The nation's struggling nuclear power industry is marketing itself as part of a solution to global warming and air pollution, but environmentalists are skeptical.
On one side of the argument are those who say radioactive waste, which remains dangerous for thousands of years, is at least as much of a problem as rising temperatures or choking city air."All this means is you're replacing one serious environmental problem with another," scoffed Daniel Becker of the Sierra Club. He compared the tradeoff to "giving up smoking while taking up crack."
On the other side are those who point out that nuclear plants, which generate about one-fifth of America's electricity, do not pollute the air the way coal- and oil-burning plants do. Those fossil fuels produce the carbon dioxide that many scientists believe could raise Earth's temperature to unacceptable levels, the so-called "greenhouse effect."
Paul Portney of Resources for the Future, an environmental think tank, said while he is not necessarily pro-nuclear, the energy source cannot be dismissed in dealing with air pollution or the potential warming of the planet.
"To have a vigorous national debate about these two issues without at the same time debating the role that nuclear power should play is disingenuous," Portney said.
The nuclear industry, which has not placed an order for a new reactor in 24 years, is spinning its environmental story at top speed.
"The United States can't meet President Clinton's goals on global warming without expansion of nuclear," Joe Colvin, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, told a Senate hearing last week.
Industry officials say America's 100 nuclear reactors prevented last year the burning of 268 million tons of coal, 62 million barrels of oil and 983 billion cubic feet of natural gas. That kept 147 million tons of carbon dioxide from getting into the atmosphere.
Critics note that at the same time the reactors produced about 2,000 tons of atomic waste.
Some other countries, such as Japan and France, are finding it easier to accept mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions because of their heavy reliance on nuclear power. The industry's recent successful campaign to sell U.S. reactors to China gained support in Congress in part because of the environmental arguments.
"Many people inside and outside the environmental community believe nuclear power deserves another look," says Harvard professor John Holdren, a member of President Clinton's council of science and technology advisers.
Holdren says for nuclear power to make a comeback on environmental grounds, the industry must resolve public fears about its safety and the disposal of radioactive wastes. Both in the long run can be solved, he argues.
Even so, there is no evidence new reactors will be built in this country over the next decade.
"Nuclear power already plays an important role, but it's dead in the water," Jim MacKenzie, an energy analyst for the World Resources Institute, said. Even worldwide, nuclear power will play a declining role, he said, citing Energy Department forecasts that by 2015 it will account for 11 percent of electricity generated, compared to 17 percent today.
The licenses of about one-third of the reactors now in use will expire by 2015. Analysts believe that extension of many of these licenses will be largely because of environmental pressures.