Nuclear Power: Time to Choose

(8 of 8)

That will be a tall order for a fractious industry that seems to have a knack for making things difficult for itself. Case in point: while some congressional lawmakers want to sponsor a demonstration project that would showcase new nuclear technologies and help streamline licensing procedures, squabbling manufacturers have been resisting the idea. Companies that have developed new technologies argue that they don't need the project to prove that their designs are efficient and safe. Firms whose plans are still on the drawing board are worried that the project would leave them out in the cold.

The bickering has left legislators shaking their heads. Bennett Johnston, a Louisiana Democrat who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, says he may drop a provision to fund demonstration projects from a bill he has co-sponsored to speed up the licensing of nuclear plants. Sighs a frustrated Senate staff member: "This is a hard industry to help."

It certainly is. Of all the genies unleashed by modern science, none has inspired more anxiety than the power of the atom. As if that were not disquieting enough, the industry has long been plagued by what Victor Gilinsky, an outspoken former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has called "too many deep-dish thinkers," who believed the future belonged to nuclear power and often overstated its potential. "It became a way of life instead of just a practical way of generating electricity," Gilinsky says. "The whole thing just became too ponderous, instead of practical and sensible."

Now the U.S. must decide just how practical and sensible nuclear power -- and other sources of energy -- really are. Nukes worry the public far more than they worry scientists who have studied their technology, yet the decision must be a matter of public will. Would Americans rather run the risk of a worldwide rise in temperatures or take the chance that steel canisters filled with high-level radioactive waste might someday leak? Or would they prefer to minimize both risks in favor of heavy reliance on efficiency and alternative energy -- and then not be sure the lights will come on when they flick a switch?

The choice should not seem anguished. After all, it's about how to improve the lives of a growing number of people in an expanding economy. But following any course will require years of commitment -- and as projections of electricity demand soar, there is no time to lose.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: From a telephone poll of 1,000 American adults taken for TIME/CNN on April 10-11 by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman. Sampling error is plus or minus 3%. "Not sures" omitted.

CAPTION: OF TWO MINDS

Which one of these energy sources should the U.S. rely on most for its increased energy needs in the next ten years?

Do you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants in this country?

Which of these issues in building nuclear plants do you deem "very serious"?

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: TIME Chart

CAPTION: POWER PUZZLE

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: TIME Chart by Joe Lertola

[TMFONT 1 d #666666 d {Source: International Atomic Energy Agency; U.S. Council for Energy Awareness}]CAPTION: WHO'S GONE NUCLEAR