THE NUCLEAR OPTION

Evan Ulman

HONORS 222B: Science and the Public

June 6, 2017
 2

“The official platitude about Atomic Fission is that it can be a Force for Good (production) or a
Force for Evil (war), and that the problem is simply how to use its Good rather than its Bad
potentialities.”
DWIGHT MACDONALD
Writer, Editor, Critic

“The United States would seek more than the mere reduction or elimination of atomic materials
for military purposes. It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers. It
must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to
the arts of peace.”
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
34th President of the United States

“We nuclear people have made a Faustian bargain with society. On the one hand we offer—in
the catalytic nuclear burner—an inexhaustible source of energy…But the price we demand of
society for this magical energy source is both a vigilance and longevity of our social institutions
that we are quite unaccustomed to.”
ALVIN M. WEINBERG
Administrator of Oak Ridge National Monument
 3

Introduction

On July 16, 1945, in the desert at Alamogordo the world changed. The early morning sky

was suddenly bombarded by the light of a thousand suns as the first nuclear bomb was detonated

by American scientists. Witnesses to the event were overawed by the destructive power of the

new invention. “The whole sky [became] suddenly full of light like the end of the world,”

recounted one individual. “The strong, sustained, awesome roar…warned of doomsday and made

us feel that we puny things were blasphemous,” wrote another. “It is safe to say that nothing as

terrible has been made by man before.”1

The public has a mixed opinion of nuclear power because it is inseparably linked to the

nuclear bomb. Concerns over pollution and the peace movement in the 1970s sparked immense

backlash against the further adoption of nuclear energy, coupled with high profile nuclear

disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. By the 1990s, President Clinton rolled back

substantial United States (U.S.) funding on nuclear reactor research and development.2

Following the Fukushima disaster, Germany pledged to phase out its use of nuclear power by

2023.3 Clearly, nuclear power has its skeptics in the general public and policy sectors.

While less than half of all Americans “favor building more nuclear power plants,” 65%

of scientists favor doing so.4 What explains the gap between the public and scientific opinions?

1
Wellerstein, Alex. 2015. "The First Light Of Trinity". The New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-first-light-of-the-trinity-atomic-test.
2
Bill Clinton, “1993 State of the Union Address” (speech, Washington, D.C., February 17,
1993), The Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou93.htm
3
Joffe, Josef. 2017. "Germany Has Taken Itself Out Of The Nuclear Running". The Financial
Times. https://www.ft.com/content/4a60efd8-f1fd-11e6-95ee-f14e55513608.
4
Cary Funk and Lee Raine, "Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society | Pew
Research Center," Pew Research Center, last modified January 29, 2015,
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/.
 4

Whose opinions should policymakers listen to? Nuclear power is irretrievably linked to nuclear

weapons and disaster in the public’s eyes; it is largely believed to be dangerous. In reality,

nuclear power is safe for both man and for the environment, and it would be wise for

policymakers to reevaluate the nuclear option.

Seeds of Dissent: The Duality of Nuclear History

The association of nuclear power with nuclear weapons is inseparable. In the eyes of the

public, nuclear means dangerous, as exhibited by the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and

Nagasaki, by the overhanging existential threat of annihilation during much of the Cold War and

into the present, and by numerous disasters which polluted the environment so harshly as to

make it uninhabitable by mankind. The splitting of the atom has fundamentally changed

civilizations; the power exists to radically improve lives by increasing accessibility to cheap and

clean energy and to irreparably end them in an exchange of nuclear arms. The history of the

development of nuclear power has always been masked in this duality.

Theories surrounding the potential power of atoms have existed since the turn of the 20th

century. Physicist Ernest Rutherford wrote in 1904 that “if it were ever possible to control at will

the rate of disintegration of the radio elements, an enormous amount of energy could be obtained

from a small amount of matter.”5 The primary impetus for splitting the atom was to develop an

extraordinarily efficient source of energy. Enrico Fermi first tested the plausibility of atomic

power in 1934.6 When he bombarded uranium with neutrons, several unexpected elements were

left behind. The leftover elements were the result of the original uranium splitting in a process

5
U.S. Department of Energy. The History of Nuclear Energy. Pamphlet.
6
Ibid., 4.
 5

called nuclear fission. Lise Meitner found that the resulting elements had lost some of the mass

of the original uranium. She hypothesized that the missing mass had been converted into energy.

The potential of nuclear reactions as a source of energy had been tested.

In 1939 Niels Bohr shared the findings Albert Einstein. Along with Fermi, the trio

theorized that self-sustaining chain reactions would be possible, generating a great deal of energy

in the process. Despite the researchers’ initial conceptions of fission as an energy source, the

potential for the destructive power unleashed by the splitting of the atom attracted the attention

of world governments. The Second World War was raging and each belligerent power sought

technological superiority over the others. The MAUD Committee was established in 1941 by

Winston Churchill in response to Rudolph Periels and Otto Firsch’s 1940 assessment about the

feasibility of developing a nuclear bomb.7 The Committee produced two reports: one on the

feasibility of uranium for use as a bomb and the other as a source for power.8 The overall

conclusion was that while nuclear fission had considerable promise as a source of energy, its

potential for weaponry was more pertinent to the war effort. The Committee urged development

of a nuclear bomb assuming the Germans would do so as well.

In 1942, the U.S took the helm of nuclear bomb development from the British.

Previously, American scientists focused primarily on nuclear power, not nuclear weapons. But

the attack on Pearl Harbor half a year earlier had lurched the U.S. into the war and it could no

longer ignore the necessity of the bomb. Experimentation and construction of earlier nuclear

power plants continued, but most of the effort and funding was centered around development of

7
Margaret Gowing, Britain and Atomic Energy, 1939-1949 (London: Macmillan, 1964), xx.
8
World Nuclear Association. “Outline History of Nuclear Energy.” History of Nuclear Energy -
World Nuclear Association. March 2014. Accessed May 14, 2017. http://www.world-
nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/outline-history-of-nuclear-
energy.aspx.
 6

the bomb. A team was put together under the direction of Robert Oppenheimer and put to work

in the remote desert outside of Los Alamos, New Mexico. In 1945, they succeeded in their

mission. The first and only use of nuclear weapons in warfare occurred on August 6, 1945 and

August 9, 1945 on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively.9 An estimated

200,000 people died.10 The initial promise of nuclear power as a gift to civilization had not been

met.

After V-E Day, the U.S. government provided amnesty to German scientists in return for

their expertise.11 The focus of the U.S. nuclear program continued to center on weaponry, but in

peacetime, a renewed focus on nuclear energy began. In 1946, Congress authorized the

construction of the first fully-operational nuclear reactor. By 1951, the reactor was generating

electricity and commercial use of nuclear energy began in 1957.12

Pollsters did not conduct public opinion polls about nuclear energy until the early 1960s.

Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, public opposition to nuclear energy dwindled to 25%. In

fact, “from Earth Day in 1970 through the mid-1970s, opposition levels averaged 25% to 30 %,

indicating that substantial majorities of the public favored further nuclear development,” despite

9
U.S. Department of Energy Office of History and Heritage Resources. “The Atomic Bombing
of Hiroshima.” Manhattan Project: The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima, August 6, 1945.
Accessed May 14, 2017. https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-
history/Events/1945/hiroshima.htm.
10
Yamazaki, James N. “Hiroshima and Nagasaki Death Toll.” Hiroshima and Nagasaki Death
Toll. Accessed May 14, 2017. http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html.
11
Jay Watkins, “Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program to Bring Nazi Scientists
to America — Central Intelligence Agency,” Central Intelligence Agency, last modified October
6, 2014, https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-
studies/studies/vol-58-no-3/operation-paperclip-the-secret-intelligence-program-to-bring-nazi-
scientists-to-america.html.
12
U.S. DoE, The History of Nuclear Energy
 7

the budding environmental movement.13 While fringe groups protested nuclear power since its

inception, the anti-nuclear movement, as measured by polling data, did not take off until the

1979 Three Mile Island accident. The Chernobyl disaster less than a decade later only reified in

the public mind that nuclear energy could be dangerous, and in 2011, the Fukushima-Daiichi

disaster reinvigorated distrust of nuclear energy among the public and policymakers.

The Science

Is Nuclear Power Safe?

On March 11, 2011, following a major earthquake in the region, the Fukushima-Daiichi

reactor in Japan melted down, releasing large amounts of radioactive waste into the surrounding

environment.14 Over 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes by the government. The

level of contamination is such that they will never be able to return home again. Environmental

disasters such as the one at Fukushima create the perception that nuclear energy is extremely

unsafe. However, this is normally not the case.

In general, nuclear power is one of the safest forms of energy. Accidents resulting in

nuclear reactor meltdowns are relatively rare and the number of people that have been killed in

nuclear accidents is low compared to the number of annual deaths related to the production of

coal or oil. In the Fukushima disaster, not a single person was killed from exposure to radiation.

Historically, “nuclear power rarely kills and causes little illness…[indeed], making energy from

nuclear power turns out to be far less damaging to human health than making it from coal, oil or

13
U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Nuclear Power in an Age of Uncertainty,
(Washington, D.C.: Congress of the U.S., Office of Technology Assessment, 1984).
14
World Nuclear Association, “Fukushima Accident,” World Nuclear Association, last modified
April 2017, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-
plants/fukushima-accident.aspx.
 8

even clean-burning gas.”15 For every terawatt hour of electricity produced in Europe by coal,

0.12 deaths occur from accidents, 25 from exposure to pollution, and 225 cases of serious illness

in the general public are reported. In comparison, nuclear power is attributed to only 0.02

accidental deaths, 0.05 pollution deaths, and 0.22 cases of illness.16

The age and design of a nuclear reactor determines its level of safety. The Fukushima-

Daiichi reactor suffered a fatal flaw in its nuclear fuel housing, a problem characteristic of older

boiling-water reactors.17 Light water reactors are the cheapest and oldest nuclear reactor design,

but are not the safest or the most efficient.18 Reactors cooled with water require a constant inflow

of water to ensure that they do not overheat. When the water supply shuts off due to a power

outage or obstruction, the nuclear rods overheat and begin to melt, creating magma out of

nuclear material.19 Exposure to nuclear material greatly increases a person’s risk of developing

cancer, and extremely high dosages of radiation released in accidents can kill a person within

minutes. The Fukushima reactor shutdown became a disaster because light water reactors are

comparatively unsafe compared to other types of reactors.

15
Brown, David. “Nuclear power is safest way to make electricity, according to study.” The
Washington Post. April 02, 2011. Accessed May 14, 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-make-electricity-
according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html.
16
Anil Markandya and Paul Wilkinson, "Electricity generation and health," The Lancet 370, no.
9591 (September 2007): xx, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61253-7.
17
David Biello, "How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima," Scientific
American, last modified March 9, 2012, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-safe-
are-old-nuclear-reactors-lessons-from-fukushima/#.
18
Kurzgesagt. “Nuclear Energy Explained: How does it work? 1/3.” Filmed [March 2015].
YouTube video, 5:17. Posted [March 2015]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOFV4y5z8c
19
The Nuclear Option, directed by Miles O'Brien. (2017; Boston, MA: NOVA, 2017), Film.
 9

To date, 33 nuclear reactor shutdowns have occurred, with only five of those accidents

registering a five or over on the seven-point International Nuclear Events Scale (INES).20

Compared to the total number of operational nuclear reactors in the world today, only about 1%

of nuclear reactors suffered an accident with wider consequences beyond the immediate

geographical location. Nuclear power, when managed with proper precautions, tends to be

incredibly safe. Indeed, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that among the 15

million people living within 25 miles of a U.S. reactor site, only two were expected to be killed

each year due to an accident related to working at a nuclear facility.21 This means that a person is

2,100 times more likely to be killed by an automobile accident than by a nuclear accident. In

fact, the average person remains four times more likely to be killed by lightening than by any

cause related to nuclear power plants.

Is Nuclear Power Green?

In the face of climate change, finding alternatives to energy sources which produce

carbon dioxide (CO2) will be necessary to limit global warming to a manageable rate. Nuclear

energy doesn’t produce greenhouse gases, making it incredibly environmentally friendly by

comparison. Nuclear reactors are fueled by uranium which naturally splits apart releasing

neutrons through fission. An initial instance of fission induces a chain reaction, generating heat

20
International Atomic Energy Authority, "Nuclear Power Plant Accidents: Listed, Visualised
and Ranked Since 1952," The Guardian, accessed May 29, 2017,
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-
rank.
21
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks
in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, ([Buffalo, N.Y.]: [W.S. Hein], 1975),
https://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/35/053/35053391.pdf?r=1.
 10

every time an atom is split. The heat then boils water, which produces steam to turn turbines and

generate electricity, all without ever releasing a molecule of CO2 into the air.22

Since nuclear power does not produce dangerous emissions, it does not have the

deleterious environmental effects of other sources of energy. In fact, Hansen and Kharecha

estimate that the use of nuclear power over traditional power sources has prevented some 1.84

million deaths that would have occurred otherwise. Even the possibly dangerous aspects of

nuclear power, such as radiation leakage during plant failure, are negligible compared to the

number of lives saved: 370 times more lives have been saved by nuclear power than “have been

lost to radiation poisoning or occupational accidents…over the last 40 years or so.”23 The impact

of nuclear reactors on the environment depends predominantly on their production and

decommissioning phases.24 The environmental issues which tend to arise from nuclear power

have to do with the plants themselves, and not any emissions or byproducts of fission. The

process of running a nuclear power plant introduces potential strains on the environment,

including the mining of uranium, waste management options, land use and reclamation, and

sources of water for cooling.25 Construction of new nuclear power plants will incur an

environmental cost in the release of more CO2 into the air, yet once the plants are running, they

do not contribute to the global production of carbon.

22
Miles O’Brien, The Nuclear Option
23
Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen, "Environment: Nuclear power saves lives," Nature
497, no. 7451 (March 2013): 60, doi:10.1038/497539e.
24
Maximilian Seier and Till Zimmermann, "Environmental impacts of decommissioning nuclear
power plants: methodical challenges, case study, and implications," The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment 19, no. 12 (2014): 1930, doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0794-2.
25
R E Hester and R M Harrison, eds., Nuclear Power and the Environment (Cambridge, UK:
Royal Society of Chemistry, 2011)
 11

However, some groups resist labeling nuclear energy as renewable energy. The

International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) does “not support nuclear energy programs

because it’s a long, complicated process, it produces waste and is relatively risky,” according to

interim director general Hélène Pelosse.26 And they are correct. It would be inaccurate to label

nuclear power as renewable, because nuclear energy is not inexhaustible.27 Once uranium is

depleted, it cannot be reused and must be safely stored for the duration of its half-life, meaning

nuclear reactors produce waste unlike truly renewable sources.28 However, as an alternative to

fossil fuels, nuclear power generates little environmental impact. It is not as risky as IRENA

assumes; nuclear power can be attributed to less on the job accidents and pollution induced

casualties than either coal or natural gas.29 And developments are being made to reduce the

amount of nuclear waste produced.

What About Nuclear Waste?

Nuclear fission depletes uranium, leaving behind irradiated material which must be

disposed of. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates nuclear waste at secure sites

across the country.30 Disposing of nuclear waste is difficult because enriched uranium has a half-

life of about 700 million years, meaning that used radioactive material will remain dangerous for

26
James Kanter, “Is Nuclear Power Renewable?,” The New York Times, last modified August 3,
2009, https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/is-nuclear-power-renewable/.
27
Daniel Ciolkosz, “What is Renewable Energy?,” Penn State Extension, accessed
May 26, 2017, http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/energy/what.
28
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Nonrenewable Energy Explained,” U.S. Energy
Information Administration, last modified February 9, 2017,
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=nonrenewable_home.
29
Anil Markandya and Paul Wilkinson, “Electricity generation and health,” The Lancet 370, no.
9591 (September 2007): http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61253-7.
30
United State Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Radioactive Waste,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, last modified June 27, 2016, https://www.nrc.gov/waste.html.
 12

millennia.31 The challenge of managing nuclear waste is one of the greatest impediments to the

expanded adoption of nuclear power. However, scientists have been developing reactors which

would run on recycled fuel by separating usable uranium from the rest of the waste.32 While this

proposed method would not eliminate the waste created by nuclear reactors, it would reduce the

amount produced, making nuclear energy greener in the process.

Public Perception

Less than half—45%—of the general public favor the construction of new nuclear power

plants, while 65% of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) scientists

favored new construction.33 In 2016, Gallup found that for the first time more Americans oppose

nuclear energy than favor it.34 This is a marked change from fifty years ago; in the early 1960s,

“less than a quarter of the public opposed nuclear power.”35 The trend of relative public

acceptance of nuclear power continued until 1979, when the Three Mile Island accident made

national headlines. After that disaster, more people than not opposed nuclear power for the first

time in the industry’s history.36 There are three reasons why the general public distrusts nuclear

power: (1) the social history of nuclear power, (2) safety concerns, and (3) perceptions of

management and regulation.

31
Depleted UF6 Management Information Network, “Is Uranium Radioactive?,” U.S.
Department of Energy, accessed May 26, 2017,
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/uproperties/faq5.cfm.
32
Chuck McCutcheon, "Can Nuclear Waste Spark an Energy Solution?," National Geographic,
last modified September 3, 2010, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100831-
can-nuclear-waste-spark-an-energy-solution/.
33
Funk and Raine, “Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society."
34
Rebecca Riffkin, “For First Time, Majority in U.S. Oppose Nuclear Energy,” Gallup, last
modified March 18, 2016, http://www.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-
nuclear-energy.aspx.
35
Office of Technology Assessment, Nuclear Power in the Age of Uncertainty
36
Ibid., 211.
 13

Social History

As I previously established, nuclear power and nuclear weapons are inseparable in the

public imagination. The conceptualization of atoms for peace grew up with that of atoms for war.

And while “many new technologies are born in wartime efforts…none have come to symbolize

the destructiveness of war as has the atomic bomb. For better or worse, nuclear power was for

many years tied to and overshadowed by the course of military developments.”37 Indeed, “a

substantial part of the public’s concern over nuclear power is displaced anxiety rooted in the fear

of nuclear war.”38 Anti-nuclear groups like the Nuclear Energy Information Service make the

connection between energy and weapons clear. They write that “it is the same nuclear fuel cycle

with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the

uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or

generate electricity.”39 In conclusion, “the distrust of nuclear power is…rooted in the fear of

nuclear weapons and is augmented by [auxiliary concerns] about pollution and opposition to

high technology and centralization.”40

Misconceptions of Safety

Gamson and Modigliani propose that “nuclear power, like every policy issue, has a

culture.”41 There are two streams of parallel thought on the issue of nuclear energy: first, a

discourse disseminated by the media, and second, public opinion. American culture has always

37
Christoph Hohenemser, Roger Kasperson, and Robert Kates, "The Distrust of Nuclear Power,"
Science 196, no. 4285 (April 1977): 26, doi:10.1126/science.841337.
38
Ibid., 28.
39
Nuclear Energy Information Service, "Nuclear Power & Nuclear Weapons," NEIS, accessed
May 29, 2017, http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm.
40
Hohenemser, Kasperson, Kates, “The Distrust of Nuclear Power,” 28.
41
William A. Gamson and Andre Modigliani, “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear
Power: A Constructionist Approach,” American Journal of Sociology 95, no. 1 (July 1989): 1,
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/ajs/current.
 14

contained “a counter theme that is skeptical of, or even hostile to, technology…Harmony with

nature rather than mastery over it is stressed…Much of popular culture features the counter

theme…about technology gone out of control.”42 It is easy for people to substitute the

boogeyman with nuclear power when both narratives have been constructed much the same.

The most salient factor in the public’s opinion of nuclear energy is perceived safety of

nuclear reactors, which is influenced by the news media. Public opinion on the construction of

new nuclear power plants remains mostly “ambivalent,” but the greatest changes registered by

polls have occurred after major nuclear incidents.43 Fear over the destructive effects of nuclear

energy is not new. Greenpeace began protesting nuclear weapons in 1971, as the war in Vietnam

and revelations about human impact on the environment helped spur the anti-nuclear movement.

Greenpeace cites fears of meltdowns and radiation leaks as being their primary opposition to

nuclear power. They also cite the high cost of constructing nuclear power plants as an economic

impetus to halt new construction.44

As noted by Slovic, Flynn, and Layman, the Department of Energy faced “overwhelming

political opposition fueled by public perceptions of risk.”45 They write that “analysis of [public]

perceptions shows them to be deeply rooted in images of fear and dread that have been present

since the discovery of radioactivity. The development and use of nuclear weapons linked these

images to reality and the mishandling of radioactive wastes from the nation’s military weapons

42
Ibid., 3.
43
Office of Technology Assessment, Nuclear Power in the Age of Uncertainty
44
Greenpeace, “Nuclear Energy,” Greenpeace USA, accessed May 26, 2017,
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/nuclear/.
45
Paul Slovic, James H. Flynn, and Mark Layman, “Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of
Nuclear Waste,” Science 254, no. 5038 (December 1991): 1604,
doi:10.1126/science.254.5038.1603.
 15

has contributed toward creating a profound state of distrust that cannot be erased quickly or

easily.”46

Nuclear energy, however, is not universally distrusted. In France, nuclear power enjoys

widespread support. Former General Director for Energy and Raw Materials at the Ministry of

Industry Claude Mandil cites three reasons for French support of nuclear power: it delivers

independence from oil producing countries, the French people’s overall support of “large,

centrally managed technological projects,” and information campaigns that present both the risks

and the benefits of nuclear power.47

Clearly the media has influenced public perceptions of the safety of nuclear power.

Media coverage about nuclear energy increased in the 1970s as the environmental movement,

energy independence, and safety policy frames collided. Previously, the primary narrative used

to describe nuclear power was a progress narrative; it was posited that advances in nuclear

technology would improves lives. Gamson and Modigliani identify the rise of two new narratives

called “soft paths,” and “runaway,” which offered a more sympathetic view to the concerns of

antinuclear demonstrators and the narrative of nuclear power as being uncontrollable,

respectively.48 However, media attention did not entirely adopt these new narratives until the

Three Mile Island accident in 1979. After the accident, the progress narrative shrunk to a mere

18% of all news coverage on nuclear power and the coverage adopted an increasingly “grudging

and defensive tone.”49 Public opposition to nuclear power had become mainstream.

46
Ibid., 1603.
47
Jon Palfreman, "Why The French Like Nuclear Energy," WGBH Educational Foundation,
accessed May 26, 2017,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html.
48
Gamson and Modigliani, “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A
Constructionist Approach,” 6.
49
Ibid., 23.
 16

Mismanagement and Regulation

The Union of Concerned Scientists posits that “when one compares the costs and benefits

of nuclear energy with the alternatives, it makes a poor showing. Nuclear power…has turned out

to be a lemon, and it is foolish to keep pouring good money after bad by supporting the

continued development of nuclear energy.”50 Indeed, the capital costs of nuclear power are high.

Part of the reason for high costs is the need to diminish safety concerns. Mark Cooper, senior

research fellow at Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment makes the

point that “you can make [construction] go fast, and you can make it be cheap—but not if you

adhere to the standard of care [the U.S. does] …nuclear safety always undermines nuclear

economics.”51 At this point in time, commercial nuclear technology cannot live up to the safety

standards the public demands of the industry and also be cheap to construct; public and elite

concerns over the capital costs of new nuclear construction are warranted.

Policy Prescriptions

In the summer of 1964, Lyndon Johnson, in an effort to sell his vision of a Great Society

to the American public before the November elections, toured the country and spoke of the

indelible progress he hoped to initiate.

It appears that the long promised day of economical nuclear power is close at hand. In the past several
months we have achieved an economic breakthrough in the use of larger-scale reactors for commercial
power. And as a result of this rapid progress we are years ahead of our planned progress. This new
technology, now being applied in the United States, will be available to the world.52

50
Gamson and Modigliani, “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A
Constructionist Approach, 16.
51
Diane Cardell, “The Murky Future of Nuclear Power in the United States,” The New York
Times, last modified February 18, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/business/energy-
environment/nuclear-power-westinghouse-toshiba.html?_r=0.
52
Alexis C. Madrigal, “The Nuclear Breakthrough That Wasn't,” The Atlantic, last modified
March 22, 2011, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-nuclear-
breakthrough-that-wasnt/72816/.
 17

Yet the nuclear revolution that Johnson spoke of never came to pass. The context the word

nuclear would be used in most prominently during the 1964 presidential campaign would be

warfare, spurred on by Barry Goldwater’s proposal to use low-yield nuclear weapons in

Vietnam.53 Nuclear power capital projects have continued to be expensive endeavors. I have

already established that nuclear power is both safer and greener than many members of the

public and some experts perceive it to be. But is it economical, and should the U.S. construct

new nuclear infrastructure?

Today, with the threat of global warming now greater than the threat of nuclear war,

policy has begun to shift in the favor of nuclear power. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 granted

tax credits and loan guarantees for new reactor construction.54 Nuclear power has the added

benefit of making the U.S. less dependent on oil exported from the Middle East; the prices for

nuclear energy are more stable.

While nuclear power is an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels, it tends to

be more expensive than other forms of carbon free energy. Currently, solar plants can be

“installed for under three cents a kilowatt hour, while the comparative price for nuclear in the

best situation is well over ten cents a kilowatt hour.”55 Once running, the price dips dramatically,

“costing less than two cents per kilowatt hour for operations, maintenance, and fuel.”56 But

overcoming the initial economies of scale has stifled new nuclear development. Cost overruns

53
Louis Menand, “He Knew He Was Right,” The New Yorker, last modified March 26, 2001,
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/03/26/he-knew-he-was-right.
54
Energy Policy Act, U.S. Code 42 (2005), §13201 et seq.
55
Andy Murdock, “The Simple Fact That Could Put the Brakes on Nuclear Energy,” University
of California, last modified May 17, 2017,
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/longform/simple-fact-could-put-brakes-nuclear-energy.
56
Ernest Moniz, “Why We Still Need Nuclear Power,” Foreign Affairs, last modified
November/December 2011, http://energy.mit.edu/news/why-we-still-need-nuclear-power/.
 18

are rampant; Westinghouse declared bankruptcy earlier this year after generating $9.8 billion in

liabilities constructing reactors in Georgia and South Carolina.57 Then professor and Director of

the Energy Initiative at MIT Ernest Moniz wrote succinctly in defense of the nuclear power

industry in Foreign Affairs in 2011, two years before being nominated as Secretary of Energy in

the Obama administration. He said that:

If the benefits of nuclear power are to be realized in the United States, each of these hurdles must be
overcome. When it comes to safety, the design requirements for nuclear reactors must be reexamined
in light of up-to-date analyses of plausible accidents. As for cost, the government and the private
sector need to advance new designs that lower the financial risk of constructing nuclear power plants.
The country must also replace its broken nuclear waste management system with a more adaptive one
that safely disposes of waste and stores it for centuries. Only then can the public’s trust be earned.58
Indeed, for nuclear power to expand, it must be updated for the 21st century. The best action

policymakers could take would be to continue to fund advanced nuclear technology research,

especially into technologies which would reduce the cost of traditional nuclear power plants

while also increasing safety and output.59 In confronting climate change, the U.S. should explore

the opportunity safe and reliable nuclear power offers.

Conclusion

In their 1977 assessment of public distrust of nuclear power, Hohenemser, Kasperson, and Kates

described “nuclear power… [as being] not just another problem of technology, of environment,

or of health. It is unique in our time.”60 Indeed, few publically disputed scientific issues inspire

such a visceral reaction as nuclear power. The very word nuclear comes with negative

57
Tom Hals, Makiko Yamazaki, and Tim Kelly, “Huge Nuclear Cost Overruns Push Toshiba's
Westinghouse into Bankruptcy,” CNBC, last modified March 29, 2017,
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/29/reuters-america-update-6-huge-nuclear-cost-overruns-push-
toshibas-westinghouse-into-bankruptcy.html.
58
Moniz, “Why We Still Need Nuclear Power.”
59
U.S. Department of Energy, “Energy Department Invests $82 Million to Advanced Nuclear
Technology,” Energy.gov, last modified June 14, 2016, https://energy.gov/articles/energy-
department-invests-82-million-advanced-nuclear-technology.
60
Hohenemser, Kasperson, and Kates, “The Distrust of Nuclear Power,” 34
 19

connotations for many people, conjuring images of mushroom clouds; the very sight of cooling

towers instills a sense of dread. The iconography of nuclear power indicates hazard. In what

context is nuclear used in the media besides danger? It all goes back to the New Mexican desert,

when the first nuclear bomb was detonated. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are irretrievably

linked because the adjective nuclear means more to the public than just fission. Other sources of

power in the energy industry are far more dangerous than nuclear power and yet don’t face the

same public scrutiny. Despite the Deepwater Horizon accident, there have been no serious

proposals to stop drilling. Therefore, public education will be an important tool to redefine the

everyday terms that we use to describe nuclear energy. We need to help people disconnect their

past perceptions with current advancements in the generation and use of fission-based power

sources. We’ll probably never go back to the 1950s level of confidence in technology. However,

we need to be sure that we understand the real risks associated with every type of energy

generation. Policy based on misperceptions doesn’t serve the greater good. The transition to a

carbon-free power grid requires stable, reliable, and clean sources of power, and nuclear energy

will be key to making this transition. It is time for the U.S. and the world to reassess the nuclear

option.
 20

Bibliography

Biello, David. “How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima.” Scientific
American. Last modified March 9, 2012.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-safe-are-old-nuclear-reactors-lessons-
from-fukushima/#.

Bill Clinton, “1993 State of the Union Address” (speech, Washington, D.C., February 17,
1993), The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou93.htm

Brown, David. “Nuclear power is safest way to make electricity, according to study.” The
Washington Post. April 02, 2011. Accessed May 14, 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-make-
electricity-according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html.
Cardell, Diane. “The Murky Future of Nuclear Power in the United States.” The New York
Times. Last modified February 18, 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/business/energy-environment/nuclear-power-
westinghouse-toshiba.html?_r=0.

Ciolkosz, Daniel. “What is Renewable Energy?” Penn State Extension. Accessed May 26, 2017.
http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/energy/what.

Depleted UF6 Management Information Network. “Is Uranium Radioactive?” U.S. Department
of Energy. Accessed May 26, 2017.
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/uproperties/faq5.cfm.

Funk, Cary, and Lee Raine. “Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society.” Pew
Research Center. Last modified January 29, 2015.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-
society/.

Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani. “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear
Power: A Constructionist Approach.” American Journal of Sociology 95, no. 1 (July
1989), 1-37. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/ajs/current.

Gowing, Margaret. Britain and Atomic Energy, 1939-1949, 1st ed. London: Macmillan, 1964.

Greenpeace. “Nuclear Energy.” Greenpeace USA. Accessed May 26, 2017.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/nuclear/.

Hals, Tom, Makiko Yamazaki, and Tim Kelly. “Huge Nuclear Cost Overruns Push Toshiba's
Westinghouse into Bankruptcy.” CNBC. Last modified March 29, 2017.
 21

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/29/reuters-america-update-6-huge-nuclear-cost-overruns-
push-toshibas-westinghouse-into-bankruptcy.html.

Hester, R E, and R M Harrison, editors. Nuclear Power and the Environment. Cambridge, UK:
Royal Society of Chemistry, 2011.

Hohenemser, Christoph, Roger Kasperson, and Robert Kates. “The Distrust of Nuclear Power.”
Science 196, no. 4285 (April 1977), 25-34. doi:10.1126/science.841337.

International Atomic Energy Authority. “Nuclear Power Plant Accidents: Listed, Visualised and
Ranked Since 1952.” The Guardian. Accessed May 29, 2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-
accidents-list-rank.

Joffe, Josef. 2017. “Germany Has Taken Itself Out Of The Nuclear Running.” The Financial
Times. https://www.ft.com/content/4a60efd8-f1fd-11e6-95ee-f14e55513608.

Kanter, James. “Is Nuclear Power Renewable?” The New York Times. Last modified August 3,
2009. https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/is-nuclear-power-renewable/.

Kharecha, Pushker A., and James E. Hansen. “Environment: Nuclear power saves lives.” Nature
497, no. 7451 (March 2013), 539-539. doi:10.1038/497539e.

Kurzgesagt. “Nuclear Energy Explained: How does it work? 1/3.” Filmed [March 2015].
YouTube video, 5:17. Posted [March 2015].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOFV4y5z8c

Madrigal, Alexis C. “The Nuclear Breakthrough That Wasn't.” The Atlantic. Last modified
March 22, 2011. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-nuclear-
breakthrough-that-wasnt/72816/.

Markandya, Anil, and Paul Wilkinson. “Electricity generation and health.” The Lancet 370, no.
9591 (September 2007), 979-990. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61253-7.

McCutcheon, Chuck. “Can Nuclear Waste Spark an Energy Solution?” National Geographic.
Last modified September 3, 2010.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100831-can-nuclear-waste-spark-an-
energy-solution/.

Menand, Louis. “He Knew He Was Right.” The New Yorker. Last modified March 26, 2001.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/03/26/he-knew-he-was-right.

Moniz, Ernest. “Why We Still Need Nuclear Power.” Foreign Affairs. Last modified
November/December 2011. http://energy.mit.edu/news/why-we-still-need-nuclear-
power/.
 22

Murdock, Andy. “The Simple Fact That Could Put the Brakes on Nuclear Energy.” University
of California. Last modified May 17, 2017.
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/longform/simple-fact-could-put-brakes-nuclear-
energy.

Nuclear Energy Information Service. “Nuclear Power & Nuclear Weapons.” NEIS. Accessed
May 29, 2017. http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm.

The Nuclear Option. Directed by Miles O'Brien. 2017. Boston, MA: NOVA, 2017. Film.

Palfreman, Jon. “Why The French Like Nuclear Energy.” WGBH Educational Foundation.
Accessed May 26, 2017.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html.

Riffkin, Rebecca. “For First Time, Majority in U.S. Oppose Nuclear Energy.” Gallup. Last
modified March 18, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-
oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx.

Seier, Maximilian, and Till Zimmermann. “Environmental impacts of decommissioning nuclear

power plants: methodical challenges, case study, and implications.” The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19, no. 12 (2014), 1919-1932. doi:10.1007/s11367-
014-0794-2.

Slovic, Paul, James H. Flynn, and Mark Layman. “Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of
Nuclear Waste.” Science 254, no. 5038 (December 1991), 1603-1607.
doi:10.1126/science.254.5038.1603.

U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Nuclear Power in an Age of Uncertainty.

Washington, D.C.: Congress of the U.S., Office of Technology Assessment, 1984.

U.S. Department of Energy. “Energy Department Invests $82 Million to Advanced Nuclear
Technology.” Energy.gov. Last modified June 14, 2016.
https://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-invests-82-million-advanced-nuclear-
technology.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Nonrenewable Energy Explained.” U.S. Energy

Information Administration. Last modified February 9, 2017.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=nonrenewable_home.

U.S. Department of Energy Office of History and Heritage Resources. “The Atomic Bombing of
Hiroshima.” Manhattan Project: The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima, August 6, 1945.
Accessed May 14, 2017. https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-
history/Events/1945/hiroshima.htm.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks
in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. [Buffalo, N.Y.]: [W.S. Hein], 1975.
 23

https://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/35/053/35053391.pdf?
r=1.

United State Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Radioactive Waste.” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Last modified June 27, 2016. https://www.nrc.gov/waste.html.

Watkins, Jay. “Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program to Bring Nazi Scientists to
America — Central Intelligence Agency.” Central Intelligence Agency. Last modified
October 6, 2014. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-
publications/csi-studies/studies/vol-58-no-3/operation-paperclip-the-secret-intelligence-
program-to-bring-nazi-scientists-to-america.html.

World Nuclear Association. “Fukushima Accident.” World Nuclear Association. Last modified
April 2017. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-
security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx.

World Nuclear Association. “Outline History of Nuclear Energy.” History of Nuclear Energy -
World Nuclear Association. March 2014. Accessed May 14, 2017. http://www.world-
nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/outline-history-of-nuclear-
energy.aspx.

Yamazaki, James N. “Hiroshima and Nagasaki Death Toll.” Hiroshima and Nagasaki Death Toll.
Accessed May 14, 2017. http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html.