Atomic Power's Future

In the dawn of the nuclear age, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis L. Strauss predicted in 1954 that atomic fission would produce electricity so abundantly and cheaply that it would not have to be metered: the American people could just pay a low monthly charge and use as much as they wished. That naive optimism has long since vanished in the wake of zooming construction costs, endless delays in getting plants built and growing public opposition. In 22 years of commercial operation, nuclear power has won only a modest role in the nation's total energy picture. Now, in the shock of the Three Mile Island nightmare, the question arises whether reactors will ever be able--or be allowed--to contribute much more than the 14% of electricity production and almost 4% of total energy consumption that they supply today. "The way I see it, the nuclear power industry does not have a future," says an executive of an atomic plant near Toledo. His gloom is extreme, but the friends and foes of nuclear power agree that the Pennsylvania accident can only strengthen the effective campaign against the building of new nuclear facilities. Says Alexander Polikoff, executive director of Business and Professional People for the Public Interest, a Chicago antinuclear group: "If one blows in Pennsylvania, who is going to want to live near one in New Mexico?"

Much will depend, of course, on the outcome and the assessment of the Pennsylvania drama. The Department of Energy had planned to ask congressional approval for the building of experimental repositories for nuclear waste, which remains radioactive for thousands of years. California and Wisconsin have in effect banned construction of new power plants until some better method of disposing of the waste can be found. Three Mile Island can only strengthen the hands of some Congressmen who have been insisting that licensing of new plants be halted unless a series of deadlines for progress on waste disposal are met, a move that could halt atomic power construction.

At present, 72 nuclear plants are operational in the U.S., and the Carter Administration's energy planners had projected as many as 500 by the year 2000, producing a quarter of the country's power. But construction has turned down sharply since the peak year of 1974, when utilities ordered 26 new reactors. Between 1975 and 1977, three or four a year were ordered; in 1978 there were only two. Many earlier reactor orders have been canceled or deferred.

One reason is that electric power demand is growing much more slowly than it had been in the 1960s and early 1970s. Another is that nuclear construction costs have risen to about $1,000 a kilowatt, from $100 in the 1960s. This compares with $700 for a coal-fired plant. The two main causes are general inflation and the long delays in getting a plant built because of legal challenges by opponents. Says Charles Cicchetti, chairman of the Wisconsin public service commission: "It's time to jump off the nuclear bandwagon." Nonetheless, the industry contends that nuclear plants now in operation deliver power at a lower cost than those fueled by almost any other means. The Edison Electric Institute, a utility-company group, estimates that atomic plants produce electricity at a cost of 1.71-c- per kwh, vs. 1,74-c- to 2.08-c- for coal-fired plants and 3.96-c- to 4,54-c- for plants burning oil.

What happens if nuclear construction is slowed still further, or even halted? The immediately available alternatives are unappealing. The nation shows little willingness to adopt stringent measures to conserve power. Natural gas supplies are limited and uncertain. Coal is abundant, but burning it dirties the air. The hazard of relying on oil was underscored once again last week by OPEC's price increases.

Alvin Weinberg, a nuclear power advocate and coauthor of a new book, Economic and Environmental Implications of a U.S. Nuclear Moratorium, believes the alternatives to atomic power "are so crummy that we probably should in a cautious way continue this nuclear enterprise." Other experts will certainly disagree. Perhaps the most unarguable assessment is that of Pennsylvania Republican Senator Richard Schweiker: "The nuclear industry is on trial as it never has been before."

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