(2 of 6)
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.