THE BOULDER DAILY CAMERA - Guest Opinion
MAY 25,1979
We witness now the modern epitome of Chicken Little and the episode of the falling sky. Only now equate the falling sky catastrophe to nuclear power and Chicken Little to Ralph Nader (throw in the China Syndrome) and you have a perfect recipe for hysteria on a global scale. We are facing perhaps the most serious technologic-economic crisis In our history with few rational alternatives at our disposal, whilst a raucous crowd attempts to force its emotionally rooted arguments upon the nation.
A serious student of this thorny dilemma, i.e., the exponential rise in our energy consumption (see "Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis", A.A. Bartlett, American Journal of Physics, Sept. 1978) versus the dwindling supply of fossil fuels, realizes that the real catastrophe will have arrived the day that domestic resources are exhausted and the nation lies in a state of total dependence upon OPEC.
To grasp the meaning of this eventuality one needs only to reflect upon the consequences of importing a projected $100 billion per year in oil from OPEC (at today's prices in the year 2000) and weigh this against our current outlay of about $25 billion. Judging from the impact to our own and the world's economic structure of the present oil importation rate, this surely is the road to economic and political ruin.
The detractors of fission power cite countless reasons why it should be banned; the arguments are usually inflated and often groundless. It appears that few of the 7,000 at Rocky Flats and the 65,000 in Washington have studied the problem to the extent that it deserves. They seem to have relied instead upon such authorities as Jane Fonda, an actress: Benjamin Speck, a pediatrician; and Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate to counsel them on the ramifications of nuclear power.
Is it unreasonable to suggest that perhaps a better authority on nuclear power might be a physicist? Hans Bethe, a nuclear physicist has taken the trouble to examine the various economic consequences, the energy alternatives and the real hazards of nuclear power, and has stated the case concisely (see "The Necessity of Fission Power" H. Bethe, Scientific American, Jan. 1976).
The pertinent facts concerning nuclear reactor safety are these:
1) There has never been a serious reactor accident.
2) There has never been a meltdown.
3) Two fatalities from latent cancer and one genetic change per year in the U.S. are attributable to all types of reactor accidents (compared with 300,000 cancer deaths from all other causes).
4) A serious nuclear accident involving a major release of radioactivity could result In the death of 5,000 persons and 25 genetic changes over a 30 year period, but the probability of this, considering today's technology, is once in 100,000 reactor-years (at this date we have accumulated more than 2,000 reactor years); moreover, reactor safety technology is improving with each passing year.
5) The disposal of radioactive wastes is a demonstrably solvable problem with little hazard for future generations, particularly if the spent fuel is processed to remove most of the long lived plutonium and other actinides for second generation fuel production.
If one would try to discredit the above assertions on the basis of Three-Mile Island, it should be noted that the Rasmussen Report on reactor safety (Wash-1400, AEC,1975) on which these estimates are based, predicted an accident of the scope of Three-Mile Island at 850 reactor years!
When the "no-nukes" crowd extols the virtues of solar power and imprecates nuclear power; they are no better informed than they are about reactor safety. There could not be a more resolute advocate of solar power (and an energy economy based on hydrogen) than I; yet, when the facts are in, even a national commitment in behalf of solar energy on the scale of the Manhattan Project or Apollo probably could not supply one tenth of the nation's total energy needs by the year 2000. Before that salutary time comes, an enormous investment in capital equipment and energy storage technology will be required.
The prospects for fusion (magnetic containment and laser) power are equally remote despite the tremendous effort and cost that have been expended thus far. Geothermal, magneto-hydrodynamic, gasification, fuel from waste, etc. may all make a contribution, but collectively fail to fill the gap even if fully developed before the oil runs out (see "Energy and the Future", Hammond et al AAAS, 1973). A workable alternative sufficient to meet the immediate and rapidly growing energy needs has not been developed.
So where does this leave us? We now have fission power in light water reactors that still have an extraordinary good safety record by all comparative standards. Fission power is also a proven competitor to coal for electric power generation and now supplies roughly 12 percent of the nation's power.
Surely the greatest tragedies of Three Mile Island are:
1) That it may intimidate the public and the Congress far beyond its real
implications, and
2) That this essential and burgeoning power source may be denied exactly at a
time when it is most needed.
Howard Garcia