home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990s
/
Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso
/
time
/
010289
/
01028900.037
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-04-15
|
6KB
|
118 lines
<text id=89TT0037>
<title>
Jan. 02, 1989: Nuclear Power Plots A Comeback
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1989
Jan. 02, 1989 Planet Of The Year:Endangered Earth
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
PLANET OF THE YEAR, Page 41
Nuclear Power Plots a Comeback
</hdr><body>
<p>But safety comes first in new reactor designs
</p>
<p>By Philip Elmer-Dewitt
</p>
<p> The primary purpose of the $3.6 billion nuclear plant that
the U.S. Department of Energy wants to build in Idaho Falls,
Idaho, is to help replenish America's dwindling supply of
tritium, a vital component in atom bombs. But if approved by
Congress, the Idaho facility could play an even more important
role in the civilian use of nuclear power. For it is based on
what proponents claim is a fail-safe technology, one that
virtually eliminates the danger of a meltdown.
</p>
<p> Nuclear plants have the potential of providing abundant
supplies of electricity without spewing pollutants into the
atmosphere. But the nuclear-power industry has failed to deliver
on that promise, at least in the U.S. Even before the accident
at Three Mile Island in 1979, the costs of making atomic power
safe were spiraling out of control. Since that episode, the
industry has been at a standstill.
</p>
<p> What makes the failure all the more disturbing is that it
was unnecessary. Engineers have the know-how to build reactors
that are demonstrably safer than those now in operation.
Moreover, that basic technology has been available for more
than 20 years. It was largely ignored in favor of a technology
-- the water-cooled reactor -- that had already been proved in
nuclear submarines. But water-cooled reactors are particularly
susceptible to the rapid loss of coolant, which led to the
accidents at both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
</p>
<p> All nuclear reactors work by splitting large atoms into
smaller pieces, thus releasing heat. The challenge is to keep
the core of nuclear fuel from overheating and melting into an
uncontrollable mass that can breach containment walls and
release radioactivity. One way to prevent a meltdown is to make
sure the fuel is always surrounded with circulating coolant --
ordinary water in most commercial reactors. To guard against
mechanical failures that could interrupt the transfer of heat,
most reactors employ multiple backup systems, a strategy known
as "defense in depth."
</p>
<p> The problem with defense in depth is that no matter how many
layers of safety are built into a conventional reactor, it can
never be 100% safe against a meltdown. At its Idaho plant, the
Energy Department wants to try a different strategy. Rather than
construct a giant atomic pile that requires the cooling of large
quantities of concentrated fuel, designers propose to build a
series of four small-scale, modular reactors that use fuel in
such small quantities that their cores could not achieve
meltdown temperatures under any circumstances. The fuel would be
packed inside tiny heat-resistant ceramic spheres and cooled by
inert helium gas. Then the whole apparatus would be buried
belowground. Lawrence Lidsky, an M.I.T. professor of nuclear
engineering, calls this an "inherently safe" approach: it
relies on the laws of nature, rather than human intervention,
to prevent a major accident.
</p>
<p> The main problem is that the modest electrical output of
smaller units makes them less economical, at least initially.
But proponents argue that inherently safe plants should prove
more cost-effective in the long run. Not only would expensive
safety systems no longer be needed, but the units could be
built on an assembly line and put into operation one module at
a time, enabling utility companies to match operating capacity
with demand for power.
</p>
<p> Critics are quick to point out that no nuclear reactor,
either water-cooled or gas-cooled, is totally safe as long as it
produces radioactive waste. The U.S. alone has generated
thousands of metric tons of "hot" debris, including enough
spent fuel to cover a football field to a height of three feet.
Said Sir Crispin Tickell, British Permanent Representative to
the United Nations: "The fact that every year there is waste
being produced that will take the next three ice ages and beyond
to become harmless is something that has deeply impressed the
imagination."
</p>
<p> There are ways to cope with the waste problem. The French
have pioneered a process called vitrification that involves
mixing radioactive wastes with molten glass. Over time, the hot
mass should cool into a stable, if highly radioactive, solid
that can be buried deep underground. The U.S. is also pursuing a
strategy of deep burial, but the process has become ensnared in
regional politics. Some sites that might have been suitable for
an underground storage facility -- the granite mountains of New
Hampshire, for example -- were quickly ruled out because of
opposition from nearby residents. The one site now being
considered, a remote mountain in southern Nevada, still faces
formidable political hurdles.
</p>
<p> It is a problem that can, and must, be solved. Third World
countries do not have the technical or managerial expertise to
deal with the complexities of nuclear power. They will be
forced, at least for the foreseeable future, to rely primarily
on environmentally harmful fossil fuels. That is going to put
pressure on the developed world to produce increasing amounts of
cheaper, safer nuclear power.
</p>
</body></article>
</text>