Nuclear Power: Time to Choose

(2 of 8)

To speed the process further, the Administration wants Westinghouse, General Electric and other suppliers of nuclear plants to build them to a standard design that would be relatively simple to repair and maintain. France, which generates 75% of its electricity from the atom -- more than any other nation -- has used a standard reactor since the mid-1970s, enabling any nuclear engineer or plant operator to work on 52 of the country's 55 plants at a moment's notice. By contrast, each of the 112 U.S. nuclear plants, which produce 21% of the nation's electricity, was custom built at its site. So when something goes wrong, a specialist has to fix it, causing delays that tend to make U.S. plant shutdowns longer than in France.

The new push for atomic power gained impetus from the gulf war, which focused attention on America's appetite for Middle East oil. Nuclear advocates have long argued that atomic plants could help wean the U.S. from risky reliance on energy from one of the world's most volatile regions. The effect would be small. Most utilities have already phased out their oil-fired plants, which generate just 6% of U.S. electricity and represent about 3% of the country's overall use of oil. But nuclear proponents insist that new atomic plants would further reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, enhancing U.S. energy security while reducing polluting emissions of CO2.

The threat of climatological change could lead to a rapprochement between the nuclear power industry and U.S. environmentalists, long bitter foes. As they prepared to celebrate the 21st anniversary of Earth Day this week, leading environmentalists had the specter of global warming much on their mind. "Nuclear has a proven track record of producing large amounts of energy," says Douglas Bohi, director of energy at Resources for the Future, a Washington-based research group. "But the industry has to convince the public that the new technology will be safe and pose fewer problems."

Nearly everyone agrees that this challenge will be key. It will surely be one of the most daunting public relations assignments of the century. After nearly 40 years of living with the so-called peaceful atom -- once expected to make electricity "too cheap to meter" -- Americans remain deeply ambivalent about nuclear power. A TIME/CNN poll conducted this month by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman found that 32% of the 1,000 adults surveyed strongly opposed building more nuclear plants in the U.S. vs. just 18% strongly in favor. So do Americans hate nukes? Not necessarily. When asked which energy source the U.S. should rely on most to meet its increased energy needs in the next decade, a surprising 40% of respondents picked nuclear power, far surpassing the 25% who chose oil and the 22% who named coal.

The apparent contradiction results from the old not-in-my-backyard syndrome. Many people want nuclear power as long as it's generated elsewhere. Fully 60% of respondents said a new nuclear plant in their community would be unacceptable, vs. 34% who said it would be acceptable. Coal got a warmer reception. Only 41% considered a new coal plant in their community unacceptable, while 51% said it would be acceptable.