Abstract
To read physicist hans Bethe's Bulletin essays on nuclear energy and his often-cited 1976 Scientific American article, “The Necessity of Nuclear Power,” is to be reminded of how little the discussion about nuclear energy has changed in more than 50 years. In his studies, Bethe evaluated a range of energy sources–coal, solar, wind, geother-mal, and fusion–for their upfront capital and ongoing operating costs. He raised the issue of intermittency that comes with solar and wind power; he talked about the health risks of coal; and he detailed the uncertainty associated with fusion power. And then he presented nuclear fission energy as the most plausible alternative.
Bethe hit many of the same notes that resonate today as part of the nuclear energy discussion: waste, safety, proliferation, and cost. He labeled nuclear proliferation the largest risk that accompanied nuclear energy but concluded that a U.S. decision to not invest in nuclear would not slow proliferation. This remains the case today.
Alvin Weinberg, another prolific nuclear energy advocate who was director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory for nearly 20 years, suggested reducing the risk of nuclear accident with a combination of technical and regulatory fixes. Sound familiar?
Behind these and other scientists' dissection of energy issues was an understanding–and awe–of the enormous potential energy contained in a relatively small amount of nuclear fuel. (A pound of uranium 235 has more than 2 million times the energy content of a pound of coal.) The arguments in favor of nuclear varied, but their sum suggested: We can make it work; we have to make it work.
Yet scientists' knowledge of nuclear energy's potential was not sufficient to spur a second wave of U.S. nuclear development in the 1980s. The 1973 oil crisis in the United States renewed support for nuclear energy development as a way to meet future energy demand, but then came Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The financial cost of building more reactors rose; waste from operating plants began piling up; the proliferation risk became evident in India and Israel; and the general antinuclear sentiment reached its apex as nuclear weapons development mobilized the public.
During the last five years, however, new calls for nuclear energy development have arisen in response to the aging fleet of U.S. reactors, growing energy demand worldwide, and a more recent demand for non-greenhouse gas emitting sources of energy. The debate has emerged as contentious–and familiar–as ever.
In general, proponents and opponents of nuclear energy accomplish very little by drawing sharp distinctions between their positions. Each type of reactor has its own waste, proliferation, and safety challenges–and its own advantages; each country chooses to manage its nuclear fuel cycle in its own way; and the countries that require additional energy capacity vary tremendously–in regulation, availability of natural resources, instability, and level of demand.
For example, some scientists and officials continue to address safety risks–embodied by Chernobyl–by noting that the accident was the product of an unsafe reactor design that has been nearly phased out of the existing global fleet of reactors. This is shortsighted in light of the safety problems at supposedly more advanced, more scrutinized reactors, such as the Davis-Besse Power Station on the Ohio shore of Lake Erie or the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Tennessee. And the issue of what to do with spent fuel cannot be dismissed with the wave of a technological wand, as some scientists propose. Others point to the connection between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons–an important overlap. The present system of controls intended to govern the use of nuclear energy and limit nuclear weapons proliferation is not perfect, but it has restrained the spread of nuclear weapons, and it should be strengthened.
Before the temperature of the current discussion rises any higher, parties on all sides should examine just how they talk about nuclear energy. Humanity faces great challenges as energy demand grows, as the environment is further degraded, and as technology evolves. Decisions about investment should not be made on the basis of ideology; they must be based on informed assessments of risks and opportunities.
One area that could use further study is the economic viability of competing energy sources. In November 2006, the Bulletin hosted a small gathering of scientists, analysts, government officials, financiers, and activists who raised questions about the financial outlook for nuclear. They asked how emissions-limiting legislation would affect the cost effectiveness of nuclear energy. Would the deployment or failure of carbon capture and storage systems affect nuclear energy's attractiveness?
Though they did not answer these questions definitively (they probably couldn't have even if they wanted to), the conference participants began the unenviable task of clarifying the multifaceted energy picture. It is not enough to invest in nuclear energy for the sole reason of addressing the challenges of climate change. Nor is it acceptable to dismiss nuclear energy as inherently dangerous or unvi-able. Choices about investment in particular energy sources will have far-reaching consequences, and scientists, policy makers, and media–including the Bulletin–have a responsibility to investigate these consequences and to reinvigorate the discussion before stale opinions or current events hastily narrow options.