Nuclear Power: Time to Choose

(6 of 8)

So utilities are turning with increasing vigor to other nonnuclear energy sources. California's giant Pacific Gas & Electric gets a substantial 14% of its generating capacity from renewable energy sources such as the sun and wind. Its neighbor, Southern California Edison, joined forces this month with Texas Instruments in a six-year, $10 million project that will use low-grade silicon instead of more expensive higher grades to make photovoltaic cells that convert sunlight into electricity. Says Robert Dietch, a Southern Cal Edison vice president: "This has the potential to be the type of breakthrough technology we've all been looking for in the solar industry."

An alternative energy source that will not become practical for a long time, if it ever does, is nuclear fusion, which can use ordinary water as fuel. The difficulty is that fusion requires temperatures as high as hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius, and scientists have been unable to develop reactors that can handle that. Reports that some researchers achieved "cold fusion" at room temperature now produce more chuckles than heat.

The most productive nonnuclear, nonfossil power source in the long run may be not some new way of generating more electricity but new ways of using less. Instead of spending money to build plants, utilities sometimes find it more economical to offer customers financial incentives to use power more efficiently. In New York City, for example, Consolidated Edison spent more than $8 million in January and February on rebates to customers who traded in their energy-hogging air conditioners and lighting fixtures for efficient new models. Notes John Dillon, a Con Ed assistant vice president: "The cleanest megawatt is the megawatt not consumed."

Most environmentalists emphatically endorse conservation as a superior alternative to nukes. "Over the past decade, the U.S. has gotten seven times as much new energy from savings as from all the net increases of energy supply," asserts Amory Lovins, director of research at Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colo. "Efficiency is a clear winner in the market, leaving everything else in the dust." Declares Lester Brown, president of the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute: "We as a nation should be hell-bent for efficiency. The exciting thing about conservation is, we have a huge potential for savings with already existing technology."

Other experts argue that the U.S. will profit from both conservation and nuclear power. "Conservation has tremendous potential," says Cambridge Energy's Bupp. "We have every reason to applaud the effort. But it will take time and good management to get the full results." Meanwhile, he says, the nuclear power industry has "invested $1 trillion over the past 30 years making plants simpler, cheaper and safer. Nuclear power should continue to provide about 20% of U.S. electric generation over the next century because it does work."

That moderate proposal seems sensible, but it won't be easy to realize. No matter how much scientific support the stricken industry receives, it hasn't a hope of getting back on its feet without lots of help from Washington, and for the moment that looks uncertain.