A Go-Ahead for Nuclear Power

The campaign degenerated into a mudslinging match, marked by incidents of vandalism, that confused rather than clarified the issue. But the vote could hardly have been more decisive. By a landslide margin of 2 to 1, Californians last week turned down Proposition 15, which might well have had the effect of banning nuclear power plants from the state. The message seemed clear: voters are not terrified by the remote possibility of a deadly nuclear accident, and they believe that atomic power is necessary to meet future demands for electricity.

If that is so, one--but only one--barrier to the large-scale development of nuclear power throughout the nation will be removed. The California referendum was the first of a series that safety crusaders are trying to force. Proposals similar to Proposition 15 will be put to Oregon and Colorado voters in November, and efforts are under way to get anti-nuclear measures on the ballot in at least seven other states: Arizona, Maine, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Washington. The chances that any will be passed have obviously been weakened by the California defeat. A few months ago, Consumerist Ralph Nader predicted that public opposition within five years would bring all construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S. to a dead halt; that now seems an empty boast.

On the other hand, no surge of new atomic construction is likely. At present, 56 nuclear plants are producing electricity in the U.S.; the Ford Administration, anxious to reduce American dependence on foreign oil, had hoped that 200 "nukes" would be operating by 1985. But the cost of building reactors is skyrocketing: one nuclear plant in Michigan that was originally budgeted at $260 million will wind up costing $1.4 billion. And though nuclear plants can produce electricity more cheaply than plants burning coal or oil, the cost is going up: the price of uranium fuel has leaped from $7 a pound in 1973 to $25 now.

Slow Growth. Beyond that, nuclear plants take up to ten years to complete and, once operating, are subject to frequent shutdowns because of already rigorous safety requirements. Also, demand for electricity now is growing more slowly than in previous years, so heavy investments in nuclear power look more risky than ever to utilities--even if they could raise the money. Gordon Corey, vice chairman of Chicago's Commonwealth Edison, which has more nuclear capacity installed than any other utility, notes that U.S. power companies contemplate investments of $650 billion over the next 15 years--and will have to raise $400 billion of that from outside sources, which may or may not be willing to put up that much cash.

So, the Federal Energy Administration recently has reduced by 25% its estimate of how much electricity nukes will provide by 1985. Even in that year, it calculates that only 8.8% of U.S. power will be generated by reactors, v. 2.5% last year and .2% in 1970 --and some of the reactors in place then may represent excess capacity. The California vote, then, probably means that nuclear power will develop about as it has: slowly and stumblingly.

Even that sort of growth seemed unlikely early this year, when the very restrictive Proposition 15 held a lead in California public opinion polls. The proposition would have banned all new atomic power plants and even forced the gradual shutdown of the three reactors now producing electricity in California unless two conditions were met. First, utilities and reactor manufacturers had to accept unlimited liability for damage claims that might arise out of a nuclear accident (at present, federal law limits their liability to $560 million per accident). Second, both houses of the California legislature had to certify, by a two-thirds vote, that an existing or planned plant met certain stringent safety requirements. Snorted Former Governor Edmund G. ("Pat") Brown: "You can't get a two-thirds vote for a Mother's Day resolution."

Thyroid Cancers. The anti-nuclear forces, a coalition of environmentalists, consumerists and some scientists, enlisted Singer John Denver to raise money by giving rock concerts. Movie Star Robert Redford also joined their cause. The anti-nukes sent up to 5,000 young people a weekend on doorbell-ringing visits throughout the state. They harped on the idea that a reactor meltdown could release a cloud of radioactivity that, in the words of one pamphlet, "could contaminate hundreds of square miles, forcing you to abandon your home, bankrupting your employer and giving thousands of children thyroid cancers." Toward the end, the anti-nuclear forces tried to portray the vote as a classic confrontation between ordinary citizens and big business, which, they charged, was spending millions to defeat the proposition.

Media Campaign. The friends of nuclear power--an odd assortment of business executives, labor leaders, prominent politicians from both parties, some black leaders and nine Nobel-prizewin-ning scientists--waged mostly a media campaign. They contended, correctly, that no one has ever been killed in a civilian nuclear power plant accident, and that the odds against one, given present safety standards, are very high. (One federal study estimated that, if the U.S. contained 100 nuclear plants, an accident severe enough to kill 1,000 people would happen literally once in a million years.)

More questionably, the pro-nukes argued that an anti-nuclear vote was in effect a vote for higher electric bills, more air pollution (since California power plants would have to burn more coal and oil) and mass unemployment. They also contended that if nuclear construction were stopped, California would face a power shortage, since atomic plants are expected to generate 23% of its electricity by the year 2000, v. 2% now.

Though they won, the pro-nuclear forces had to pay a price: acceptance of three bills, hurriedly passed by the California legislature the week before the vote in a successful attempt to head off Proposition 15. The bills provide that new atomic plants can be built only if a reprocessing plant for spent fuel exists, and if the legislature certifies --simply by majority vote--that nuclear wastes will be disposed of safely. Thus, despite the defeat of Proposition 15, California becomes the first state to enact restrictions on nuclear construction. But the bills are far less restrictive than Proposition 15, and power companies seem prepared to live with them. Their problem in building nuclear plants will be much less political than economic.

In another referendum in California, Los Angeles County voters defeated a proposed $5.8 billion mass-transit system that would have been financed by a one-cent increase in the local sales tax (TIME, May 24). It was the third time in nine years that Angelenos have decided to snub mass transit and continue their long-standing love affair with the automobile.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.