By John C. Zink, Ph.D., P.E., Contributing Editor

Nuclear power supporters believe a window of opportunity may be opening in the U.S. because of several recent developments:

• The bursting of the natural gas "bubble," with the subsequent high gas prices and the resulting California energy crisis, has highlighted the need for new large-scale sources of electricity.
• Global climate change discussions (although misguided, in my opinion) have focused attention on the favorable clean-air characteristics of nuclear plants.
• U.S. utilities' excellent performance in operating their nuclear plants for the past few years, with ever-improving safety and economics, has positioned existing nukes as economically competitive.

In last month's Nuclear Reactions I discussed the Department of Energy's (DOE) Nuclear Energy Technology Program. To kick off this program, DOE convened a workshop in which a diverse group of experts identified technical issues critical to nuclear power's future. Part of the significance of this workshop, I believe, lies in the fact that participants addressed technology issues with an eye toward public acceptance, not just technical wizardry. Unfortunately, nuclear professionals have not always been good judges of public opinion.

The views of politicians, whose livelihoods depend upon staying attuned to public attitudes and priorities, may be a better gauge of possible future acceptance. Here, too, there are hopeful signs. Late last year, in accepting the American Nuclear Society's (ANS) Henry DeWolf Smyth award for Nuclear Statesmanship, Colorado senator Pete Domenici gave this stunning endorsement: "I want to recommit to you that, in spite of my responsibilities in many areas that take a lot of my time and energy, I'm on board saying, 'Let's move ahead with nuclear power.' There's not a big group of people in the Congress that are anxious to stick their necks out with me on this statement. But I can tell you that it's getting better. There are a number of Senators who have walked up to me after we've talked about this and said, 'count me in.' In fact, I think Congress might be ready to approve some really major nuclear energy programs."

To support his optimistic outlook, Domenici reviewed some of the positive political developments of the last three years:

• In spite of a generally hostile White House, Congress passed the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, then increased its funding by 50 percent last year.
• More significantly, Congress initiated and funded the Nuclear Energy Technology Program mentioned above.
• Congress also passed a major nuclear waste bill that would create an interim spent fuel storage facility in Nevada, and fund a DOE program to evaluate various strategies for handling spent fuel. Unfortunately, the Senate failed by a single vote to override President Clinton's veto of this bill.

Even with a more sympathetic administration now in the White House, however, the road to nuclear power's revitalization remains a bumpy one.

Nuclear waste remains the most contentious issue, and the political battles that marked last session's ultimate agreement on nuclear waste legislation must be fought all over again. No doubt this issue will continue to create strange alliances. Republicans from Nevada, the potential burial site, will again align themselves with the anti-nuclear Democrats because, to do otherwise, would be political suicide back home. Native-American tribes, which hope to use nuclear waste storage on their barren tribal lands as a tool for economic development, will line up against their traditional Democrat allies. And the professional anti-nuclear agitators will emerge from their slumber to relate their worst nuclear nightmares to an eager press.

The nuclear industry will also confront a second major issue: low-level radiation exposure. Research over the past few decades has made it abundantly clear that the linear hypothesis - the assumption that any amount of radiation, no matter how small, is harmful - is unrealistic and excessively conservative. This assumption has formed the basis of many nuclear regulations to-date. Now, the government's General Accounting Office, certainly not a partisan nuclear organization, has issued a report questioning the scientific basis for existing radiation exposure standards, and citing untold money wasted complying with the requirements. To destroy the linear effects myth once and for all, and to codify its antithesis in regulations, would rob the anti-nukes of an emotion-filled public relations tools. Like the waste issue, this one has always been a favorite of the anti-nuclear crowd because it lends itself so well to their typical scare tactics. You can bet they will fight it with every bit of demagoguery at their command. As Senator Domenici said in his speech to the ANS, "We know we're close to the Achilles heel of the anti-nuclear movement because they have come out in droves to oppose new looks at radiation standards."

It has always taken an optimist to predict success for nuclear power in the face of the strident opposition it attracts. Perhaps there are some good reasons for cautious optimism, now.

Add Your Company Free