Nuclear Power: Time to Choose

• Share

(3 of 8)

Such tangled feelings about the risks and rewards of nuclear power fit a worldwide pattern. In March the governments of Britain, France, Germany and Belgium -- Europe's largest users of nuclear energy -- jointly reaffirmed their commitment to the atom and pledged to cooperate in the development of new reactors. Yet while the statement recognized "the environmental ^ benefits" of nuclear power and noted that it provides "one appropriate response to the challenges now confronting the entire planet," the signers warned that future development of atomic energy "must take place in conditions of optimum safety, ensuring the best possible protection both for populations and for the environment."

Safety is a vital global issue. A nuclear power accident anywhere stirs public fears about nuclear plants everywhere. Executives of U.S. utilities shuddered in February when the failure of a valve caused the worst mishap in the 20-year history of Japan's atomic power industry, crippling a plant in the town of Mihama, about 200 miles west of Tokyo. "When the skill and discipline of the Japanese falter," says Lawrence Lidsky, an M.I.T. nuclear engineer, "that means anyone can screw up."

The strongest motive for a U.S. nuclear renaissance is America's galloping demand for electricity. The Department of Energy says the country will have to raise its present generating capacity of 700 gigawatts -- or 700 billion watts -- another 250 gigawatts by 2010. That is the equivalent of 250 large coal or nuclear power stations. The need will grow more acute as existing nuclear plants, which were designed to last 40 years, are dismantled and buried. By 2030, DOE says, the U.S. will need 1,250 more gigawatts of generating capacity than it has now.

The hottest argument in energy circles focuses on the right mix of fuels and conservation methods to satisfy this proliferating need for plug-in power. The issue is not whether the U.S. has enough coal. Even if the nation chose to meet all its staggering demand with its most popular fuel for generating electricity, coal, its reserves would last many decades. The question is whether America wants to bear the costs and effects of burning all that coal or would prefer the costs and effects of splitting some atoms instead.

Or perhaps it would rather do something else entirely. Environmentalists call for harnessing such renewable resources as wind and solar power and retrofitting homes and offices to use electricity more efficiently. The only trouble is that, according to the National Academy of Sciences report, "alternative energy technologies are unable currently or in the near future to replace fossil fuels as the major electricity source for this country. If fossil fuels had to be replaced now as the primary source of electricity, nuclear power appears to be the most technically feasible alternative."