BY SAMUEL GOLDMAN
Thursday,
July 26, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT
After decades of neglect, nuclear power may be back. The California
energy crisis has raised awareness of how dependent the economy is on
cheap and plentiful energy, while concerns about carbon emissions have
spurred a search for nonpolluting alternatives. The Bush administration's
energy proposals include plans for the first new nuclear generating plants
in years and license extensions for existing facilities.
But the restoration of nuclear power is threatened by the decline of
the academic infrastructure that supports the technology. Across the
country, university programs in nuclear science and engineering are seeing
their funding cut, their faculty dispersed, their laboratories padlocked.
There are already too few qualified nuclear engineers to meet current
demand. If we lose the ability to train their successors--and to produce
the theoretical innovations that have made America the discipline's
international leader--a nuclear renaissance will be impossible to achieve.
This May, Cornell University decided to close its nuclear teaching
reactor and relocate its staff, capping a national trend that has seen a
dozen universities take similar steps since the mid-1980s. "Because of the
public perception after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl that anything
nuclear is dangerous," says Kenan Unlu, the director of the Cornell
reactor, "we are losing an educated workforce very quickly."
As recently as 1988, there were 40 research reactors nationwide. Now
there are only 28. Cornell's 500-kilowatt General Atomics TRIGA II, the
centerpiece of its Ward Center for the Nuclear Sciences, was the last in
New York state. When it finally ceases operation next year, there will be
none left in the Ivy League. Even before the decision to close the Ward
Center, Cornell's nuclear engineering department had been disbanded.
The fate of the Cornell program, which was reduced to offering to share
its apparatus with the geology and art history departments, is not unique.
A 1997 Department of Energy survey found only 570 students nationwide
majoring in nuclear engineering, down nearly a thousand from five years
earlier. Most experts in the field, who entered the discipline in the
heroic early days of nuclear research, are now approaching retirement,
including three-quarters of the workforce in the national laboratory
system.
At the University of Michigan, which decided last fall to decommission
its nuclear reactor, use of the facility has been declining for years as
faculty retire without being replaced. A.E. Waltar, the director of Texas
A&M's nuclear engineering program, says, "This was the place to be
when I started in this field in the '60s. But with the bad rap that the
word 'nuclear' has had, even interested students get discouraged. They
tell mom and dad what they're doing and, their parents say, 'You're going
into a dead-end field.' "
What accounts for the decline in nuclear research? Part of it is due to
the concerted antinuclear campaign by environmentalists, who should
actually be attracted to this ecologically friendly energy. But
Greenpeace's Web site claims that "every nuclear power plant has the
capacity for a meltdown that could poison millions of square miles with
radiation and kill hundreds of thousands of people."
Thanks in part to this propaganda blitz, a general impression has
formed that nuclear energy has been tried, has failed and is on the way
out. There is a whole genre of popular entertainment based on the danger
of playing with atoms. We're not talking about "The China Syndrome"
here--try "Class of Nuke 'Em High 3: The Good, the Bad and the
Subhumanoid," a cheesy 1994 exploitation flick.
Add this to the popular association of nuclear science with nuclear
war, and it is not difficult to understand why students have been wary of
the subject. This, despite the fact that the nuclear industry offers great
job prospects. There are roughly three positions available for each recent
graduate, and Mr. Waltar says that his students earn the highest average
starting salary of any in the university--about $55,000. If President
Bush's energy plans go through, the opportunities will be even better.
Foreign students could fill some of these jobs, but getting work
permits isn't easy, and many of those who come to study in the U.S. return
to their home countries, which often have thriving nuclear programs of
their own.
Congress is belatedly awakening to the problem. After years of
declining support, the Department of Energy increased the federal subsidy
for Cornell's nuclear program from $3,000 in 1997-98 to $620,000 in
2000-01, although too late to save the reactor. And there are bills in
both houses to increase funding for nuclear education programs by $200
million over five years. But if existing campus reactors close it's hard
to imagine, given the prevailing political climate, how new ones can ever
be built--no matter how much money Congress appropriates. "Once these
decisions are made," says Mr. Walter of Texas A&M, "it is very
difficult to go back."
Mr. Goldman, a student at Rutgers, is working at The Wall Street
Journal this summer.