Looking Anew At The Nuclear Future

By GEORGE J. CHURCH

In cooling down the failed reactor at Three Mile Island, experts from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had to assess somberly the risks of every feasible step, weigh them against the dangers of waiting too long, and act only after satisfying themselves that they had a reasonably clear idea of what to do. The same spirit ought to govern the public and its leaders in the intense debate about the future of nuclear power that is now beginning.

As at Harrisburg, hasty judgments, formed in response either to panic or to glib reassurances that nothing much was amiss, could lock the nation into a misguided energy policy damaging to the health, welfare and productive strength of the U.S.

In the early stages of the debate, some tough questions have to be answered with an honest "nobody knows." But even before the final explanations are in on just what went wrong at Three Mile Island, it is possible to state two principles to guide future energy policy:

1) The U.S. needs nuclear power.

2) Nonetheless, the nation should reconsider just how much is required and how to get it with maximum safety.

The nature of the need should be clarified first. Fissioning atoms cannot drive cars or heat homes or melt steel, though that may become possible in some distant future. Nuclear power today can be used only to generate electricity. Last year, nuclear plants produced 12.5% of the nation's electricity, or something less than 4% of its total energy. Utilities have cut back sharply on their once ambitious plans for nuclear expansion because of rocketing costs of plant construction, regulatory and legal delays, and uncertainty about how rapidly demand for electricity will grow. President Nixon's energy planners foresaw atomic plants supplying 40% of all U.S. electricity by the year 2000. Jimmy Carter's strategists can see no more than 25% (or less than 8% of total energy consumption), and there is much doubt that even that goal can be met. Thus the fastest increase in nuclear power that realistically can be expected would come nowhere near freeing the U.S. of its dangerous reliance on foreign oil.

But nuclear power's role cannot be eliminated without dire consequences. In some areas--New England, around Chicago, parts of the Southeast--atomic plants supply about half of all electricity. Shutting them would lead to blackouts and brownouts that would gravely threaten public health and safety. Electricity bills would soar, cruelly pinching low-income homeowners, as utilities were compelled to turn to higher-cost sources of energy. Some power companies would be forced to buy still more foreign oil at prices of up to $20 a barrel, fanning inflation, weakening the dollar and tying the U.S. energy future yet more tightly to the explosive politics of the Middle East. M.I.T. Physicist Henry Kendall, a leader of the antinuclear Union of Concerned Scientists, readily concedes: "If we throw the switch and shut down all the nuclear plants next Thursday, that would represent a traumatic situation that could not be dealt with by the country."

A national moratorium on new "nukes," similar to those already in effect in several states, could lead to slower growth of electric supply, less industrial production, fewer jobs, lower standards of living. Oil cannot take over the role of nuclear power in generating electricity, even if the nation were foolish or desperate enough to speed up the already frightening increase of oil imports. Petroleum is too expensive and too much in demand for transportation, home heating, chemical output.

Of the fuels now available, only coal is abundant and cheap enough to substitute for nuclear power. But it is dangerous to mine and dirty to burn. One study sponsored by the Ford Foundation estimates that a new coal-fired plant meeting current environmental standards produces two to 25 fatalities a year. In addition, there is the threat of the "greenhouse effect," the possibility that all-out burning of coal would pour so much carbon dioxide into the air as to keep heat from escaping out of the atmosphere into space. Theoretical consequences that some scientists like to cite: warming of the earth, melting of the polar ice caps, flooding of the world's seacoast cities. In fact, there is no known way of producing energy without some environmental danger.

But even though there is no escape from keeping nuclear plants in operation and building new ones, the nation cannot let the debate end there. Three Mile Island vividly illustrated the dangers of reliance on nuclear power. Disaster was avoided, but probably not by much. Experts who never considered the possibility that a hydrogen bubble would hinder attempts to shut down a balking reactor can no longer contend that the chances of serious accident are so tiny as to be totally discounted. The radiation released was well below the Government's standards for safety, but cancer rates among people exposed to fallout from the atomic-bomb tests of the 1950s and shipyard workers who repair atom-powered vessels raise troubling questions about the long-run effects of supposedly "safe" radiation.

Still unsettled--and unsettling--is the question of how the U.S. can safely dispose of garbage from nuclear operations. Spent fuel and other wastes remain radioactive for thousands of years. At present a lot of such waste is stored under water in "swimming pools" at plant sites, but nuclear plants are running out of pool space. Some may have to shut down as early as 1983 unless a more permanent method of disposal is found. Nuclear plants are built to operate for about 35 years. By the year 2000 some worn-out ones will either have to be torn down or sealed up so that no radiation escapes. No one yet knows how to safely dismantle or seal off a reactor, though Three Mile Island may provide some insights about that.

Prudence dictates that the U.S. build nuclear plants only when practical, economical and safer alternatives are not available. There is still time to search for alternatives, while also working to tighten the safety of nuclear plants themselves. Electric generating capacity nationwide exceeds expected peak demand by 33%. That figure is not quite so reassuring as it sounds; utility-company officials contend that at least 18% "excess" capacity is required to meet unexpected surges in demand, guard against breakdowns and allow for maintenance. Still, the nation has some breathing space to figure out how many new nuclear plants are required, and how soon.

A study by the Harvard Business School indicates that the U.S. can indeed reduce dependence on nuclear power while avoiding holding itself up to ransom by foreign oil producers. It is summarized by Professors Robert Stobaugh and Daniel Yergin in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. The key findings:

Under present policies, nuclear power, which now provides the equivalent of the energy in 1 million bbl. of oil per day, would supply the equivalent of 3 million bbl. per day by the late 1980s. Even so, imports would rise from the present 9 million bbl. per day to 14 million. However, policies can be envisioned under which nuclear output would be only doubled, not tripled, and oil imports still held to their present level. The nation would have to adopt a rigorous conservation program (for example, better insulating of present buildings and requiring that new ones be held to tight standards). As President Carter noted in his energy speech last week, "Conservation is our cheapest and cleanest energy source."

In addition, the U.S. would have to make a heavy push on solar energy, which the authors calculate by the late 1980s could produce four times as much energy as it would under current strategies. To achieve so large an increase in solar power so quickly, say the professors, the Government would have to pay out generous tax credits and subsidies, redirect research away from huge solar satellites and "power towers" toward smaller panels fitted to individual buildings, and encourage utilities to finance and install solar gear for their customers. "Solar" in this case means not only energy from the sun itself but also from so-called biomass: burning garbage and agricultural waste.

Like all figures in the energy debate, these will be vehemently disputed, but the point remains that there are alternatives to both nuclear power and foreign oil worthy of consideration. One is "cogeneration" of power; that is, using waste heat from factories and apartment houses to generate electricity at power plants built on site. Co-generation provides about a third of West Germany's electricity. The Army Corps of Engineers believes that electricity supplies could be increased significantly by expanding and improving existing hydroelectric power stations. Other alternatives will require technological breakthroughs. The fluidized-bed method of burning coal-essentially, burning a mixture of crushed coal and sand suspended on a column of air inside a superhot container-promises ultimately to make combustion more efficient while cutting down on pollutants. It is now in the experimental stage, but has yet to be made applicable to large-scale commercial operations. Unlocking oil from the vast deposits of shale rock in the West at present is uneconomical, produces gigantic piles of ash, and uses too much valuable water. But tests indicate that oil may be burned out of the shale underground without adding much to pollution.

These are only examples of possibilities. All may succeed; all may fail. There is no one "solution" to the energy problem. Zealots of every stripe have done the nation a disservice by touting their pet ideas (conservation, nuclear power, solar power, co-generation or whatever) as the solution and denigrating every other idea. Their competing overenthusiasms have confused an already difficult debate. The task is to devise a truly comprehensive energy program, investigating every feasible idea and pouring time and money into those that seem most promising.

In the most comprehensive imaginable energy program, however, nuclear power still would play a role. So the question remains: How can reactors be made safer right now? There are several approaches:

REGULATION. Experts from the NRC should be on duty in the control room of every reactor round the clock, armed with full authority to take over at the first sign of trouble, order a shut down if that seems necessary, direct all emergency procedures for closing the plant--and damn what it may cost. At present, this responsibility is borne largely by utility-company employees, who, with the best will in the world, cannot avoid thinking about the costs to the company. In addition, computers at all U.S. nuclear plants should be wired in to a central NRC monitoring station, so that the first blip registering potential trouble would ring an alarm at headquarters.

NRC inspectors can and should keep a much closer eye on construction of nuclear plants and the quality of equipment. They are supposed to do so now, but far too much of their time is taken up poring over reports submitted by contractors. That paper work could be turned over to clerks, giving the NRC in spectors more time to go out to sites and look around. When they do so, disinterested observers agree, they do a good job. An analogy can be drawn with the space program. In its early days it was plagued by sloppy work and accidents, but now the National Aeronautics and Space Administration enforces tight safety controls on contractors. If the Nuclear Regulatory Com mission had been equally tough with the utility industry, some veteran observers of the space program believe, the Three Mile Island accident would not have happened.

Power utility managers might well be pleased to turn over to the Government the burden of responsibility for monitoring and safety. Shepard Bartnoff, head of the Jersey Central Power and Light Co., one of the owners of the Three Mile Island plants, said at hearings in Washington last week that he wished an NRC in spector had been in the control room to coordinate emergency operations when the trouble started.

SITING. A Ford Foundation-sponsored study indicates that a nuclear ac cident at a poorly chosen site--one close to a heavily populated area or at a location where winds would carry radioactive particles toward big cities--would cause 1,000 times more damage to life and property than a mishap at a more remote spot.

Alvin Weinberg, director of Tennessee's Institute for Energy Analysis, and a physicist considered by some anti-nukes to be about the most thoughtful proponent of nuclear power, calls for severely limiting new sites for nuclear power plants. He would permit expansion only on 90 of the 100 sites where reactors are now operating or planned. Among the ten sites where he would allow no new construction: Indian Point, N.Y., near New York City; Zion, Ill., close to Chicago--and Three Mile Island. Concentrating construction at the other 90 sites, he believes, would result in the building of huge atomic complexes, staffed by groups of experts like those at the sprawling Government atomic works in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

LEGISLATION. President Carter is again expected to submit a bill to Congress to speed up licensing procedures for nuclear plants. No action was taken on a similar bill last year. Congressmen understandably are wary about putting new nuclear plants into operation more quickly. But the bill calls for standardizing reactor designs, with appropriate safeguards, and for building up a bank of preselected sites on which reactor construction would be permitted. Those provisions would enhance safety.

The nuclear issues are fiendishly complicated and the stakes the highest imaginable. The outcome will test the ability of a democratic society to solve the most involved technical questions, ones on which experts offer diametrically opposed opinions. Caution, sobriety, careful weighing of risks, which cannot be escaped, ought to be the watchwords. Slogan shouting--"Hell, no, we won't glow," vs. "Let the bastards freeze in the dark"--merely impedes progress toward America's energy future. Simply put, the nation needs to move forward to improve the safety, reliability and efficiency of all forms of energy-including nuclear, and the many alternatives.

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