The Atom Option.

Nuclear power is at a curious crossroads. Ever since the accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, most people have come to see this technology as far too dangerous to contemplate making it a foundation of our civilization. The more practical-minded have bemoaned its high costs. As a result, nuclear power is in decline. Few countries are building new plants these days--Sweden, a pioneer in the move away from nuclear power, is even committed by law to phasing out its existing plants entirely by the end of the decade.

In recent years, scientists have converged on a consensus that the Earth is warming due in no small degree to the emission of carbon dioxide from electrical power plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas. The events of September 11 have added political reasons for reducing dependence on oil. Discussions of the alternatives to fossil fuels generally include windmills, photovoltaics and even hydrogen fuel. Although these technologies hold a great deal of promise for the long term, none provides a way out of our present fix any time soon. And even if they turn out to fulfill their potential in 10, 20 or 50 years (a big if), there's no telling whether they will meet the demand for carbon-free energy that the world is likely to see this century. Nuclear power, that old devil, has become an attractive alternative-- and yet it is being written out of most plans for our energy future. Before taking another step down this rejectionist path, it would be wise to stop and consider just what it is we're about to abandon, and whether our reasons for doing so are sound.

The benefits of nuclear power are fairly clear. For one, it does not depend on the weather. And since it is concentrated, it meets a specific need for supplying cities and factories, for which wind and solar are inappropriate. Nuclear plants emit no carbon into the atmosphere and can be built in inaccessible locations. And unlike the infant technology of hydrogen-powered fuel cells, we have 10,000 reactor-years of operating experience, not to mention the lessons of many failures, to learn from. But what about those troublesome drawbacks--catastrophic accidents, nuclear-waste disposal, terrorism and proliferation?

The risk of catastrophe is not as great as most people believe. Even the Three Mile Island disaster released only a small amount of radiation--statistically speaking, resulting in less than one death. Some people may argue that even a tiny amount of radiation is too much. Radiation is indeed harmful, and one ought to take cost-effective measures to reduce all radiation exposure. The death of even one person is too much, but compared with what?

More than a thousand people die each year worldwide from exposure to the radioactive materials liberated in the current style of mining the uranium for the world's nuclear power plants. By contrast, coal-fired power plants kill about the same number of people from the radioactive materials in coal ash used for building concrete, and many times that number from the chemical pollution and fine particulates emitted from the burning of coal. Radiation from medical X-rays kills about 4,000 Americans each year. When you have something beneficial, like nuclear power, that involves the occasional release of tiny amounts of radiation, it simply doesn't follow that an enormous sacrifice is required to reduce that risk to zero.

The Chernobyl explosion was indeed a catastrophe. Fundamental design flaws and incompetent operation allowed the reactor power to surge to thousands of times normal levels, bursting pipes and sending plumes of radioactive steam and burning fuel into the air. All told, about 24,000 people will die from exposure to radiation from the accident. No such violent explosion can happen in a U.S. reactor like Three Mile Island, but even ...