s more, the 
sheer amount of electricity produced via nuclear fission generators means that 
nuclear plants can very quickly recoup the costs associated with construction, which 
in turn can lead to a noticeable decline in energy prices after a period of years. As can 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

be seen in Table 1, the prices of electricity generated by nuclear energy are 
consistently lower than those from other major sources. 

As stated above, the impacts of a nuclear plant on the economy of the 
surrounding area cannot be denied. Due to the huge need for manpower, an area 
selected for such a site would see an enormous influx of jobs available for both 
skilled and unskilled labor until the completion of the project. Furthermore, it is a 
known fact that, once established, the costs associated with the ongoing operation of 
a nuclear plant are very low when compared to other similar works. Finally, it should 
be noted that, while the depreciation of properties can occur, it rarely does so due to 
the fact that areas which embrace nuclear power plants are often subject to 
additional subsidies and incentives which can have a secondary effect on the values 
of properties and the quality of overall infrastructure in the surrounding area. While 
some adversaries of nuclear power have labeled such incentives as “bribes” Kato  et 
al. (2013) point out that in a social survey of the Kanto region in Japan, “perceived 
risk, not perceived benefit, [was found] to be the most important factor influencing 
the acceptance of [nuclear power plants]”. 

 
Table 1 Actual Costs of Electricity (US cents/kwh) (WNA, 2014) 
 

Technology 
region or 
country 

At 10% 
discount rate 

At 5% 
discount rate 

Nuclear OECD 
Europe 8.3-13.7 5.0-8.2 

  China 4.4-5.5 3.0-3.6 
Black coal with 
CCS 

OECD 
Europe 11.0 8.5 

Brown coal with 
CCS 

OECD 
Europe 9.5-14.3 6.8-9.3 

CCGT with 
CCS 

OECD 
Europe 11.8 9.8 

Large hydro-
electric 

OECD 
Europe 14.0-45.9 7.4-23.1 

  China: 3 
Gorges 5.2 2.9 

  China: other 2.3-3.3 1.2-1.7 

Onshore wind OECD 
Europe 12.2-23.0 9.0-14.6 

  China 7.2-12.6 5.1-8.9 

Offshore wind 
OECD 
Europe 18.7-26.1 13.8-18.8 

Solar 
photovoltaic 

OECD 
Europe 38.8-61.6 28.7-41.0 

  China 18.7-28.3 12.3-18.6 

  



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

Table 2 : Economic Incentives (Kato, Takabara, Nishikawa & Homma, 2013) 
 

Category Financial source Major examples 
Local tax Utility Property tax, local corporation tax, nuclear 

fuel tax, spent fuel tax 
Subsidy National government Subsidies based on the Three Laws for Power 

Source Development 
Donation Utility Construction of public facility, money 
Local 
economy 

Utility and government 
expenditure 

Job opportunities, propagation effect 

 
Incidental expenses associated with nuclear energy have grown over the years, 

but this is mainly due to more stringent safety requirements and the push to reformat, 
streamline, and update older existing plants in favor of constructing new ones. For 
the most part, the growth of the nuclear industry has been a direct result of the 
desire to reduce pollution; the Japanese government announced in 2002 that “it 
would rely heavily on nuclear energy to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction 
goals set by the Kyoto Protocol” (WNA, Nuclear Power in Japan). In cases such as the 
Fukushima incident, it must be acknowledged that the reactors which failed had just 
recently passed their 40-year expiration date, and the fact that they were approved to 
run for 10 additional years shows a failure on the side of human error rather than 
being indicative of safety flaws in the reactor itself. In fact, there were previous issues 
in Japan involving nuclear plants, such as when scandal broke out in 2002 in 
connection with equipment inspections at nuclear power plants (WNA, Nuclear Power 
in Japan). Cleanup costs associated with a major incident can be high, but are 
effectively combated by better safety training, more skilled operators, and a quick 
response time in the early stages of any such an incident. Compared with other 
industries, the safety record of the nuclear industry is high; the precautions against 
mishaps and theft of dangerous materials are stringent, and the risk of major accident 
is less than that of natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes, and accidents 
associated with coal mining, aircraft and cars (Surrey & Hugget, 1976). As further 
proof of the commitment to safety and rapid emergency response, which is a major 
hallmark of the nuclear industry today, it must be noted that while “the Fukushima 
accident was rated level 7 (the highest level) on the International Nuclear and 
Radiological Event Scale—as serious as the Chernobyl accident in 1986” (Hosoe & 
Tanaka, 2012) not a single death was reported as a direct result of the accident. 

From these facts, it should be obvious that the image of rampant costs in the 
nuclear industry is a false one, and that the costs associated with nuclear power are 
more than reasonable in the face of the industry’s commitment to safety and 
reliability. While it may be possible for some countries to get by using their own 
natural resources, this is not always the case; Japan, for example, needs to import 
~84% of its yearly energy needs (WNA, Nuclear Power in Japan). Faced with such 
numbers and a world characterized by massive oil crises, nuclear energy is simply the 
best option available to meet that demand. Though there have been minor setbacks 
for nuclear energy, the fact remains that the industry will remain strong, as Senator 
James Inhofe [R-OK] asserted in his 2007 piece Nuclear Power Use Must be Expanded: 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

“once it has revitalized, [nuclear energy] will financially sustain itself”(Inhofe, 2007). 
What’s more, the growing nuclear presence around the world is one that will lead to 
lower costs for consumers and higher profit margins for plant operators and, in turn, 
the countries where they are based. In short, nuclear power will continue to be seen 
as “an essential way of improving energy security in many countries and, despite 
what its critics may say, will probably continue to be used as a significant source of 
low-carbon electricity” (Hayashi and Hughes, 2013), both due to the overwhelming 
positive benefits as well as the absence of any other widely available low-carbon 
options. 
 
4.3 Economic Drawbacks of Nuclear Energy 
 

The primary issue with the capital costs associated with nuclear power is 
simply this: they are far too high. As early as the 1970s, it was observed that “the 
reduction of nuclear ordering has been aggravated by cost escalation and financing 
problems. Like many other types of capital equipment, nuclear plants have sustained 
cost escalation well in excess of the general rate of inflation” (Surrey & Hugget, 
1976), and this trend has not abated with time. In fact, many construction projects 
have a final cost which is many times higher than its initial projected budget, with the 
difference being made up using taxpayer dollars. “Wall Street is not putting a penny 
of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies” (Lovins, 
2008). 
 While many individuals claim that the generation costs of electricity using 
conventional power versus nuclear are much higher, the fact is that this is only true 
in areas where additional taxes are levied from producers based on annual carbon 
emissions. It is also important to mention that the savings associated with nuclear 
energy are ONLY significant in regions where there is little to no competition, or 
where the demand for electricity is much higher than normal. As seen in Table 1, the 
average cost/kWh (cost per kilowatt hour) of electricity from a nuclear plant tends to 
be ~2-4 cents US lower than other forms of electricity generation, which is less than 
10% of the total cost/kWh in most countries. While the amount of electricity 
generated by nuclear reactors is high, the lower utility cost in areas where nuclear 
power has been introduced can actually have a deleterious effect on consumers, as 
they tend to be more “energy wasteful” because of the lower cost/kWh. This in turn 
can lead to a higher-than-average bill for many families, even though the costs are 
technically lower. 

The economic advantage of integrating nuclear power into an area is 
generally negligible, and never last more than a few years. While the initial stages of 
construction for such a site DO require large amounts of manpower, the workers 
needed are generally unskilled, and the presence of such work invariably leads to an 
influx of new residents to the area. When the jobs go away at the end of the 
construction period, the new residents often do not, and this in turn can have a 
disastrous effect on local economies as unemployment rates quickly skyrocket, 
leading to a greater demand for government welfare in the area. Furthermore, the 
jobs that DO remain are generally those which require a highly specialized degree of 
training and knowledge, and as such the workers employed to fill such positions are 
statistically unlikely to be from the surrounding area, at least for the first generation 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

or so of workers employed by the plant. The most pressing issue, however, is the 
fact that “The huge economic incentives during the construction phase result in the 
creation of many public facilities and the expansion of public welfare programs. 
However, the expense incurred in maintaining these facilities and services often 
cause financial problems later” (Kato, Takahara, Nishikawa & Homma, 2013). As 
time goes on and the economic benefits go away, host cities have been forced to 
request that more reactors be installed on their lands, as “the social changes caused 
by the economic incentives made it difficult to manage the local communities in a 
sustainable way” (Kato, Takahara, Nishikawa & Homma, 2013). 
 Perhaps the greatest economic drawback of all is the staggering incidental 
costs associated with a nuclear disaster; in the case of Fukushima alone, “[e]stimates 
of the total economic loss range from $250-$500 billion US” (Starr, 2012). What’s 
more, not only does the financial impact totally eclipse the possible gains (it should 
be noted when referring to Figure 5 below, that US$58 billion was an estimate only 
of the “cost of cleaning up the radiation contamination from Fukushima around 
farms and towns […and] does NOT include other costs, such as compensation and 
dealing with reactors” (McKeating, 2013)) the area affected by the disaster usually 
extends far beyond the region that could have ever benefitted from the existence of 
the plant in the first place. Following the destruction of the Fukushima Daiichi plant 
in March 2011, it was reported that “all of the land within 12 miles (20 km) of the 
destroyed nuclear power plant, encompassing an area of about 230 square miles (600 
sq km), and an additional 80 square miles (200 sq km) located northwest of the plant, 
were declared too radioactive for human habitation. All persons living in these areas 
were evacuated and the regions were declared to be permanent “exclusion” zones” 
(Starr, 2012). In addition, some “4,500 square miles […] was found to have radiation 
levels that exceeded Japan’s allowable exposure rate of 1 mSV (millisievert) per year” 
(Starr, 2012). 

The total loss of property and livelihoods as a direct result of this disaster 
may never be known. Fukushima officials stated in September of 2012 that a total of 
159,128 people had been evicted from their homes (Starr, 2012), and many of them 
are even being forced to pay mortgages on homes and property they can never 
return to. Depending on peculiarities in meteorological patterns at ground zero, 
individuals many hundreds of miles away can face significant health risks which have 
a direct impact on both their lives and the economy of an entire region far removed 
from the nuclear plant. The impacts on an ecosystem can be even more astounding. 
It has already been stated that “[o]nce a large amount of radioactive cesium enters an 
ecosystem, it quickly becomes ubiquitous, contaminating water, soil, plants and 
animals” (Starr, 2012) and in the case of Fukushima, contamination has been 
reported in crops and fish more than 200 miles away. While supporters of nuclear 
power will quickly make the claim that better safety training and more skilled 
operators are needed to combat this, it must be acknowledged that “it can be argued 
that nuclear risks cannot satisfactorily be compared with natural disasters, nor with 
accidents from other technologies” (Surrey & Hugget, 1976) in which a reasonable 
level of preparation is possible. 

 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

 
Figure 3: A Comparative Analysis of the Cost of the Fukushima Cleanup Efforts 
(McKeating, 2013). 
 
 In closing, any claim made in support of nuclear power as an economically 
viable endeavor is either the result of faulty information or is an outright fabrication. 
The ever-growing costs of construction alone should be enough to put the issue to 
rest, but there is far more to the problem than that. The money saved when 
switching to nuclear electricity is neither commonplace nor appreciable, and while 
some incentive projects have been both well received and communally beneficial, 
they are short-lived at best and often leave the areas in worse shape than they were 
before in the long-term. Most importantly, the incidental expenses of nuclear energy 
are too high to be reconciled regardless of its benefits, not just in terms of financial 
and human costs, but environmental costs as well. 
 
4.4 Conclusion – Nuclear Energy NOT Economically Sound 
 
 The evidence speaks for itself: In order for utilities to develop new nuclear 
plants, they must have access to adequate financing at a reasonable cost. Before Wall 
Street will provide that financing, there must be confidence that the project will be 
successful, that the business risks are manageable and new plants can meet schedule 
commitments to begin delivering power (Inhofe, 2007). The truth, however, is that 
skyrocketing costs in construction materials leave the taxpayers holding the bag; 
since “Wall Street […] will not finance these facilities because future plants are likely 
to cost more than $5 billion, making them marginally profitable at best. And, a recent 
Congressional Budget Office report predicts that more than 50 percent of proposed 
plants would default on loan guarantees” (McCally, 2007). If nuclear energy is so 
profitable, then why is it so hard to find someone willing to invest money in its 
future? Supporters of nuclear energy have been quick to say that their detractors tend 
to exaggerate the financial risks of nuclear energy, but the fact remains that 36 years 
ago, when the final Report of the Rasmussen group appeared in October 1975, it 
contained revised estimates of the consequences of the worst imaginable reactor 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

accident, which for property damage was raised from $6.2 billion to $14 billion 
(Surrey & Hugget, 1976). Accounting for inflation, this would be about US$60.8 
billion today (this number should be familiar to readers; as shown in Figure 5 above, 
current cleanup costs for Fukushima are estimated at $58 billion dollars). Meanwhile, 
the projects themselves offer only temporary employment to most and can leave an 
area in a worse economic state than before. Supporters of nuclear energy may tout 
the benefits of “savings” and “incentives” but these terms are really just part of a 
concerted effort to distract the average citizen from the fact that they are being 
bribed to allow nuclear power a place in their communities. 

Consider this: it took over 20 years to for the Korean government to receive 
approval for a low-level waste site; and Jun et al. (2010) acknowledge that this 
approval was only granted by the public after “[the] Korean government promised to 
pay a 300 million dollar subsidy and move Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power 
(KHNP)’s headquarters to the area as the price for constructing low level waste site 
in the region”. Subsidy based policy-making risks not just the homes and families of 
ourselves and our neighbors, but a huge area surrounding the site which gains no 
benefit at all from the introduction of the plant. Simply put, there is no way to make 
a plan for Mother Nature, and any claim made to the contrary is false. The idea that a 
consumer should offer support to a project which may save him or her a little bit of 
money every month is fine. But if those savings have the potential to destroy entire 
ecosystems, contaminate hundreds of square miles of populated land, and expose 
people thousands of miles away to increased risks of cancer as well as other serious 
health risks, then it is not worth it. 

It has been estimated that ~733,000 curies of radioactive cesium were 
pumped into the Pacific Ocean in just fifteen months after the Fukushima disaster 
(Starr, 2012). Since then, there have been reports of contaminated fish and foods as 
far away as California, and many areas bordering the Pacific have reported rising 
rates of thyroid cancer in young children. The idea that nuclear power can 
simultaneously cost less and yet generate more cash flow is a compelling one; 
however there is no amount of money that can be saved which could ever outweigh 
such dire risks, which is why I must conclude that the argument for nuclear power as 
being economically sound is a faulty one. Having considered both the drawbacks and 
benefits of nuclear power from a variety of standpoints, it now remains to consider 
alternate forms of energy production available in the world today. 
 
5. Sound Alternatives to Our Growing Energy needs 
 
5.1 Introduction 
 

While it may seem easy to simply bombard the nuclear industry with 
complaints and charges designed to show that it is a flawed means of production, all 
this evidence is useless if there are no better alternatives ready to take the place of 
nuclear power. Any search for an appropriate alternative means of energy production 
must, therefore, be based on three main principles: A) any positive and negative 
effects on the local AND global communities, B) the ecological impact of such a 
production method, and C) the financial viability of the production method. In 
addition, as Mary Olson points out, “Nuclear power is […] dependent upon a grid 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

that is powered by other sources of energy, typically coal. This is due to the simple 
fact that nuclear reactors cannot “black start” – in other words, they depend on 
electric power from the external power grid to be able to come on-line” (Olson, 
2006). Therefore, it must be said that the most ideal alternative must either be able to 
utilize current power grids with little to no restructuring, or to be able to operate 
independently of existing grids. Thus, it will be the goal of this section to analyze 
several of the leading forms of energy production in the world today, as well as new 
technologies that are beginning to see expanded use, and determine which would be 
the best alternative option in lieu of nuclear power. 

 
5.2 Oil 
 

As a well-understood and time-honored mainstay of the energy industry, the 
main problem with oil is simply that it is an extremely limited commodity. Even the 
most conservative estimates tell us that oil resources on the planet will be completely 
depleted before the end of this century, and even more alarming is the impact that 
increased oil usage can have on other facets of life around the world. Plastics, asphalt 
and most lubricants, as well as many organic chemicals, are made using oil, so any 
strain on the world’s dwindling oil supply would have cascading effects on nearly all 
manufacturing industries. The only part of the world where any sizable reserves of 
oil have yet to be tapped are in the Arctic Refuge, separated from the rest of the 
world by hundreds of miles of Trans-Alaska Pipeline. This poses a massive security 
risk; indeed, while testifying against Arctic drilling, former CIA director Jim Woolsey 
is quoted as calling the Pipeline, “Uncle Sam’s ‘kick me’ sign” (Lovins, 2008). As 
troubling as the economics of oil can be, the main issue is the political vulnerability 
of oil. Bernard Cohen warned in 1990 that rising oil prices could one day lead to US 
involvement in wars overseas; we will leave that statement to be taken on its own 
merit. Due to both the dangers presented here, and the many stronger alternatives 
outlined below, I must agree with Bernard Cohen “that measures which increase our 
use of oil must be avoided as much as possible” (Cohen, 1990). 
 
5.3 Coal 
 

As with oil, coal burning has historically been a widely used, reliable source 
of electricity. However, despite its high level of affordability and accessibility, it is 
also the most ecologically unsound form of energy production available today 
(except perhaps nuclear energy). For these reasons alone, coal fails to serve as a 
viable alternative to nuclear power. 
 
5.4 Natural Gas 
 
 The drawbacks to natural gas are virtually identical to those faced by oil. 
Supply is largely limited, and natural gas is only cost-effective in areas close to where 
it is gathered. Additionally, natural gas is far more efficient when put to use heating 
homes than generating electricity. For most of the world, natural gas resources are 
highly limited and prohibitively expensive, and thus are better used for other 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

purposes. Subsequently, natural gas offers no benefits as an alternative to nuclear 
power. 
 
5.5 Hydropower 
 
 One of the most significant and historically reliable forms of energy 
production comes in the form of hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power operates 
on the principle of water moving through a series of turbines, generating electricity 
as it does so. Hydroelectric dams have powered much of Norway and the United 
States’ power grid, as well as parts of Quebec in Canada. Norway derives a great deal 
of its total electricity from hydroelectric power as well. However, as Professor 
Bernard Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh points out, there is a major hurdle to 
face: “[S]ites for generating hydroelectric power must be provided by nature, and in 
the United States nearly all of the more favorable sites nature has provided are 
already being used. There have been new projects for harnessing the energy in the 
flow of rivers, but these give relatively little electric power and cause serious fish kills, 
which lead to well-justified objections by environmental groups” (Cohen, 1990). This 
problem holds true in many other parts of the world as well. Hydroelectric power is 
such an excellent means of energy production that in most developed countries, it is 
already being utilized to the full extent. Furthermore, the local ecological impacts of 
creating new dams, lakes, and rivers to power hydroelectric plants can be disastrous 
for local wildlife. Thus, while hydroelectric is a strong method of energy production 
in and of itself, it cannot be said to be a strong alternative to nuclear power for 
meeting future energy demand. 
 
5.6 Wind Power 
 
 The fastest growing sector of energy production in the world today is wind 
power. In fact, according to Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, 
“[nuclear power] added 1.4 billion watts […] It was a tenth what wind power added” 
(Lovins, 2008). While older wind farms were known to create many noise complaints 
and posed a serious danger to local bird populations, newer, more efficient eco-
friendly designs have minimized or eliminated these worries. In addition, many 
experts have cited wind power as being of exceptional economic quality; as Mary 
Olson states, “Life cycle costs for nuclear power generation (in the USA) have been 
estimated at 12 cents a kilowatt hour, whereas life cycle costs for wind power in the 
same analysis is estimated at 4 cents a kilowatt hour” (Olson, 2006). For further data 
on the cost comparisons of nuclear energy versus wind power, refer back to Table 1, 
above. The main problem with wind power, if there is one, is the fact that “there is 
the very sticky question of what to do when the wind isn't blowing [since] using 
batteries to store the electricity is far too expensive (Cohen, 1990). However, putting 
that aside, it would seem that wind power is a strong contender for “best alternative”, 
an opinion which seems to be reinforced by solid, openly available industry data and 
the shifting energy climate in many EU countries. 
 
5.7 Solar Power 
 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

 At first glance, solar power would seem to be the most ideal option available. 
What could be more natural, clean, and harmless than using the sun’s rays to 
generate our power? However, traditional photovoltaic generators face a number of 
problems. While the cost of operating a solar plant is very low, so too is the 
efficiency of these plants; the rate at which most current generation solar panels 
work is far too slow to meet demand. Though it is true that in recent years there has 
been a great deal of technological advancement in the field of photovoltaics, most of 
these advances are far more economical when used to upgrade existing plants rather 
than build new ones. This issue is one faced by the nuclear industry as well; Amory 
Lovins tells us that most of the new electricity generated in 2006 (the last year in 
which data is available) was “from upgrading old plants, because the new ones they 
built were smaller than the retirements of old plants” (Lovins, 2008). While there is a 
great deal that can be said for traditional solar power, the main difficulty faced by 
photovoltaic plants is similar to that of wind plants; the sheer amount of power 
generated during operation cannot be stored for later use at an economical rate, and 
peak generation periods do not coincide with peak demand periods. 
 
5.8 Artificial Photosynthesis 
 

Last on our list is the newly emerging field of artificial photosynthesis (AP). 
Not satisfied with the rate at which plants naturally photosynthesize light, scientists 
at the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis (JCAP) have been exploring new 
methods to determine whether it is actually possible to improve on the efficiency 
rates of natural photosynthesis. By using a multi-layered design very similar to that of 
a plant cell in nature, minus all the other components required for life, it is believed 
that they can “streamline” the process of photosynthesis and enhance it, providing 
actual liquid fuel made from sunlight. This puts AP in a whole different category of 
energy production; one which goes beyond simple electricity generation and allows 
us to make a combustible fuel which is totally renewable that, when burned, does not 
harm the environment. As Caltech Professor Nate Lewis puts it, “Forty percent of 
global transportation – heavy duty trucks, ships, and aircraft – cannot be electrified 
[…] you’ve got to find a high-energy-density, carbon neutral liquid fuel for global 
commerce” (Silberg, 2013). Meanwhile, Berkeley Labs researchers are also exploring 
the applications of AP through the development of a nano-engineered micro fluidic 
electrolyzer. This technology generates hydrogen and oxygen via the use of a 
chemically inert wall which separates anodes and cathodes. Essentially, water (H20), 
is broken down into potential energy (H2) and oxygen (O2) on a cellular scale. The 
greatest advantage of this technology, however, is its flexibility. Virtually any part of 
the structure can be swapped out for optimization with no loss in basic function. 
“Proof of concept” designs for AP technology are expected to be completed 
sometime in 2015. Even more encouraging is the recent discovery of examples of 
photosynthesis in places devoid of visible light. Through manipulation of the 
spectrum of light that the subject organisms were exposed to, it was found that some 
plants are able to photosynthesize lights along the infrared wavelength, though the 
general consensus is that the process is far from efficient. What this means is that as 
AP technology advances, new generators will be able to utilize not just the visible 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

spectrum of light, but low energy wavelengths as well; allowing for greater overall 
energy output from the same level of input. 
 
5.9 Conclusion – Wind Power, and an Eye Towards Future 
Technologies 
 

While there may not be a clear leader in alternative energy, the fact remains 
that there are several strong alternatives to be had, none of which can come close to 
the negative effects caused by nuclear power. However, it must be acknowledged 
that none of these options are perfect. Oil, coal, and natural gas all face the issues 
when it comes to availability, ecological impact, and overall cost factors, though they 
do have an advantage over nuclear power when considering construction and 
operational costs. Hydropower is an extremely efficient energy producer, but as 
stated in Section 5.5, there are few suitable locations left which have not already been 
utilized, and the construction of hydroelectric dams has been shown in the past to 
have incredibly deleterious effects on surrounding regions, including the destruction 
of low-lying communities, and wide-scale impacts on local wildlife which are unable 
to adjust to the changing landscape. Wind power has already been proven to be 
cleaner, more cost efficient and far more environmentally friendly than nuclear 
power, with new wind turbine designs having next to no impact on the surrounding 
area. While solar power is an incredibly clean and readily available source of energy 
when compared to nuclear, it lacks the ability to act as a standalone energy provider 
for mass consumption, and would be better relegated to a secondary support role in 
areas where demands on the local power grid are unusually high. The final option 
presented, artificial photosynthesis, has a great deal of potential, but even the most 
optimistic projections indicate that we are still several decades away from being able 
to utilize it effectively on a large scale. 

Overall, wind power serves as far and away the best option we have available 
today, due to its reliability, flexibility, and low risk when compared to nuclear power. 
One of the major claims of nuclear power proponents is that nuclear energy 
possesses long-term sustainability with a high rate of efficiency at a relatively low 
cost; therefore this should be a major selling point for consideration of alternatives 
to nuclear power. Wind power more than meets this goal, with the added advantage 
of having little to no negative ecological impact. It is this researcher’s opinion that 
given the overall adaptability and potential that we have seen thus far, wind power 
offers us an excellent current generation solution to the energy crisis we now face; 
however, a great deal of the capital currently being used to expand nuclear power in 
developed countries should be diverted to the research and expansion of artificial 
photosynthesis as a means of mass energy production in the future. 
 
6. Decision-Making Policy in Regards to Nuclear 
Adoption 
 
6.1 Introduction 
 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

Whenever nuclear power is adopted (or expanded, as the case may be) in an 
area, the decision to do so is generally a result of a long period of analysis and public 
hearings on the factors discussed in the preceding sections. While it would seem 
from the facts presented up to this point that nuclear adoption would rarely make it 
past these proposal stages, this is not the case. Therefore, it is the primary goal of 
this final section to revisit the main points which are brought up in relation to 
nuclear power. It is my hope that by analyzing these points from a decision-making 
perspective, the reader will be able to determine who makes the final call regarding 
nuclear adoption in a given region: the public majority, elected lawmakers, and 
private industrial interests. 
 

 
Figure 4 Experimental Design: “Nano-Engineered Micro Fluidic Electrolyzer” 
 
6.2 Public Stances on Nuclear Adoption 
 

Since the mid 1960s, Japan has been among the countries most willing to 
embrace the potential of nuclear power. The World Nuclear Association, however, 
reported that “following the tsunami which killed 19,000 people and which triggered 
the Fukushima nuclear accident (which killed no-one), public sentiment shifted 
markedly so that there were wide public protests calling for nuclear power to be 
abandoned” (WNA, Nuclear Power in Japan). It is important to note here that a 2009 
survey showed that support for nuclear power is far stronger in countries where it 
has already been introduced (See Figure 5). Kovacs and Gordelier attribute this trend 
to the idea that “people living in countries with nuclear power plants are more 
supportive of nuclear energy because they are more familiar with it, better informed 
about it, and more aware of its benefits”. They believe that, through further 
education of the public, social acceptance of nuclear power will rapidly increase in 
many countries. 

Without being informed, there is no way that the public can ever make an 
informed decision about nuclear power. That is why when Charlie Smith of Russia 
Today reported on February 14th, 2014 that “a commentator [Toru Nakakita, an 
economics professor at the University of Toyo in Tokyo] on Japan's Radio 1 
resigned after he was instructed not to discuss the nuclear accident until after a 
gubernatorial election”, a dire picture for how nuclear policy is made and reported 
on within the country is painted. Representatives of the radio station claimed that the 
reason for the censorship was due to a desire to offer an opposing viewpoint on the 
topic, but that they were unable to find anyone to do so. This failure to communicate 
openly with the public seems endemic at every level in Japan; in the Nature piece 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

“Nationalize the Fukushima Daiichi Atomic Plant”, Japanese House of Representatives 
members Tomoyuki Taira and Yukio Hatoyama reported that while trying to 
research the exact cause and nature of the FDND, the Tokyo Electric Power 
Company (TEPCO) “refused to supply” any information about the plant. When they 
finally did hand over a copy of the plant’s operating manual, key passages had been 
blacked out due to “intellectual property rights and security concerns”. All in all, it 
was more than six months before investigators were able to obtain full disclosure (as 
far as they know) about the plant and what transpired there. This speaks to a key 
concern of many citizens of countries around the world: the idea that “administrative 
responsibility only works satisfactorily with restraint and reasonableness on all sides, 
and where the governed have confidence in their elected representatives and the 
officials serving them” (Surrey & Hugget, 1976). However, given the climate of 
distrust and secrecy seen today, it would seem that ‘administrative responsibility’ is 
nowhere to be found. 
 

 
Figure 5: “Percentage of people supporting the use of nuclear power in each of the 
25 EU countries, after dividing them into countries with and without nuclear power 
plants” (Kovacs and Gordelier, 2009). 
 
6.3 Elected Officials’ Stances on Nuclear Adoption 
 

The government stance on nuclear power varies from region to region and, 
as is to be expected, is affected in large part by public opinion. However, there is also 
evidence to suggest that, in cases such as that of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, the 
ruling body also goes to great lengths to avoid controversy, often at the expense of 
the health and livelihood of the citizens whose interests it professes to serve. A 
prime example of this occurred roughly a month after the FDND, on April 19th, 
2011, when “Japan chose to drastically increase its official “safe” radiation exposure 
levels from 1 mSv to 20 mSv per year – 20 times higher than the US exposure limit” 
(Starr, 2012). It did not escape the notice of this researcher that April 19th was the 
exact day that Yasunari et al. (2011) finished gathering data for their report, “Cesium-
137 Deposition and Contamination of Japanese Soils Due to the Fukushima Nuclear Accident”, 
the findings for which were not published until fall of that year. In the report, it was 
stated that large amounts of cesium had saturated not just the majority of the island 
of Honshu, but had been carried far out into the Pacific Ocean as well. Based on this 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

information, it seems somewhat unlikely that the Japanese government’s choosing 
the exact day that Yasunari’s team finished gathering data to increase their safe 
exposure levels by an incredible 2000% was purely coincidental. Note the gradual 
shrinkage of the zones deemed too hazardous for human health in Figure 6 despite 
Cesium-137’s marked tendency to “…quickly become ubiquitous, contaminating 
water, soil, plants and animals [as it] bioaccumulates, bioconcentrates, and 
biomagnifies [while moving] up the food chain” (Starr, 2012). Given this information, 
it would seem that the hazardous zone would increase, not grow smaller, as time 
went by. 
 

 
Figure 6: “The Evolution of Evacuation Areas Around Fukushima Daiichi” (Starr) 
 

Japan’s stance on nuclear energy has for a long time been well established. As 
is stated in the opening paragraphs of Nuclear Power in Japan, published by the World 
Nuclear Association, “Japan’s first commercial nuclear reactors were brought online 
in 1966” and, due to its historical reliance on imports (~84% by the WNA’s latest 
numbers), “nuclear power has been a national strategic priority since 1973” (WNA, 
Nuclear Power in Japan). As stated above in Section 6.2, public opinion shifted 
drastically away from nuclear power following the FDND, with an "Innovative 
Energy and Environment Strategy" [being] released in September 2012 
recommending a phase-out of nuclear power by 2040. In the short term, reactors 
currently operable but shut down would be allowed to restart once they gained 
permission from the incoming Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), but a 40-year 
operating limit would be imposed” (WNA, Nuclear Power in Japan). However, just four 
days later, officials switched from a general approval of the plan to one which stated 
that “flexibility was important in considering energy policy” (WNA, Nuclear Power in 
Japan). While it may be easy for some to dismiss this as the government’s way of 
recovering from a brief period of “crisis-driven, ad hoc energy policy” (Hayashi & 
Hughes, 2013), the fact remains that in other countries, such as Germany and Italy, 
the sudden shift in public opinion, as well as the serious long term effects which 
continue to unfold as a result of the FDND, led to the decision “to immediately shut 
down some of the nuclear reactors or abandon plans to build new ones” (Hayashi & 
Hughes, 2013). In fact, as mentioned in Section 5, above, it was noted that the push 
for denuclearization and a greater focus on “green energy” now seen in many 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

European nations has not only proceeded without incident, but has resulted in a 
better standard of living for many citizens. 

Why then, have Japan and the United States, arguably the only two nations to 
suffer any major difficulties as a result of nuclear adoption, insisted on a continued 
expansion of nuclear power within their borders? In Japan at least, the reasons could 
be largely based on their “almost total lack of natural resources (in 2010, Japan 
imported 99.6%, 96.3%, and 100% of its petroleum, natural gas, and coal, 
respectively)” (Hayashi & Hughes, 2013). In the United States, however, the answer 
does not seem so simple. Over forty years ago, Surrey & Hugget (1976) stated the 
very rational concern that “[T]he government may side too easily with the 'Atomic 
Industrial Establishment' – the community of interest between electric utilities, 
agencies promoting nuclear power, and the manufacturers of nuclear plant - and may 
use its party majority to steamroller objections in Parliament”. It seems today that 
their fears have come to fruition. 
 
6.4 Private Interests’ Stances on Nuclear Power 
 
 The impact of private interests on policy making in regards to nuclear power 
cannot be understated. “Nuclear power has been written off many times since Three 
Mile Island yet, despite the crushing blows it has suffered – serious accidents and 
continuing real increases in costs – it has retained, and even strengthened its support, 
particularly at the highest political levels” (Thomas, 2012). To some extent, the 
introduction of benefits and subsidies for nuclear adoption has helped to spur the 
growth of nuclear power in some countries, but as Kato et al. (2013) note, “After the 
accident, benefit recognition of utility bill refunds clearly declined, while that of 
public facilities did not, suggesting the influence of a bribery effect”. But where 
exactly do the “bribes” come from? It can’t be from private investors, since as 
pointed out in Section 4.3, renowned scholar Amory Lovins has stated that Wall 
Street is not investing capital into the industry, despite the considerable tax benefits 
and subsidies associated with nuclear power. Since the benefits are given out by the 
government, and government dollars are tax dollars, we are in effect being bribed 
with our own money to accept nuclear power. 
 
6.5 Conclusion – Policy is Affected by Personal Interests 
 

When responding to questions involving the continued construction of a 
nuclear waste storage facility against the wishes of locals, Senator James Inhofe [R-
OK] is quoted as saying, “Our generation has a legal obligation to build Yucca 
Mountain; we’ve collected the money to pay for it, and we are 20 years overdue in 
getting it done” (Inhofe, 2007). Let us break down and examine this (seemingly) 
innocuous statement from an American lawmaker.  

“Our generation has a legal obligation…” At any given time in America, 
there could be five or maybe even six generations represented to some degree in an 
area, each with their own needs and wants. And what of future generations? 
Shouldn’t they be taken into consideration as well? Given the fact that “Cesium-137 
has a half-life of 30 years, and since it takes about 10 half-lives for any radionuclide 
to disappear” (Starr, 2012), it would seem so. And while we are on the topic, to 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

whom exactly do we hold a legal obligation? The citizens who stand to gain (or lose) 
the most from nuclear adoption, or the nuclear industry itself? Either way, the 
nuclear industry is (presumably) made up of US voters, so wouldn’t they be held at 
the same level as any other voting member of the community; and as such be subject 
to the whims of the majority? Sen. Inhofe doesn’t seem to think so. 

“…we’ve collected the money to pay for it…”, this is true; the tax dollars to 
pay for this were collected long ago. If this is truly a determining factor in the 
decision to continue the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States, then it 
would seem that the funds in question could be either refunded as an economic 
stimulus package or diverted for use as subsidies and benefits meant to reinforce 
struggling communities through public works and infrastructure projects. Indeed, as 
has been stated in other sections, such works are some of the strongest supports 
offered in favor of nuclear expansion. 

“…and we are 20 years overdue in getting it done.” Claiming that you should 
be allowed to finish a job simply because you are 20 years behind schedule is like a 
heart surgeon saying he should be allowed to continue an operation “because the 
patient is dead already”. In the professional world, failing to complete a job in a 
timely manner does not mean you get infinitely more time to complete it; it means 
you are fired. They even have a term for it: lack of productivity. The American 
government is not “producing” anything by its continued sponsorship of nuclear 
energy; why should they be allowed to throw hard-earned tax dollars away “on 
principle”? 

Referring back to Figure 5 above, while it is true that information and 
education seem to have a strong effect on the likelihood of nuclear adoption, there is 
not a single country out of the 25 presented where nuclear power was favored by a 
majority of the population. In fact, out of the 13 countries where nuclear acceptance 
was highest, the average rate of approval was only ~25% of the total population. 
Thus, I conclude based on the evidence presented that the final decision to adopt 
nuclear power rests with the elected officials of a region rather than with the citizens 
who put them in office. 
 
7. Closing Thoughts 
 

The question we must ask ourselves is, given that the nuclear industry has 
proven itself time and again to be both a financially and ecologically untenable one, 
why has it continued to flourish, largely against the will of the public? While there 
may be no easy answer, the data presented here today seems to support two 
arguments: (1) that nuclear energy is far less safe and economically sound than we 
have been led to believe, and (2) there has been an organized effort over the last 40+ 
years to hide that truth from the general populace. 

As seen in the preceding sections, nuclear power has few advantages over 
alternative forms of energy production when put to scrutiny and indeed manages to 
outclass every alternative in terms of inherent danger. Even when a majority of the 
data presented is taken from pro-nuclear or unbiased sources, the information 
presented here has the appearance of bias simply because an overwhelming majority 
of the data, including virtually all quantitative data on the topic, undermines the 
argument for growth of the nuclear industry. We humans as a race have advanced to 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

a level of technological sophistication where scientists are using water to turn 
sunlight into combustible fuel, and yet we generate electricity using a medium with 
the potential to cause irreparable damage to our worldwide economy and, more 
importantly, to the environment. Think back to Steven Starr’s words in Section 2.4; 
three years after the fact billions of dollars are being invested into fixing a mistake 
that never should have occurred, and the best solution we have is to spend the next 
several years permanently removing ten tons (~2,641.72 gallons) of seawater every 
day from our water cycle to prevent a meltdown, a process resulting in millions of 
barrels of highly irradiated seawater, each essentially a dirty bomb waiting to go off. 

 Nuclear power is, at its core, a very complex, expensive, and hazardous 
solution to what might seem to be a simple problem. The nuclear industry thrives on 
an environment of public ignorance, blind faith, and incentives designed to buy our 
acquiescence while better alternatives are consistently passed over by policy-makers 
with questionable motives. When J. Barnie Beasley Jr., President of Southern Nuclear 
Operating Company, spoke before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 
2006, he said, “The Administration and Congress demonstrated strong leadership by 
enacting the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which encourages diversity of energy 
sources, including emission-free sources of electricity, such as nuclear energy” 
(Beasley, 2006). However, the truth is that when the entire cradle-to-grave cycle is 
considered, nuclear power is actually one of the worst forms of energy production 
for a country aiming to lower emissions. That he could speak such a blatant mistruth 
and keep a straight face speaks volumes more about his own character than it does 
about the fundamentally flawed behemoth that is the nuclear industry. I can only 
assume that his success lay in part with the fact that so many of the committee 
members were “in on the joke”, as it were. 

Based on the data gathered here, it is obvious that nuclear power is a means 
of energy production that should have been done away with long ago. There is little 
to no documented evidence that nuclear adoption has any appreciable beneficial 
impact in the long-term for adopting communities, yet it continues to be pushed at 
the behest of politicians and nuclear lobbyists. It has been proven both in theory and 
in practice that there are better energy alternatives, both in terms of overall cost and 
efficiency, yet in certain countries it is still claimed by many to be the answer to all 
the world’s energy needs. What’s more, every nuclear plant currently in operation has 
the potential to devastate huge portions of our world ecology. Yet when things do go 
wrong, data is manipulated or downplayed in order to minimize cleanup costs and 
public disapproval, often at the cost of the general public’s health and safety. It is 
only through a concerted effort demanding change that policy will ever shift 
appropriately. Such change must begin with a greater level of public education and 
awareness about the costs, both monetary and otherwise, of nuclear power. 
  



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

Bibliography  
 
(2012). Three Mile Island Accident. World Nuclear Association, Retrieved from 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-
Plants/Three-Mile-Island-accident/  

 
(2014). The economics of nuclear power. World Nuclear Association, Retrieved 

from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-
of-Nuclear-Power/ 

 
Beasley, J. B. Energy and Natural Resources Committee, United States Senate. 

(2006). Testimony of j. barnie beasley jr. president of southern nuclear 
operating company (D-628). Retrieved from website: 
http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-
meetings?Id=697b67f4-652e-480a-b62a-
18bf95c0f7cb&Statement_id=071ab6ab-b67f-446e-ad4e-8a202f794a55 

 
Cohen, B. (1990). The nuclear energy option. Pittsburgh: Plenum Press. Retrieved 

from http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/index.html 
 
Gust, D., Kramer, D., Moore, A., Moore, T., & Vermaas, W. (2008). Engineered and 

artificial photosynthesis:human ingenuity enters the game.MRS 
Bulletin, 33(04), 383-387. Retrieved from 
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/MRS/MRS33_04/S088
3769400004905a.pdf&code=0cb50f0a594246c5799cf8f415584175 

 
Hadhazy, A. (2013, June 13). Where the sun don't shine: Alien life in sunless places. 

Retrieved from http://www.space.com/21551-alien-life-sunless-
photosynthesis.html 
 

Hayashi, M., & Hughes, L. (2013). The fukushima nuclear accident and its effect on 
global energy security. Energy Policy, 59, 102-111. Retrieved from 
http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/science/article/pii/S03
01421512010282 

 
Hong, S., Bradshaw, C., & Brook, B. (2013). Evaluating options for the future energy 

mix of japan after the fukushima nuclear crisis. Energy Policy, 56, 418-424. 
Retrieved from http://ac.els-
cdn.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/S0301421513000049/1-s2.0-
S0301421513000049-main.pdf?_tid=6950a104-9111-11e3-bad3-
00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1391899152_005bdd13bea263fc2571320bed620ba2 

 
Hosoe, N., & Tanaka, M. (2012). Divestiture of tepco for reparation for the 

fukushima nuclear accident–a path to vertical unbundling. Energy Policy, 51, 
207-212. Retrieved from http://ac.els-
cdn.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/S0301421512007719/1-s2.0-



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

S0301421512007719-main.pdf?_tid=0aef1684-910e-11e3-a655-
00000aacb35d&acdnat=1391897705_955514b0ebb1c9cc60056ca483f36f28 

 
How does nuclear power work?. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.duke-

energy.com/about-energy/generating-electricity/nuclear-how.asp 
 
Inhofe, J. (2007, 09 27). Nuclear power use must be expanded. The Hill. Retrieved 

from http://thehill.com/homenews/news/13160-nuclear-power-use-must-
be-expanded 

 
Is nuclear power cost-effective?. (2009, 02 24). Retrieved from 

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001269 
 
Japanese radio commentator quits after being told to shut up about fukushima 

nuclear plant. (2014, 02 01). Retrieved from 
http://www.straight.com/news/578611/japanese-radio-commentator-quits-
after-being-told-shut-about-fukushima-nuclear-plant 

 
Jun, E., Joon Kim, W., Hoon Jeong, Y., & Heung Chang, S. (2010). Measuring the 

social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation 
methodology.Energy Policy, 38(3), 1470-1476. Retrieved from 
http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/science/article/pii/S03
01421509008581 

 
Kato, T., Takahara, S., Nishikawa, M., & Homma, T. (2013). A case study of 

economic incentives and local citizens' attitudes toward hosting a nuclear 
power plant in japan: Impacts of the fukushima accident. Energy Policy, 59, 
808-818. Retrieved from http://ac.els-
cdn.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/S0301421513002966/1-s2.0-
S0301421513002966-main.pdf?_tid=432d1c0c-910f-11e3-99f0-
00000aacb35f&acdnat=1391898229_14cfaafe5ca92383fe34205205f150f5 

 
Kovacs, P., Gordelier, S., 2009. Nuclear Power and the Public, NEA News, Facts 

and Opinions. Nuclear Energy Agency. 
 
 
Lovins, A. (Performer) (2008). Amory lovins: Expanding nuclear power makes 

climate change worse [Television series episode]. In Democracy Now. 
Retrieved from 
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/16/amory_lovins_expanding_nucl
ear_power_makes 

 
McCally, M. (2007, 10 05). Clean, reliable, cost-effective: nuclear power none of 

these. The Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/opinion/letters/6814-
clean-reliable-cost-effective-nuclear-power-none-of-these 

 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

McKeating, J. (2013, 08 02). Fukushima clean up costs hit $58 billion. Retrieved 
from http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-
reaction/fukushima-clean-up-costs-hit-58-billion/blog/46132/ 

 
Nuclear power in japan. (2014, 01 01). Retrieved from http://www.world-

nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Japan/ 
 
Olson, M. (2006, May). Confronting a false myth of nuclear power: nuclear power 

expansion is not a remedy for climate change. Commission on sustainable 
development, United Nations. Retrieved from 
http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006.
pdf 

 
Siegrist, M., & Visschers, V. (2013). Acceptance of nuclear power: The fukushima 

effect. Energy Policy, 59, 112-119. Retrieved from http://ac.els-
cdn.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/S0301421512006453/1-s2.0-
S0301421512006453-main.pdf?_tid=4a58e0ec-910a-11e3-8fa2-
00000aacb362&acdnat=1391896093_cb7b473defe1f93813b4aa9dafc607f8 

 
Silberg, B. (2013, 08 07). Artificial photosynthesis to make plants green with envy. 

Retrieved from http://phys.org/news/2013-08-artificial-photosynthesis-
green-envy.html 

 
Starr, S. (n.d.). Costs and consequences of the fukushima daiichi disaster. Retrieved 

from http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-health-
policy-institute/responses/costs-and-consequences-of-fukushima.html 

 
Surrey, J., & Huggett, C. (1976). Opposition to nuclear power: A review of 

international experience. Energy Policy, 4(4), 286-307. Retrieved from 
http://ac.els-cdn.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/0301421576900239/1-s2.0-
0301421576900239-main.pdf?_tid=30009b64-9109-11e3-b982-
00000aacb362&acdnat=1391895619_21a8ad6ea2b9d9599fca5144e806b44d 

 
Taira, T., & Hatoyama, Y. (2011). Nuclear energy: Nationalize the fukushima daiichi 

atomic plant.Nature, 480(7377), 313-314. Retrieved from 
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/ehost/detail?sid=33441cd
9-4bc6-4b3b-b7ce-
bcae5f73cf0f@sessionmgr4004&vid=1&hid=4206&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBl
PWlwLHVybCxjb29raWUsdWlkJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT
1zaXRl 

 
Thomas, S. (2012). What will the fukushima disaster change?. Energy Policy, 45, 12-

17. Retrieved from http://ac.els-
cdn.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/S0301421512001140/1-s2.0-
S0301421512001140-main.pdf?_tid=1b083be2-910c-11e3-8600-
00000aab0f01&acdnat=1391896873_8c9661fc53f579e170a4cde16e15158d 

 



Consilience Davis: The Need for a New, Clear Option 

Yarris, Lynn. "Testing Artificial Photosynthesis." Berkeley Lab. U.S. Department of 
Energy, 10 06 2013. Web. 11 Sep 2013. http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-
stories/2013/06/10/testing-artificial-photosynthesis/ 

 
Yasunari, T. J., Stohl, A., Hayano, R. S., Burkhart, J. F., Eckhardt, S., & Yasunari, T. 

(2011). Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of japanese soils due to 
the fukushima nuclear accident. Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences of the United States of America, 108(49), 19530-19534. Retrieved 
from http://www.pnas.org.proxy.library.vcu.edu/content/108/49/19530