EDITOR'S NOTE: The following article on nuclear energy development in the United States and Illinois is the result of one of Sangamon State University's "Public Affairs Colloquia." These are laboratory courses in which students test and apply the knowledge and skills gained from academic endeavors to real world problems. The colloquium, from May 19 to June 12. 1975, examined the various benefits, problems and alternatives associated with nuclear energy development now and in the future. Participants included: Kevin Dickerson, Dennis Hoerner, Chandana Nandi, Marvin Piersall, Susan Roscetti and Cheryl Sgro. The views expressed reflect conclusions of the colloquium.

By WILLIAM H. RAUCKHORST
Associate professor of physical science, Sangamon State University, he holds the Ph.D. in physics from the University of Cincinnati. Rauckhorst has taught many energy-related courses at SSU and did an energy study for the Illinois Legislative Council. He is chairman of the 3rd Annual Illinois Inter-University Energy Conference set for April 1976.

The Nuclear Option

Long-range energy planning includes the option of generating power by nuclear fission. It is a controversial option because of safety hazards. But, nuclear power provides 7.9% of the nation's electricity, and in Illinois the percentage is much higher—about 25%

THE MERITS of generating power by nuclear fission is an enormously controversial question in the United States at present. Views on the subject range from pleas for immediate shutdown of existing reactors to a call for their rapid proliferation and the speedy research and development of the new breeder reactor. The current controversy, of course, takes place within a radically different context than in previous years. In the past, energy planning was viewed exclusively as the business of private energy companies and special governmental agencies. Environmental concerns and present energy shortages have made energy planning a major concern of the general public. There is much talk of the need for long-range decisions regarding this or that energy option. Perhaps the most debated of these options is the nuclear energy option—the use of enriched uranium to produce electrical power.

Some difficult questions
Alvin Weinberg has pointed out in Science magazine (July 7, 1972) that Ernest Rutherford himself, the discoverer of the nucleus, expressed mixed feelings over the years about nuclear power. In 1921 Rutherford said, "The [human] race may date its development from the day of the discovery of a method of utilizing atomic energy." By 1933, however, he was saying: "We cannot control atomic energy to an extent which would be of any value commercially, and I believe we are not likely ever to be able to do so." In 1936, Rutherford wrote: "The recent discovery of the neutron and proof of its extraordinary effectiveness in producing transmutations at very low velocities opens up new possibilities."

Present day questions concerning nuclear power center around safety. Critics of nuclear power fear the accidental release of radiation at power plants, during the transportation of radioactive fuel, and in waste disposal (see February, pp. 39 and 40). They point also to the difficulties of handling the huge amounts of plutonium required for the breeder reactor of the future. In the past, critics of nuclear power have considered it as an isolated question, distinct from the total energy question. Proponents of nuclear power, on the other hand, cite a host of studies whose central theme is the need to weigh nuclear risks with the hazards associated with more traditional methods of energy production. One article in the magazine Nuclear Safety (Summer 1964) showed that besides the environmental costs associated with mining coal and offshore drilling of oil, approximately 19,000 deaths per year in the United States could be attributed to the use of coal and oil. R. Philip Hammond notes in American Scientist (March-April 1974) that a modern nuclear power plant, displacing one per cent of United States coal consumption, can thus be credited with saving 190 lives per year, or 5,700 lives over the 30-year life of the plant. Even Ralph Nader would be hard pressed to argue that a nuclear power plant, on the average, could be as destructive of human life as the production of energy from coal and oil. Nuclear proponents also point to the lack of carbon dioxide emissions from a nuclear plant. They say that if you want to worry about a large catastrophe due to energy production, consider the long-range effects of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere resulting from burning of fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and natural gas.

Zero energy growth
The most thoughtful and reasonable call for nuclear curtailment is A Time

October 1975 / Illinois Issues / 299

An energy masterplan should go beyond the immediate objective of meeting next month's or next year's energy demands. Failure to enact significant energy legislation in Illinois and in the United States is a result of our more basic failure to develop such a masterplan

to Choose, the final product of the Ford Foundation's Energy Policy Project. As contrasted with earlier criticisms of nuclear development, the Ford study outlines in detail possible alternatives to nuclear development. The spirit of the Ford study is indicated in the following excerpt:

"Drift is surely the worst of the alternatives before us. No one can foresee everything the future holds, and plans must change as new circumstances arise. But a sense of direction for energy policy is essential because many decisions must mesh consistently together, and because it takes a long time to make things happen in the energy world. For example, it takes a minimum of three years to build an oil refinery; it takes three to five years to locate a new off-shore oil field and bring it into production; and it may take as long as ten years to plan and build a nuclear power plant. Fundamental to any such plans are decisions about the size of the energy supply the country needs." (A Time to Choose, Ford Foundation Energy Policy Project, Ballinger Publishing Co., 1974.)

Three scenarios
A Time to Choose considers three possible energy scenarios for the United States: (1) Historical Growth, (2) Technical Fix, and (3) Zero Energy Growth (ZEG). The Historical Growth scenario has United States energy consumption continuing to grow at an annual rate of 3.4 per cent. Meeting the energy requirements for this scenario clearly necessitates a rapid development of all available energy resources, including nuclear. Present energy development plans within the United Stales have been based upon this scenario and have included an enormous nuclear commitment.

The 'if's'
In the Technical Fix scenario, annual energy consumption increases at a reduced rate of 1.9 per cent per year between now and the year 2000. One important conclusion of the Ford study is that this reduction in energy consumption can be accomplished without adversely affecting Gross National Product (GNP) or employment. What would be required is improved efficiencies in our energy usage in major areas such as home heating and cooling and transportation. The study concludes that this scenario provides considerable flexibility to energy planners. Insistence upon energy self-sufficiency would still require considerable expansion of nuclear generating capability. If energy self-sufficiency were not a major concern, the United States could meet its needs with a combination of increased oil imports, natural gas, and greater reliance on coal.

The ZEG scenario follows the Technical Fix scenario to 1985, and then assumes a leveling off of consumption around 1990. Strong national policies and commitment would be required to achieve Zero Energy Growth without drastic economic effects. The Ford study concludes that careful long-range planning can achieve this goal without adverse effects on GNP and employment. The Ford study says, however, that to reach this goal no expansion of nuclear capability between now and 2000 is necessary.

United States energy masterplan
It is becoming more and more apparent that the United States needs to develop a coherent, meaningful energy masterplan for the future. By definition, this masterplan should go beyond the immediate objective of meeting next month's or next year's energy demands Failure to enact significant energy legislation in Illinois and in the United States is a result of our more basic failure to develop such a masterplan. The isolated development of federal and state policies in particular energy areas can do as much harm as good in the long run. The United States should advocate, develop and adopt a far-sighted national energy masterplan in the spirit of A Time to Choose.

Nuclear development and ZEG
Although the opinion of the Ford study is that the United States could still meet its energy needs under a ZEG scenario without increasing its nuclear power capacity, there are several reasons why nuclear development should proceed at this time. Most obvious is the fact that politics and economics are both imperfect sciences and the kind of long-term energy policies required for Zero Energy Growth may be difficult to implement. Until we make substantial progress toward achieving ZEG, nuclear development should be an essential ingredient in our energy plan. In the event the ZEG is achieved by 1990, the whole range of options regarding choices among fossil fuels, nuclear, and alternative sources such as solar energy could be reconsidered. The situation in 1990 may be considerably different than it is today.

A fundamental goal
While continued development of nuclear energy is needed, ZEG should be a fundamental goal of our national energy policy. In view of the many safety problems connected with the complex new breeder reactors not encountered with existing light water reactors, the wise course may be to proceed modestly on development of this newer type while continuing the establishment of the older, safer light water reactor plants. However this issue is resolved, ZEG is an essential component of a solution to the nation's and the world's energy problems. If energy consumption does not level off, the environmental effects will be disastrous. Too few U.S. citizens are aware that a three per cent annual rate of energy growth will result in a 19-fold increase in a century.

300 / Illinois Issues / October 1975

Nuclear power in Illinois

ENERGY CONSUMPTION in the United States is growing rapidly, doubling in the past 20 years. In 1970 Americans gobbled up more than one-third of the energy produced in the world. Illinois participates fully in this high energy-consuming way of life. In terms of energy consumption per capita, Illinois is slightly below the national average (see June, pp. 168-71 for figures).

While Illinois' energy use is not out of line with the national pattern, its reliance on nuclear power is disproportionate. Nationally, 7.9 per cent of electricity is generated by nuclear power. In Illinois approximately 25 per cent of the electrical generating capacity comes from nuclear plants. This accounts for about 15 per cent of the nuclear capacity operating in the United States today. Commonwealth Edison has been a pioneer in the nuclear area, with three nuclear units at Dresden Station, two at the Quad Cities, and two units at Zion, bringing the total to approximately 5,500 megawatts. An additional 11,000 megawatts will come from 10 units under construction or planned for the state, including two at Clinton by Illinois Power Company (see map). Most of the ordered capacity is scheduled for operation by the early 1980's. If projections are accurate, more than half of Illinois' electricity at that time will be generated by nuclear power. Pennsylvania is the only other state with as large a commitment to nuclear power.

Nuclear power plants are not isolated, self-supporting units. There is a whole sequence of steps in the production process: mining, milling, fuel enrichment, power production, fuel reprocessing, and waste disposal. The state of Illinois is deeply involved in this industry. Allied Chemical Corporation at Metropolis operates the largest privately owned uranium conversion plant in the world. This conversion plant converts U3 O8, the refined product obtained from uranium mills, to UF6 gas. This conversion plant began operation in January 1969. It has an annual capacity of 14,000 tons of uranium, enough to supply our annual national needs through 1975.

General Electric has constructed a nuclear fuel recovery plant adjacent to the Dresden reactors. Difficulties encountered in the recovery process have left the future of the plant in doubt. The irradiated fuel reprocessing plant was designed to handle 300 metric tons of discharged reactor fuel annually, which is adequate to process the fuel discharged from approximately 10,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity. At full capacity, it is estimated this plant would conserve $12,000,000 worth of uranium annually. Approximately 2,000 kilograms of plutonium will be recovered annually.

The state's nuclear stake means that decisions on the country's energy options will be directly influenced by the performance of Illinois nuclear plants, now and in the future. 

Nuclear Power Reactors in Illinois Site Plant name Capacity (netmegawatts) Utility Commercial operation Morris Dresden Nuclear Power Station: Unit 1 200 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1960 Morris Dresden Nuclear Power Station: Unit 2 809 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1970 Morris Dresden Nuclear Power Station: Unit 3 809 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1971 Zion Zion Nuclear Plant: Unit 1 1,050 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1973 Zion Zion Nuclear Plant: Unit 2 1,050 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1974 Cord ova Quad-Cities Station: Unit 1 800 Commonwealth Edison Co. Iowa-Illinois Gas& Electric Co. 1972 Cord ova Quad-Cities Station: Unit 2 800 Commonwealth Edison Co. Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co. 1972 Seneca LaSalle County Nuclear Station: Unit 1 1,078 Commonwealth Edison Co.- Iowa 1978 Seneca LaSalle County Nuclear Station: Unit 2 1,078 Commonwealth Edison Co.- Iowa 1979 Byron Byron Station: Unit 1 1,120 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1980 Byron Byron Station: Unit 2 1,120 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1981 Braidwood Braidwood: Unit 1 1,200 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1980 Braidwood Braidwood: Unit 2 1,200 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1981 Clinton Clinton Nuclear Power Plant: Uniit 1 955 Illinois Power Co. 1980 Clinton Clinton Nuclear Power Plant: Unit 2 955 Illinois Power Co. 1982 Savanna Carroll County Plant: Unit 1 1,150 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1984 Savanna Carroll County Plant: Unit 2 1,150 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1985

October 1975 / Illinois Issues / 301