Nuclear Power

Nuclear Power. In the aftermath of World War II and the beginning of the widely hailed “Atomic Age,” a plethora of books and articles suggested that the dangers of atomic weapons would be offset, at least partially, by the potential peaceful benefits of nuclear technology.Most of the projected applications, such as atomic automobiles and small reactors to heat and cool individual homes, were hopelessly fanciful. Proposals for building reactors to generate electricity in central power stations were more realistic, but progress was slow, especially with the Harry S. Truman administration's focus on the military uses of atomic energy.

In 1954, Congress passed a law intended to speed nuclear‐power development. The 1954 Atomic Energy Act made possible for the first time the wide commercial use of atomic energy by ending the government's monopoly of the technology. It assigned the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) responsibility for both promoting nuclear power and regulating its safety. To the frustration of the AEC and the congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, many utilities refrained from making a major commitment to nuclear power because of the abundance of conventional fuels and because of economic uncertainties and unresolved safety questions about the technology.

Beginning in the mid‐1960s, however, nuclear‐power development experienced a sudden and unanticipated boom. This came about for several reasons, including indications that large nuclear plants could compete economically with coal, the rise of interconnected electrical grids that encouraged the construction of large plants, and intensifying concern about air pollution from fossil‐fuel units. The nuclear boom not only produced a rapid growth in the number of nuclear plants but also in the size of individual plants, which in less than a decade grew from small demonstration facilities to behemoths.

The expansion of the nuclear industry took place at virtually the same time as the development of environmentalism as a potent political force. By the early 1970s, nuclear power had become a leading target of environmental activism and the subject of a highly visible and increasingly strident debate. Critics claimed that the technology was neither safe nor necessary; supporters argued that it was both safe and essential for the nation's energy future. At the center of the controversy were the unresolved issues of the likelihood and consequences of a major reactor accident and the effects of exposure to low levels of radiation. As the debate continued, public uneasiness about the risks of nuclear power increased substantially, and by the end of the 1970s orders for new plants has slowed dramatically. The slump in the industry resulted more from inflation and reduced demand for electricity than antinuclear activism, but the complaints of nuclear opponents strongly influenced public attitudes.

The debate over nuclear power intensified after the most serious accident in a U.S. nuclear power plant occurred at the Three Mile Island station near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in March 1979. The accident's severity was caused by mechanical failures and human error, and although only small amounts of radiation were released, the political fallout was heavy. The accident undermined the credibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the nuclear industry while enhancing that of antinuclear critics.

After the shock of Three Mile Island, the NRC and the nuclear industry focused on a series of issues that had commanded only limited interest before the accident. These were intended to reduce the likelihood of another major accident, and, if one did occur, to enhance the ability of the NRC, the utility, and the public to cope with it. At the direction of the NRC, power companies improved plants that were operating or under construction. After a moratorium of more than one year, the NRC resumed issuing operating licenses for completed nuclear units in August 1980. By 1989, it had granted full‐power licenses to more than forty reactors, most of which had been under construction since the mid‐1970s. No new nuclear‐power reactors were ordered after 1978, and many earlier orders were canceled.

In 2000, 103 nuclear‐power plants were operating in the United States, providing about 20 percent of the nation's generating capacity. By that time, the debate over nuclear power had faded as a national issue, though it continued to trigger heated arguments in many local areas where plants were located.
See also Antinuclear Protest Movements; Electrical Industry; Electricity and Electrification; Hydroelectric Power; Nuclear Weapons.

Bibliography

George T. Mazuzan and and J. Samuel Walker , Controlling the Atom: The Beginnings of Nuclear Regulation, 1946–1962, 1984.
Joseph G. Morone and and Edward J. Woodhouse , The Demise of Nuclear Energy?, 1989.
Brian Balogh , Chain Reaction: Expert Debate and Public Participation in American Commercial Nuclear Power, 1945–1975, 1991.
J. Samuel Walker , Containing the Atom: Nuclear Regulation in a Changing Environment, 1963–1971, 1992.
Joseph V. Rees , Hostages of Each Other: The Transformation of Nuclear Safety since Three Mile Island, 1994.

J. Samuel Walker