APPENDIX VI
NUCLEAR POWER AND ALTERNATIVES
Senator Mike Gravel has announced plans to introduce
legislation which will remove preferential treatment for
nuclear power plants, and give new attention to safer
ways of making electricity.
One provision of the bill will be repeal of the
Price-Anderson Act, which presently provides special
liability limits in case of nuclear power-plant
accidents; repeal of the Act may bring construction of
nuclear plants to a halt. Gravel's bill will provide job
insurance for the affected workers -- both private and
government -- and indemnification for the affected
businesses if construction of nuclear power plants
stops.
"It is not fair -- in the nuclear business, or in
the defense, space, or aircraft businesses -- to make
people suffer for having done just what the government
urged them to do," Gravel said. "On the other hand, it
is not fair to the public to have allowed the
construction of nuclear plants which are so potentially
dangerous that a single accident might contaminate
150,000 square miles, or fifteen states the size of
Maryland."
The major substance of the bill will establish an
Energy-Environment Commission instead of an Atomic
Energy Commission, and will provide funds to develop
safe methods of generating electricity, such as clean
fossil-fuel technology, magneto-hydrodynamic generators,
fusion, solar, and geothermal energies. Research on
nuclear fission plants would also continue as one
division of the new Energy-Environment Commission.
Gravel's announcement coincided with the broadcast
of the NET television program, "The Advocates," in which
he and Dr. John W. Gofman argued in favor of a
moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants.
Senator Gravel's statement deals with the following
questions:
1. Why is it advisable to stop building nuclear power
plants?
The possibility of a major accident at one of
our nuclear power plants is undeniable. One really
serious accident could release as much long-lived
radioactivity over the countryside as 100 Hiroshima
bombs, or more. The consequences could bring this
country to its knees.
2. What might be the consequences of a major nuclear
accident?
If we use the AEC's own Brookhaven Report, we
must figure the following possibilities:
Fifteen states the size of Maryland might be
contaminated; agriculture restricted or forbidden;
water supplies contaminated; other power plants
contaminated.
Half a million people might need evacuation,
fast. These radiation refugees would have no place
to go, and probably no one who would want them.
Perhaps another 3½ million people might have to
have their outdoor activity restricted to keep them
from receiving high radiation doses.
There might be general panic, and people might
demand that all the nuclear plants in the country
be shut down -- which would extend the economic
chaos even further.
In addition, there might be 3,000 or 4,000
people dying from acute radiation overexposure.
Plus another 50,000 people dying later from
radiation-induced cancer, which is a horrible way
to die.
3. Are the damage and casualty figures upper-limits on
the very worst accident which could happen?
No, the figures cited above could be
significant underestimates for several reasons:
a. Nuclear plants are now being built and planned
5 times bigger than they were when the
Brookhaven Report was written in 1957; that
means that they produce 5 times more
radioactivity per year.
b. Because the nuclear fuel is cleaned less often
now long-lived radioactivity is given more
time to accumulate inside the reactor.
Therefore, at the moment of accident, a
1000-megawatt reactor may contain more than 5
times as much radioactivity as the
200-megawatt reactor postulated in the
Brookhaven Report.
c. The human casualties depend, of course, on how
much exposure to radiation is received; if we
do not succeed in evacuating up to half a
million people fast enough, the casualties
will go up.
d. The Brookhaven Report postulated an accident
at a small nuclear power plant located about
30 miles from a city. Huge reactors are now
being built 24 miles from New York City; 12
miles from downtown Gary, Indiana; 4 miles
from New London, Conn; 10 miles from
Philadelphia; 5 miles from Trenton, New
Jersey. Evacuation will be both more complex
and more urgent.
e. These figures also exclude all casualties
caused by radiation exposure below 50 rads,
which is a high dose (about 500 times more
than our annual dose from natural radiation)
Obviously, there will be additional cancers
coming later from doses below 50 rads, but
they are not even included in these figures. A
dose of 1½ rads to a woman during pregnancy
seems to increase the chance by 50% that her
child will get cancer before the age of ten.
4. Some nuclear enthusiasts refer to the Brookhaven
Report as a fanciful exercise; is that true?
The utilities take the AEC's Brookhaven Report
so seriously that they have insisted on the
Price-Anderson Act to limit their liability.
The AEC takes it so seriously that in 1965, the
Commission admitted in writing that the
consequences of accidents could be even more
serious than was indicated in 1957.
If the utilities and the AEC take it seriously,
we should too. If the utilities do not take the
report seriously, then of course they will have no
objection to repeal of the Price-Anderson Act.
5. Isn't the chance nearly zero of such an accident
ever occurring?
We are told that the chances of such an
accident occurring are extremely remote or
negligible. That's theory, not human experience.
The chance might be one chance in ten, and we would
not necessarily know it yet from our accumulated
experience.
The declaration of long odds -- like one chance
in 300 million for such an accident -- is one of
the most irresponsible lines being used today on
the public. That's a phony figure, both in terms of
the frequency with which statistically "impossible"
accidents do happen -- like the sinking of the
Titanic on its maiden voyage -- and in terms of our
experience so far with nuclear power plants.
We have about 100 reactor-years of experience
-- or some people claim 600 -- but we would need
about 100,000 reactor-years of experience to assess
odds like one chance in 200, if we plan 500
reactors in operation.
What were the statistical odds that the Tacoma
Narrows Bridge would fall down? Surely "extremely
remote." What were the odds that two airliners
would collide in mid-air over the Grand Canyon?
"Negligible." Or that a bomber would run into the
Empire State Building?
So far, we've been lucky with a few reactors.
It seems that the utilities are telling us, "Look,
we haven't killed anyone yet, so give us a chance."
The chance belongs to the American people, to
decide whether or not they want this gamble taken
with their lives and their country.
If a nuclear accident is possible, and they
tell us it is, then the chance of its happening
sooner is just as great as of its happening later.
6. Is the chance of an accident growing larger or
smaller?
We've already got 20 of those radioactive power
plants in operation, and any one of them might have
an accident at any moment.
If we build more of them, the chances of
accidents will increase instead of decreasing. It's
not necessary to be an expert in radiation or
engineering to see that humans can and do make
mistakes in design, in manufacture, in
construction, and in operating machines. Reactors
are no exception, and we've already had some close
calls with a few of them. The very act of building
and operating more, allows more chances for
mistakes. Especially because they are behind
schedule, and rushing.
Edward Teller has warned us wisely when he
said, "With the greater number of simians monkeying
around with things that they do not completely
understand, sooner or later a fool will prove
greater than the proof even in a foolproof system."
Stopping construction will prevent the accident
risks from increasing, while giving us time to
consider such possibilities as building all nuclear
reactors underground, or developing other kinds of
power.
7. Why do utilities advertise nuclear power plants as
safe?
Obviously, there is a puzzling contradiction
between the utilities' advertisements which claim
radioactive power plants are wonderfully safe, and
the utilities' testimony to Congress that they
would not build them unless Congress relieved them
of almost all financial responsibility for
accidents. If "nukes" are as safe as they claim,
why do they worry about financial responsibility
for accidents?
If the utilities won't even risk their dollars
on the safety of nuclear power plants, why should
the people have to risk their lives?
We should not wait for the Price-Anderson Act
to expire in 1977. Repeal now is a minimum
objective
8. Is a move against nuclear electricity a move
against progress?
Progress in technology might be defined as
something which enhances human health and survival.
The one technology which has the ability to pollute
this planet permanently is hard to consider as
progress.
We've spent billions on nuclear research, we're
buying nightmares for generations to come, and for
what?
We end up with another way to boil water.
That's all that a nuclear reactor accomplishes. It
boils water, which produces electricity very
inefficiently, and it also produces radioactive
garbage to the tune of about 1,000 Hiroshima
bombs-worth a year.
Is that human progress?
One of the main ingredients of the nuclear
power program is plutonium-239, which lingers
radioactively for 240,000 years. Other kinds of
radioactive waste last hundreds of years.
Who needs it?
9. We already have power shortages; won't the lights
go out for sure if we have a nuclear moratorium?
The lights won't go out because of a nuclear
moratorium, although they may go out due to other
foul-ups.
For instance, in 1969, the utilities spent
about $320 million on advertising to increase
consumption of electricity -- and only $41 million
on research and development of ways to generate it.
No wonder we have a power shortage.
Brown-outs and black-outs won't be because of a
moratorium. In fact, we will hardly miss nuclear
power at all, which is only one percent to two
percent of our power supply now.
10. Will a nuclear moratorium cause chaos and
unemployment in the power industry?
We have chaos now, even without a nuclear
moratorium. Every analysis of the power shortage
refers to bad planning and miscalculation on the
part of the industry.
Of course we can expect to hear wailing and
cries of "We can't deliver the power," even from
the coal operators who are sitting on a 400-year
supply of coal. We also hear the can-not-do cries
from the automobile industry about clean cars. Do
you believe them?
This country could declare a moratorium
tomorrow -- and we might even hear a sigh of relief
from some worried people inside the nuclear
establishment -- provided we insured jobs and
offered indemnification. After all, we pay
landowners billions of dollars every year not to
grow crops; we can certainly afford to pay people
not to build radioactive machines which could
contaminate an area from New York City to Richmond,
Virginia.
If we take care of the financial hardships of a
moratorium, arguments in favor of nuclear
electricity may lose some of their frenzy.
My proposal for repeal of the Price-Anderson
Act is part of legislation which includes
establishment of an Energy-Environment Commission.
There will be more energy business and more energy
employment, not less, because the total energy
effort in this country needs to be far greater than
it is.
11. What alternatives are there to nuclear electricity?
In California alone, there seems to be
geothermal steam in the ground equal to the power
of 20 big radioactive power plants. Geothermal
steam is not only perfectly clean -- it's also
safe. There is lots of it in the west. Enough for
several hundred years.
In addition, this country has enough coal to
provide electricity for the next 400 years -- the
present shortage is both temporary and artificial.
In August 1970, the Vice President of the
National Coal Association testified under oath that
the mine operators can go just as fast mining coal,
as the power demands can grow. But it won't be
sensible to open coal mines unless the utilities
offer long-term contracts.
The lead story in the magazine Science News,
January 30, 1971, is "Coal's Road Toward
Acceptability." It makes some important points
about our ability to make coal a clean fuel, and
our ability to restore land ruined by strip-mining.
However, fossil-fuels should not be considered
a long-term solution for generating electricity. It
is short-sighted to waste the planet's exhaustible
natural resources by burning them, when all we have
to do is tap into the inexhaustible sources of
energy like water, wind, geothermal heat, and the
sun.
12. Will a nuclear moratorium increase air pollution by
forcing us back into coal and other dirty
fossil-fuels?
No. And it's dishonest to tell the public that
the only choice is between clean "nukes" and dirty
coal.
I favor forcing the coal-plants to clean up,
and fast, because even without a nuclear
moratorium, we must depend on fossil-fuels to make
most of our electricity for the next 20 or 30
years. Dirty plants are an intolerable abuse of
public health, so it's a necessity that we clean up
the old plants, and build the new ones clean.
It can be done. In fact, equipment to do most
of it is already available. We need to see that the
utilities buy and use it.
Of course the equipment may not work perfectly
at first. But it's far safer to take some chances
with unproven fossil-fuel equipment than with
unproven nuclear equipment. That's obvious.
13. Will a nuclear moratorium just delay the nuclear
plants we'll need sooner or later anyway?
No, because nuclear plants are not inevitable.
Perhaps some day we will find a way to make them
truly accident-proof; additional safety research is
urgently needed now according to the AEC's own
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
We need time to do that research before we
build more plants, and also to give the country a
chance to look at other new ways to make
electricity -- ways which are not tied to potential
catastrophe.
14. Is it possible to generate electricity without
pollution?
The answer is probably yes. No one knows,
because we haven't begun really trying yet.
Consider some of the possibilities we are
presently neglecting, even though we know they are
real possibilities:
o Magneto-hydrodynamic generators (MHD), which
would contain the fossil-fuel pollutants.
o Fusion power, which could provide energy for
the entire world from seawater -- and lower
ocean levels by far less than one-thousandth
of an inch over the next million years.
o Geothermal energy, which is pollution-free and
accessible anywhere by drilling 5 to 10 miles
down.
o Solar energy, whose energy supply both in the
United States and in the world, is far greater
than any possible needs; it may already be
technically possible to recover about 4
trillion kilowatt-hours in electrical energy
per year from Death Valley alone; the use of
solar collectors in orbit is another clear
possibility.
We should consider wind and tidal power too.
There is such a fabulous amount of energy renewing
itself naturally on earth that, if man tapped only
a tiny percent of it, he could probably make all
the electricity he needs without poisoning the
planet or disturbing its natural rhythms.
The real question to decide during a nuclear
halt is:
Do we take our chances with some of the gentle
possibilities, or do we rush into a commitment to
the one technology which may end up contaminating
this planet permanently?
What this country needs urgently is an Energy
Commission, instead of an Atomic Energy Commission.
15. How many years away are these alternatives to
nuclear power?
Obviously, that depends on how much effort we
start putting into them. Therefore, the following
figures are just estimates; some of the
possibilities may never be practical, but we need
only one or two to work out.
o Fossil-fuels: Removal of sulfur pollutants:
now. Removal of nitrogen, mercury, and
radioactive particles: 5 years.
o MHD generators: Apparently Russia already has
a small pilot plant working. AVCO Everett Lab
in Massachusetts, which demonstrated MHD
feasibility more than 10 years ago, is now
designing a 50-megawatt commercial generator
with Con Ed of New York, Boston Edison, and
some northeast utilities.
o Fusion: Feasibility might be proven within the
next five years, followed by demonstration
plants in the 1980's, and commercial operation
before the end of the century.
o Geothermal energy: Natural geothermal steam is
practical now; it's already producing
electricity commercially in California, Italy,
Mexico, Japan, New Zealand, and Russia. In
order to make geothermal energy available just
about everywhere on earth, we need to develop
deep drilling techniques, which will take
approximately 10 years.
o Solar Energy: Land-based techniques for
recovery, storage, and transmission of solar
energy are theoretically possible already;
engineering large-scale projects might take 10
years; techniques to collect the energy from
orbiting stations are probably 25 years away.
16. Is the government investing equally in all the
alternatives?
Unfortunately, for years we've been putting
about 83 percent of the federal energy-research
dollar into radioactive power plants, and almost
nothing for the other possibilities. Last year, the
government spent approximately
$255,000,000 on developing radioactive nuclear power plants.
$30,000,000 on developing fusion power.
$300,000 on developing MHD generators.
zero on developing geothermal technology.
zero on developing solar energy.
In other words, we spent less on developing
non-radioactive sources of power than we spent on
two 747 airliners.
In fact, when we take inflation into account,
the effort in fusion will decrease again this year
under the AEC's plans. The AEC is in charge of both
fusion and fission (radioactive power plants).
17. Would the cost of household electricity have to go
up to pay for this energy development?
No. For one thing, the $320,000,000 which is
spent per year now on advertising electricity could
be spent on energy research instead.
Then the rate-structure could be reversed, so
that the more electricity you use, the more it
costs you. Right now, the more you use, the less it
costs you per kilowatt-hour. Obviously, if we have
a power problem, we should not reward people for
using more electricity, and punish the little
person because he uses less of it.
In addition, a federal tax on the electrical
bills of the big industrial users would pay for the
plan without raising household bills. This would be
consistent with the long-time policy of this
country to avoid regressive taxes and regressive
charges, which hit people who can least afford
them.
We've got to face a fact, however. Probably no
one has been paying the true cost of electricity on
his bill. We have been paying its true cost instead
in pollution and in medical bills.
Nuclear power, which was supposed to be "too
cheap to meter," has turned out to be the most
expensive power we have, even with all the hidden
government subsidies. Let's not make any more
foolish predictions about the cost of electricity.
Safe, clean alternatives may ultimately cost less
or more. There is a good chance they will cost
less.
18. How long might it be before an Energy-Environment
Commission is usefully in operation?
There will be lots of hassles over
jurisdiction, over powers, over sources of revenue,
over allocation of revenue, over new kinds of
administrative organization designed to avoid
bureaucratic inertia, and so forth. I expect
controversy, and also I expect improvements to be
made on my bill.
Invariably, these things take more time than
necessary . . . which makes it important to start
now.
19. Is there anything which can be done in the
meantime?
Since the energy problem is so urgent, we ought
to push for bills this session to get initial
funding for solar energy and geothermal energy,
plus more for fusion than is now in the AEC's
budget. If we wait for a perfect new agency to come
into existence, we'll lose more time. We can get
started this year by pushing for programs under
existing agencies.
Obviously, it will make a lot more sense to
have an Energy-Environment Commission supervising
our energy efforts, but we should not use its
non-existence to postpone our efforts. Nor should
we just study the problem, which is obvious. We
need action toward solutions.
Do you realize what it will mean to this earth
if we don't start action? We'll find ourselves
toe-to-toe due to the population explosion, with
only primitive energy systems to provide a
tolerably human standard of living for billions of
people. We would pollute or contaminate this planet
beyond tolerance if we had to depend on today's
energy technology.
Therefore, it's really a very modest proposal
to start funding let's say 2,000 people -- out of a
labor force of about 70 million Americans -- whose
job will be to make solar energy practical. The
same is true for deep geothermal wells. And the
fusion budget should be tripled at least.
Some will say, "But the program can't absorb
the money," but the can-not-do attitude is nothing
new. Can anyone really argue that putting 2,000 new
brains, with new ideas, on the problems of fusion
would be a waste of money?
That's the kind of immediate effort I'm
supporting. Unless we put effort into solving
energy needs, it's insincere to say that it's
electricity vs. the environment, or any of the
other false choices offered us.
Senator Mike Gravel
February 15, 1971