Environment: The Great Nuclear Debate

(3 of 5)

Lethal Garbage A reactor's wastes, mainly the depleted uranium fuel, are so highly radioactive that they pose serious risks to humans. Much of the waste will remain dangerous for centuries, and nuclear power critics argue that it is not fair to produce lethal garbage that could endanger future generations. Government experts are remarkably untroubled by that prospect. They point out that the total amount of waste that nuclear plants will produce by the year 2000 would fit, if stacked six feet high, on a single football field. The Federal Government proposes to bury the wastes deep in the earth, safely out of the way in stable geological formations. Possible nuclear vaults now being studied include subterranean salt beds in New Mexico, shale deposits in the Midwest and granite deposits in the East.

Fearsome Fuel Another byproduct of reactors is plutonium, which can also be used as nuclear fuel. But long-lived plutonium is deadly to man and must be handled carefully. A tiny speck in the lungs, for example, can cause cancer. More important, plutonium is the prime ingredient of atomic bombs; as little as 22 lbs. is all that is required for a crude fission bomb with the explosive force of 100 tons of TNT. Thus the material must be safeguarded so as not to fall into the hands of terrorists or blackmailers — and this requires tight security regulations. Nader and other critics worry about the unlikely prospect that such security measures would turn the U.S. into a "garrison state," where civil liberties are suppressed.

Expensive Breeder The next generation of atomic reactors, now being developed in a demonstration project by a Government-industry consortium, is called the "fast breeder." Astonishingly efficient (it uses 60% to 70% of the energy in its fuel v. 1% to 2% in today's nukes), and almost alchemic (it actually creates more fuel than it consumes), it would extend nuclear fuel supplies for centuries. But critics are attempting to stop the breeder, arguing that it not only creates hard-to-handle plutonium but also is siphoning enormous amounts of research and development money.*

Ironically, economics may accomplish what Nader and his allies have so far failed to do with their safety campaign: to put a halt to the construction of new nuclear power plants. In the early days of nuclear power, scientists forecast that the electricity from nukes would be "too cheap to meter." Today, points out Nuclear Opponent David Dinsmore Comey, the economic advantage "has turned out to be an illusion."

One contributing factor is that nukes are more complicated to build than other types of power plants; they take about ten years to complete, while coal-burning plants can be built in seven years. The extra time is money — lots of it — because the costs of building and borrowing are skyrocketing. Thus, the cost of a nuclear power plant planned for Midland, Mich., in 1968 was estimated to be $260 million; the plant, not yet finished, is now expected to cost $1.4 billion. In total, says Power Plant Builder Leonard Reichle of Ebasco Services, Inc., a nuke costs $1,005 per kilowatt of generating capacity, while a coal-fired plant costs between $690 and $910 per kilowatt.