Questions on the Future of Nuclear Power: Implications and Trade-Offs

A report providing a perspective on the future role of U.S. nuclear power was prepared by GAO, assessing the impact of nuclear growth on the national energy system. Nuclear reactors account for only a fraction of present installed capacity, but nuclear power has been the major growth factor for U.S. electricity. Nuclear growth can vastly increase domestic energy supply, but the desirability of continuing current trends has been questioned in heated and protracted discussions, particularly in the wake of the Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, incident. The desirability and necessity of nuclear power have been questioned as to waste disposal, nuclear proliferation, cost effectiveness, safety, and the demand for electricity. The subject merits serious consideration because it is one of a handful of domestic energy sources, it promises increased electric capacity, and it does not produce carbon dioxide. The view of nuclear power as the energy source of last resort implies other options permitting the minimization of the nuclear role while increasing the energy supply, reducing imports, and meeting electrical demand. The two available major options are conservation of electricity and the substitution of coal for nuclear power. Prospects for a continuing diminution in the growth of electricity demand seem bleaker in view of dwindling world oil supplies and the chances that electricity will be used to replace oil in some applications. The analysis of the effects of different levels of nuclear energy by GAO is predicated on four assumptions: U.S. coal production will reach 2 billion tons annually by 2000, oil and gas generation of electricity will remain at present levels from 1977 through 1985, hydroelectric output will grow at 2 percent per year, and other energy sources will double from 1977 and every 5 years thereafter.