Whole nuclear industry is facing a meltdown

Press, 27 March 1981, Page 10

Whole nuclear industry is facing a meltdown

| B y

PETER PRINGLE

in Washington, D.C.

Two years after the nuclear accident on Three Mile Island, the reactor still lies crippled and the four giant cooling towers inactive. The loss of public confidence that accompanied the accident hah meant hbt a single new order for a reactor in two years and, despite President Reagan’s pro : huclear stance, the Anteri-. cab nuclear power, industry is facing a meltdown.

“If We get ho further orders, the industry has only three or 'our years to live,” says the lead of General Electrics Power Systems division, Mr Herman Hill.

The cleanup at the Three Wile. Island reactor continues md includes efforts to dispose: )f 700,000 gallons of radioac-l live water Lying nearly three! metres deep in a building next' ;o the reactor core. The oWh!ts. Metropolitan Edison, ate : .till finding flew problems,; tuch as leaky pipes, and even tbme mysterious contaminated rodent droppings. The huge

amount of radioactive waste at the plant continues to remind people that, after 35 years, the problem of its disposal in some permanent fashion has not yet been found; All this has created a bad image for the industry that is reflected in the dwindling public support, for nuclear power. A Harris poll, last December found Americans evenly split on whether more plant should be built. Before the accident it was 57 per cent in favour with 31 per cent opposed. At first blush, the Reagan Administration raised the industry’s hopes of significant Federal funding to help it out of tlie doldrums. President Reagan’s Energy Secretary, Mr James Edwards, was especially bullish. “As you look across the horizon to find ah-; swers to our energy problems there’s ho real place to turn in the next 30 years other than huclear io help keep us from; being all hostages to foreign countries,” he said last month.

‘ The Nuclear Research and Development's portion of the Department of Energy’s budget was the only one not cut underthe Stockwell axe, and America’s commercial prototype breeder reactor programme, put on hold by Mr Carter, has been reactivated. That may help America regain some of its technological losses, but is far from solving the industry’s underlying problems. Two serious questions remain. Can the nuclear industry compete with the new coalfired plants and is future demand for electricity going to be enough to allow the nuclear industry to expand at an economical rate? There is considerable debate here. The nuclear advocates say tlie cost of coal plants is rising as fast as nuclear plants and, if anything, the nuclear plants have up to a 20 per cent advantage. Others, like a New York energy and economic consultant, Mr Charles Komanoff, says the figures are exactly the reverse: Coal will have about a 20 per cent cost advantage. Mr Komanoff says increasingly tougher safety standards for nuclear plants will cause the difference. Finally, demand for electricity is dropping. During the 1960 s there was an annual increase of 10 per cent; this fell during the 1970 s to about 6.5 and during, the 1980 s it is expected to be about 4 per :ent. Despite the forecasts, the industry’s lobbying arm, .the atomic Industrial Forum, presets that new orders Will start flowing again in three to four (fears. “My bet is we will turn t around and fly right again,” says the Forum’s president, Mr lari Walske.—Copyright, Lonlon Observer Service.