How important is it to have more energy - and more electricity?

Human labor is one substitute for energy. But it is a very inefficient one. Our ancestors learned to use the energy of animals to ease their own burdens. They learned to use the energy of wind, water, and fire before learning to use the sources we have today to produce electricity: wood, fossil and nuclear fuels, falling water, and the sun.

We already enjoy the benefits of a society that needs and uses a great deal of energy. But many countries in the world still use human power to do work. To raise their standards of living they need to use energy fuel sources - especially ones that are easiest for them to get and use (such as fossil fuels).

We know we cannot depend forever on oil or gas to make electricity. We have plenty of coal, which is valuable as a substitute for oil and gas. But it also is a source for many chemicals. Uranium, though, has few uses other than as a fuel source and there is a great deal of it available. Putting to work the energy from the natural fissioning or splitting of its nucleus makes more sense than letting that energy go to waste, unused, into the soil around us.

Using nuclear power gives us more variety in fuel sources. It helps us avoid being dependent on other countries for only one or two types of fuels.

Let's look at some of the most appealing of these alternatives. Hydroelectric or water power in the U.S. is being used as much as possible now. Solar power is a diffused energy source - it is available only when the sun shines. Although some energy can be stored in energy cells, the technology for storing large amounts is still in its infancy. Wind power also is a diffused energy source. It is available only in some parts of the country and only when the wind blows consistently. Geothermal energy is found at only a few special locations. Other possible energy sources are methane from land fills and from burning garbage. For reliability, however, we need to depend on nuclear power and coal for the near future until we can develop other sources.

Costs for building nuclear power plants have increased in recent years because of more regulations and court delays. Many of these delays do nothing to improve reactor safety or reliability, but just end up increasing the costs.

Over the long term, nuclear generation of electricity provides savings over coal generation because of lower fuel and transportation costs for nuclear. By the way, coal-fired plants are facing more regulation for pollution, which increases their costs, too. And the cost in energy to produce the materials needed to make solar electricity is about 1000 times higher than for conventional power plants of equal capacity.

Current estimates are that, with increased growth in our country, we may have electricity shortages by the late 1990s. To avoid this, we must start planning now for power plants needed in the next decade. It takes six to eight years to build a large coal plant and 12 to 14 years to build a large nuclear plant.

The amounts of spent fuel are small. About 400 cubic feet of spent fuel assemblies are removed from the average reactor each year. With more than 100 plants operating in the U.S., what seems to be a large disposal expense will be only a small amount for each of the billions of kilowatt-hours of electricity sold by these plants. Estimates are that decommissioning costs will be about 5 percent of the total costs of a given nuclear plant.

The question of how a utility should be allowed to recover its construction costs is controversial. Different states and their regulatory agencies take different approaches. But utilities and rate commissions are trying to ease the price rise to consumers by slowly increasing rates after the plant is completed.

The three kinds of nuclear radiation that come from the radioactive materials are alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. All three types are present in nature. The natural radiation from soil, water, and cosmic radiation (the sun) is called "background radiation."

Alpha particles are the nuclei (centers) of helium atoms. They can be blocked by a sheet of paper. Beta particles are high-speed electrons. They can be blocked by a thin sheet of aluminum. Gamma radiation, like the medical X-ray, consists of photons (electro-magnetic radiation), except that gamma radiation comes from the atomic nucleus. X-rays are lower in energy and come from the electrons around the nucleus. Gamma rays can be blocked by several inches of lead, several feet of concrete, or a large amount of water (for example, the 45-foot deep pools of water in which spent fuel is stored).

Radiation at higher levels may have two kinds of health effects: somatic and genetic. Somatic effects of radiation include a slightly increased chance of cancer and life-shortening in the person exposed. Genetic effects are those that may be passed on to the exposed person's offspring by changes in the genes.

The units used to measure radiation are the rem and the millirem (1/1000th of one rem). Individuals receive an average exposure from all sources of about 360 millirems per year. This includes natural sources (such as rocks and cosmic radiation) and man-made sources (such as X-rays). At less than 1000 millirem (or 1 rem), health effects on test animals are so small that conclusions cannot be made. Radiation doses of less than 25,000 millirems (or 25 rems) cause minor blood changes detectable only by laboratory examination. There are no other clinically observable effects until a dose of more than 50,000 millirems (50 rems) is received.

Radiation treatments are widely used in medicine to help cure patients with some kinds of cancer. Doses of 5,000 rems are common. Much smaller doses of radioactive materials are used as diagnostic tools. The health effects of these levels of radiation help us more than they hurt us.

Radiation exposure from all commercial nuclear energy power plants has averaged 0.01 millirem per person annually. Those who live near a nuclear power plant receive less than 5 millirems per year. The federal limit for people who work in nuclear power plants is a maximum of 5,000 millirems per year. Utilities themselves normally have set their own limits even lower than that.

The guiding principle for releases from nuclear power plants is ALARA, As Low As Reasonably Achievable. Plant operators pay continuous, careful attention to assure themselves and the public that any radiation releases are well below the levels of significant environmental or human health effects. These levels are set by law and are based on data collected for more than 50 years. The current exposure level is 5 millirems per year at the plant boundary.

It is impossible to operate a nuclear plant with absolutely no release of radioactivity. The releases are normally not critical as far as human health is concerned, and, in fact, contain less radioactivity than the releases from comparable coal-fired plants.

Utilities set up an environmental monitoring program several years before bringing nuclear fuel on site. They continue monitoring and sampling, comparing effects during the life of the plant. This may include monitoring of a nearby lake, milk from cows, broad leafy vegetables, and fish. In this way they know exactly what effect operation of the plant is having on the environment.

In many areas, independent laboratories analyze the samples and report to the utility, regulatory agencies, and public document rooms simultaneously. These records are public. The operation of commercial U.S. nuclear plants has had little, if any, measurable effect on the environment.

The amount of radioactivity released by a nuclear power plant is monitored continuously to be sure it doesn't go above allowed levels. This same sophisticated monitoring equipment provides exact information about any accidental release. More monitoring equipment and personnel are on hand for emergency use. Teams practice environmental/radiation monitoring several times a year in emergency drills with independent governmental agency personnel, who also practice and participate.

It is much smaller than the risk from radiation we receive NATURALLY every day (see health effects) Nuclear plants add less than one percent of your total background radiation exposure. If nuclear plants were completely eliminated as sources of radioactivity, that elimination would cause no detectable change in your radiation exposure.

In the years since the first U.S. commercial power reactor (Shippingport) went into service in 1957, no property damage or injury to the public has ever been caused by radiation from a U.S. commercial nuclear power plant. At present there are more than 100 operable nuclear plants in this country. From its beginnings, the U.S. nuclear power industry's primary concern has been to protect the health and safety of the public.

Independent organizations such as the American Medical Association, World Health Organization, and National Academy of Sciences have concluded that nuclear power is one of the safest methods available to us to make electricity.

The deaths of 31 workers and firefighters following the April 1986 accident at the Chernobyl plant in the Soviet Union were the first ever recorded involving a radiation release from a commercial nuclear power plant. (Two of those deaths were caused by the steam explosion.)

As is usually the case in any accident, a number of things combined to cause this one at Chernobyl. Unlike power reactors operating in the U.S. and other nations, the Chernobyl RBMK reactor (which is a graphite rather than a light water system) has a built-in instability that occurs at low power, which is how the reactor was operating at the time of the accident. If some of the cooling water in this reactor converts to steam, the RBMK increases in power. This in turn causes more steam to form, which causes _another_ increase in power. (In Western light water reactors, the power decreases.)

The power increase feature of the RBMK caused a rupture in the cooling system and a large steam explosion occurred. This caused the cooling system to fail and the outer covering (or cladding) of the fuel elements to increase in temperature. The cladding was hot enough to react with the steam, causing hydrogen to form. The hydrogen then caused a second explosion. The release of this energy set the graphite core on fire.

In spite of its dangerous features, the RBMK -- unlike other reactors -- had no actual containment structure to prevent release of contamination. Such a design could not be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in this country, nor in most countries of the world. Studies done since the Chernobyl accident have shown that its releases would have been successfully contained by a U.S. type reactor. As a matter of fact, a test of a 37-foot tall scale model of a nuclear plant containment building was made at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico in 1987. The test showed that the type of light water containment used at U.S. nuclear plants could withstand more than three times the pressure it was designed for without rupturing or fragmenting.

A second factor in the Chernobyl accident involved a safety experiment being conducted. It required that the reactor be run in a very unusual manner. Because of a series of operational problems, the operators found themselves running the reactor far outside its safety limits. In their efforts to finish the experiment anyway, the operators --in spite of running the reactor under unfamiliar conditions-- turned off seven of the safety systems in the reactor and its control systems. Any one of these seven automatic controls could have prevented the accident had it been on.

All this reflects important differences between Western and Soviet operators and their training. Unlike the Soviets, U.S. reactor operators take continued training in classroom situations and on reactor simulators. Further, operators in Western countries are strictly bound by what are called "technical specifications" which forbid operation of the reactor outside of preset safety limits.

There are many differences, which include not only physical differences but philosophical ones as well. The key differences have already been noted in the previous answer. These physical differences were made worse by the totally different attitude toward safety between the two countries. The U.S. is cautious to the extreme by comparison. It took seven years to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1 following the accident in the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor in 1979, the results of which were much less severe than in the Soviet Union. The Soviets restarted their other reactors (of the identical design) at Chernobyl in a matter of a few weeks.

Because of major differences in technology, a Chernobyl-type accident cannot occur in a light water reactor such as those used in the U.S. A reactor similar to the Chernobyl design simply could not be licensed in the U.S. either now or before the accident.

The actual impact of this accident on the citizens of the Ukraine appears to be much, much less than predicted. In fact, the total release of fission products at Chernobyl produced far less radiological effect than has been predicted in the past for U.S. accidents much smaller. This discrepancy has been under study in the U.S. for many years now and the Chernobyl accident confirms the finding of these "source term" studies. Monitoring of the health of residents from the Ukraine will continue.

Choosing a power plant site involves consideration of technical, economic, legal, environmental, and public opinion factors. Studies are made of the ecology, water quality, geology, meteorology, archaeology, and, if near the ocean, oceanography. Topography, aesthetics, zoning, water supply, and transportation are also considered. Site selection is a lengthy process. The public can become involved in the process through public hearings.

The greatest potential hazard from an operating nuclear power plant is from the radioactive products created in the fuel. These come from the fission process that generates the heat to make electricity. Plants are designed to keep these fission products inside the plant. The physical barriers are: the building (about 3 1/2 feet thick, of concrete and steel), the solid fuel itself, and water and metal around the fuel.

Every operating plant has plans in place to alert and advise the residents as necessary in and emergency. These are local government plans and are practiced each year with local civil authorities. These plans often have been used for emergencies that have had nothing to do with a nuclear plant. For example, in 1987 an emergency evacuation plan prepared for the Susquehanna nuclear plant was used successfully to evacuate local residents from four northeastern Pennsylvania communities when a fire at a metal processing company released harmful fumes. Such plans have never had to be used to evacuate the public in a nuclear plant emergency.

Before any nuclear plant can be built and go into service, the utility must obtain many different licenses and operating permits from federal, state and local agencies. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that its conditions be met and allows for public hearings to be held before the Commission issues a construction permit. After construction is done, the NRC issues an operating license, again after a public hearing. During and after construction, the Commission stations full-time inspectors at the plant. Other visiting inspectors are sent to do on-site inspections. This assures that the plant is operated according to its license.

Each utility checks its plants for radioactive releases. The records are sent to and examined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. Abnormal conditions or operations are reported to these agencies.

Nuclear plants located in areas with a history of earthquakes are built to withstand the maximum motion that could be expected and to be able to shut down safely. Also, all vital devices, equipment, and machines are tested and approved to work during earthquakes, even for plants located away from likely earthquake areas. Nuclear plants are generally built away from earthquake-prone areas and are designed to withstand a tremor should one occur. Plants also are designed to withstand whatever other natural forces are likely to happen in specific locations such as tornadoes, hurricanes, or floods.

The accident was serious, but no lives were lost. The maximum individual radiation exposure was 46 millirems - about as much as the extra cosmic radiation a person from sea-level Florida would get by going camping in the mountain areas of Yellowstone National Park. No one was physically harmed or is likely to suffer future ill effects. The government and industry have been carefully applying the lessons learned from the accident.

Events such as airplane crashes and explosions are 100,000 times more likely to kill 10 people that the operation of 100 nuclear plants would be. It is about 2,000 times more likely that 10 persons will be killed by an earthquake and about 60,000 times more likely that 1,000 persons will be killed by hurricane than by the 100 nuclear plants.

The greatest risks we live with, aside from disease and illness, is that of riding in our cars. Air pollution presents the next greatest risk, then falls, drowning, fire, poisoning, and on down through the categories of accidental deaths. They all present greater risk than does nuclear power.

The risk of radiation from a nuclear plant has been compared by Lord Walter Marshall of Goring (United Kingdom) as being equal to the risk of death by cancer if one were to smoke one-twentieth of a cigarette every week.

The public is protected by insurance carried and paid for by the owners of nuclear power plants as required by the Price-Anderson Act, passed by the U.S. Congress. This Act makes it unnecessary for a member of the public to provide his or her own coverage.

This no-fault* insurance covers any nuclear accident that happens at a nuclear generating plant, or because of the transportation or storage of the plant's nuclear fuel or waste. Coverage is in two layers. The first is liability insurance provided by private insurers. The second is a financial pool funded by required contributions assigned to each reactor.

The total available coverage for any one accident at one of the more than 100 operating plants in the U.S. is $660 million. If accident damages go above this currently specified amount, the Act requires Congress to consider necessary and appropriate action to provide the needed compensation.

Following the accident at Three Mile Island, total claims paid out under the Act came to $41.5 million. The nuclear insurers also paid $20 million into an economic injury fund covering business and individuals within 25 miles of Three Mile Island, and $5 million into a public health fund.

* With no-fault insurance, claimants don't have to go through courts and lawsuits trying to prove who is at fault before getting a claim.

In our democratic society, decisions are made by majority agreements through the political process and our elected representatives. Such majority agreement depends on trade-offs involving health and safety, quality of life, and the balance of some activity outweigh its risks, that activity continues. We continue to drive our cars, for example, in spite of the risks involved.

For example: The transparent plastic wrap used to package fruits and other foods depends on a radiation process for its strength and cleaning ability. And those landing lights in Alaska (made with tritium gas) burn for up to 10 years without wires or an external power source.

In the medical field, the radioactive isotope Cobalt-60 helps to stop the body's immune reaction to transplanted human organs. Also, tests using nuclear materials in hospital laboratories can detect thyroid underactivity in newborn babies. This makes prompt treatment possible, saving many children from mental retardation.

The federal government is responsible for disposing of high-level radioactive waste. These wastes include used fuel or materials left after reprocessing the used (spent) fuel. The waste will be in solid form.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 details a method and timetable for site selection, construction, and operation of a high-level nuclear waste repositories. The first site is expected to be in operation around the turn of the century. This will be for permanent geologic disposal in a stable formation far below the surface of the earth. Safe waste processing and handling techniques are known; it is a question of resolving the political and location issues, and then putting the techniques into practice.

Nuclear wastes are, for the same power output, some 3.5 million times smaller in volume than the wastes from coal plants. High-level nuclear wastes can be disposed of by diluting them with twice their own volume of neutral materials as they are changed into glass or ceramic form. The reprocessed waste volume form a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant would fit easily under a typical dining room table. A coal plant of the same capacity (1,000 megawatts) produces some 10 tons of waste per minute.*

After changing it to stable form, the volume of all nuclear waste produced until the year 2000 (including low-level waste from the entire U.S nuclear power industry) would fit into a cube 250 feet on each side. The high-level waste portion would fit into a cube 50 feet on each side within the 250-foot block.

*If the spent nuclear fuel is not reprocessed, the fuel assemblies themselves may be packaged in special containers for disposal. Only about 400 cubic feet of these assemblies are removed from the average reactor each year. This comes to about 6.5 ounces of nuclear waste per minute. --

Most low-level wastes are solidified, put into drums and buried at a commercial disposal site. There they are placed at the bottom of trenches (about 20 feet deep). At the Barnwell, SC, site, for example, trenches are back filled with sand and covered in clay each day to keep moisture from getting in. When full, trenches are mounded and capped with clay, and finished off with a foot of top-soil. Grass is planted to help prevent erosion. The collection, transportation and burial of low-level radioactive wastes are all closely monitored and controlled by the Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

When properly managed, these low-level wastes do not pose a hazard. The industry now has 30 years of experience in handling and shipping these materials. There never has been an accident with these wastes that had serious health results due to radioactivity.

The 1980 Low-Level Waste Policy Act makes each state responsible for providing he disposal of its own waste. Also encouraged are joint efforts among several states for a shared site. --

U.S utilities also are exploring above-ground, air-cooled storage techniques - which are used safely in Canada and Europe.

The original intention was to reprocess and recycle the used fuel, not to bury it without reprocessing. More than 90 percent can be recycled and used again as new fuel. But with the large amounts of uranium still available to be mined (much of it in the U.S.), it is less expensive to mine new fuel than to reprocess the old. However, reprocessing is being done in other countries, such as France. --

High-level waste from commercial nuclear power plants consists of the used fuel (a solid material contained in rods). As mentioned earlier, these fuel rods are stored at the nuclear plant sites. The original intent was to ship the rods out to reprocess them; fuel storage pools at plants were sized with this in mind. Since reprocessing has been discontinued in the U.S., the storage pools at some plant sites are filling up. Fuel rods form these pools are moved to a designated storage facility away form the plant to avoid having to shut down the plant for lack of spent fuel storage space.

It is less hazardous to ship the solid nuclear fuel than to ship many other material (such as gasoline) that are routinely transported all over the country. Specially designed and tested shipping containers prevent the release of radioactive materials, even in the most severe accident. Sample containers have undergone severe crash and fire tests to prove they can withstand accidents.

High-level waste is transported in shipping containers by truck or railway. All shipments are subject to strict federal regulation by the Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. --

The main safety factor is the shipping container. Containers for spent fuel are rigorously designed and tested according to the requirements set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Transportation. The containers are tested by severe crashes, in fire, under water, and by dropping them. These tests are much worse than conditions that would occur during a highway accident. They assure the containers' ability to remain tightly sealed under any conceivable transportation condition.

The Department of Transportation has general authority to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials, including radioactive materials. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is responsible for licensing and regulating the radiological aspects of all high-level radioactive shipments. --

Radioactivity in the waste decays slowly. Within 600 to 1000 years, the radioactivity will have decayed to the same low levels that the ore had when it was originally mined to make the fuel.

Some people say there is too much technology today and blame technology for many of society's ills. We find it easy to exaggerate the problems caused by technology as we forget the truly large problems of society that technology has helped solve. For example, as we condemn Detroit and auto emissions, let us not forget New York City early this century with 150,000 horses in the streets and their emissions!--