EDITOR'S NOTE: The following article on nuclear energy development in
the United States and Illinois is the
result of one of Sangamon State
University's "Public Affairs Colloquia." These are laboratory courses in
which students test and apply the
knowledge and skills gained from
academic endeavors to real world
problems. The colloquium, from May
19 to June 12. 1975, examined the
various benefits, problems and alternatives associated with nuclear energy
development now and in the future.
Participants included: Kevin Dickerson,
Dennis Hoerner, Chandana Nandi,
Marvin Piersall, Susan Roscetti and
Cheryl Sgro. The views expressed
reflect conclusions of the colloquium. By WILLIAM H. RAUCKHORST The Nuclear Option
Associate professor of physical science,
Sangamon State University, he holds
the Ph.D. in physics from the University
of Cincinnati. Rauckhorst has taught
many energy-related courses at SSU and
did an energy study for the Illinois
Legislative Council. He is chairman of the
3rd Annual Illinois Inter-University Energy
Conference set for April 1976.
Long-range energy planning includes the option of generating power by nuclear fission. It is a controversial option because of safety hazards. But, nuclear power provides 7.9% of the nation's electricity, and in Illinois the percentage is much higher—about 25%
THE MERITS of generating power by
nuclear fission is an enormously controversial question in the United States
at present. Views on the subject range
from pleas for immediate shutdown of
existing reactors to a call for their rapid
proliferation and the speedy research
and development of the new breeder reactor. The current controversy, of
course, takes place within a radically
different context than in previous years.
In the past, energy planning was viewed
exclusively as the business of private
energy companies and special governmental agencies. Environmental concerns and present energy shortages have
made energy planning a major concern
of the general public. There is much
talk of the need for long-range decisions regarding this or that energy option. Perhaps the most debated of these
options is the nuclear energy option—the use of enriched uranium to
produce electrical power. Some difficult questions Present day questions concerning
nuclear power center around safety.
Critics of nuclear power fear the accidental release of radiation at power
plants, during the transportation of
radioactive fuel, and in waste disposal
(see February, pp. 39 and 40). They
point also to the difficulties of handling
the huge amounts of plutonium required for the breeder reactor of the
future. In the past, critics of nuclear
power have considered it as an isolated
question, distinct from the total energy
question. Proponents of nuclear power,
on the other hand, cite a host of studies
whose central theme is the need to
weigh nuclear risks with the hazards associated with more traditional methods
of energy production. One article in the
magazine Nuclear Safety (Summer
1964) showed that besides the environmental costs associated with mining
coal and offshore drilling of oil, approximately 19,000 deaths per year in
the United States could be attributed
to the use of coal and oil. R. Philip
Hammond notes in American Scientist
(March-April 1974) that a modern
nuclear power plant, displacing one per
cent of United States coal consumption, can thus be credited with saving
190 lives per year, or 5,700 lives over
the 30-year life of the plant. Even Ralph
Nader would be hard pressed to argue
that a nuclear power plant, on the
average, could be as destructive of
human life as the production of energy
from coal and oil. Nuclear proponents
also point to the lack of carbon dioxide
emissions from a nuclear plant. They
say that if you want to worry about a
large catastrophe due to energy production, consider the long-range effects of
the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere resulting from burning of
fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and
natural gas. Zero energy growth October 1975 / Illinois Issues / 299
Alvin Weinberg has pointed out in
Science magazine (July 7, 1972) that
Ernest Rutherford himself, the discoverer of the nucleus, expressed mixed
feelings over the years about nuclear
power. In 1921 Rutherford said, "The
[human] race may date its development from the day of the discovery of a
method of utilizing atomic energy." By
1933, however, he was saying: "We cannot control atomic energy to an extent
which would be of any value commercially, and I believe we are not likely
ever to be able to do so." In 1936,
Rutherford wrote: "The recent discovery of the neutron and proof of its
extraordinary effectiveness in producing transmutations at very low
velocities opens up new possibilities."
The most thoughtful and reasonable
call for nuclear curtailment is A Time
An energy masterplan should go beyond the immediate
objective of meeting next month's or next year's energy
demands. Failure to enact significant energy legislation
in Illinois and in the United States is a result of our
more basic failure to develop such a masterplan
to Choose, the final product of the Ford
Foundation's Energy Policy Project. As
contrasted with earlier criticisms of
nuclear development, the Ford study
outlines in detail possible alternatives to
nuclear development. The spirit of the
Ford study is indicated in the following
excerpt: "Drift is surely the worst of the
alternatives before us. No one can
foresee everything the future
holds, and plans must change as
new circumstances arise. But a
sense of direction for energy
policy is essential because many
decisions must mesh consistently
together, and because it takes a
long time to make things happen
in the energy world. For example,
it takes a minimum of three years
to build an oil refinery; it takes
three to five years to locate a new
off-shore oil field and bring it into
production; and it may take as
long as ten years to plan and build
a nuclear power plant. Fundamental to any such plans are decisions about the size of the
energy supply the country needs."
(A Time to Choose, Ford Foundation Energy Policy Project,
Ballinger Publishing Co., 1974.) Three scenarios The 'if's' The ZEG scenario follows the
Technical Fix scenario to 1985, and
then assumes a leveling off of consumption around 1990. Strong national
policies and commitment would be required to achieve Zero Energy Growth
without drastic economic effects. The
Ford study concludes that careful long-range planning can achieve this goal
without adverse effects on GNP and
employment. The Ford study says, however, that to reach this goal no expansion of nuclear capability between now
and 2000 is necessary. United States energy masterplan Nuclear development and ZEG A fundamental goal 300 / Illinois Issues / October 1975
A Time to Choose considers three
possible energy scenarios for the United
States: (1) Historical Growth, (2)
Technical Fix, and (3) Zero Energy
Growth (ZEG). The Historical Growth
scenario has United States energy consumption continuing to grow at an annual rate of 3.4 per cent. Meeting the
energy requirements for this scenario
clearly necessitates a rapid development of all available energy resources,
including nuclear. Present energy development plans within the United
Stales have been based upon this
scenario and have included an enormous nuclear commitment.
In the Technical Fix scenario, annual
energy consumption increases at a reduced rate of 1.9 per cent per year
between now and the year 2000. One
important conclusion of the Ford study
is that this reduction in energy consumption can be accomplished without
adversely affecting Gross National
Product (GNP) or employment. What
would be required is improved efficiencies in our energy usage in major areas
such as home heating and cooling and
transportation. The study concludes
that this scenario provides considerable
flexibility to energy planners. Insistence
upon energy self-sufficiency would still
require considerable expansion of
nuclear generating capability. If energy
self-sufficiency were not a major concern, the United States could meet its
needs with a combination of increased
oil imports, natural gas, and greater
reliance on coal.
It is becoming more and more apparent that the United States needs to
develop a coherent, meaningful energy masterplan for the future. By definition, this masterplan should go beyond
the immediate objective of meeting next
month's or next year's energy demands
Failure to enact significant energy
legislation in Illinois and in the United
States is a result of our more basic
failure to develop such a masterplan.
The isolated development of federal and
state policies in particular energy areas
can do as much harm as good in the
long run. The United States should advocate, develop and adopt a far-sighted
national energy masterplan in the spirit
of A Time to Choose.
Although the opinion of the Ford
study is that the United States could
still meet its energy needs under a ZEG
scenario without increasing its nuclear
power capacity, there are several
reasons why nuclear development
should proceed at this time. Most obvious is the fact that politics and
economics are both imperfect sciences
and the kind of long-term energy
policies required for Zero Energy
Growth may be difficult to implement.
Until we make substantial progress
toward achieving ZEG, nuclear
development should be an essential ingredient in our energy plan. In the event
the ZEG is achieved by 1990, the whole
range of options regarding choices
among fossil fuels, nuclear, and alternative sources such as solar energy
could be reconsidered. The situation in
1990 may be considerably different than
it is today.
While continued development of
nuclear energy is needed, ZEG should
be a fundamental goal of our national
energy policy. In view of the many safety problems connected with the complex
new breeder reactors not encountered
with existing light water reactors, the
wise course may be to proceed modestly
on development of this newer type while
continuing the establishment of the
older, safer light water reactor plants.
However this issue is resolved, ZEG is
an essential component of a solution to
the nation's and the world's energy
problems. If energy consumption does
not level off, the environmental effects
will be disastrous. Too few U.S. citizens
are aware that a three per cent annual
rate of energy growth will result in a 19-fold increase in a century.
Nuclear power in Illinois
ENERGY CONSUMPTION in the United States is growing rapidly, doubling in the past 20 years. In 1970 Americans gobbled up more than one-third of the energy produced in the world. Illinois participates fully in this high energy-consuming way of life. In terms of energy consumption per capita, Illinois is slightly below the national average (see June, pp. 168-71 for figures).
While Illinois' energy use is not out of line with the national pattern, its reliance on nuclear power is disproportionate. Nationally, 7.9 per cent of electricity is generated by nuclear power. In Illinois approximately 25 per cent of the electrical generating capacity comes from nuclear plants. This accounts for about 15 per cent of the nuclear capacity operating in the United States today. Commonwealth Edison has been a pioneer in the nuclear area, with three nuclear units at Dresden Station, two at the Quad Cities, and two units at Zion, bringing the total to approximately 5,500 megawatts. An additional 11,000 megawatts will come from 10 units under construction or planned for the state, including two at Clinton by Illinois Power Company (see map). Most of the ordered capacity is scheduled for operation by the early 1980's. If projections are accurate, more than half of Illinois' electricity at that time will be generated by nuclear power. Pennsylvania is the only other state with as large a commitment to nuclear power.
Nuclear power plants are not isolated, self-supporting units. There is a whole sequence of steps in the production process: mining, milling, fuel enrichment, power production, fuel reprocessing, and waste disposal. The state of Illinois is deeply involved in this industry. Allied Chemical Corporation at Metropolis operates the largest privately owned uranium conversion plant in the world. This conversion plant converts U3 O8, the refined product obtained from uranium mills,
to UF6 gas. This conversion plant began operation in January 1969. It has an annual capacity of 14,000 tons of uranium, enough to supply our annual national needs through 1975.General Electric has constructed a nuclear fuel recovery plant adjacent to the Dresden reactors. Difficulties encountered in the recovery process have left the future of the plant in doubt. The irradiated fuel reprocessing plant was designed to handle 300 metric tons of discharged reactor fuel annually, which is adequate to process the fuel discharged from approximately 10,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity. At full capacity, it is estimated this plant would conserve $12,000,000 worth of uranium annually. Approximately 2,000 kilograms of plutonium will be recovered annually.
The state's nuclear stake means that decisions on the country's energy options will be directly influenced by the performance of Illinois nuclear plants, now and in the future.
|
Nuclear Power Reactors in Illinois
|
October 1975 / Illinois Issues / 301