The politics of nuclear power is highly unusual in that its early stages were characterized by minimal levels of participation, while in the 1970s the issue generated intense political and social conflict, including mass protests by a large antinuclear movement. This dramatic transformation was the result of changing perceptions of nuclear energy, as well as of institutional changes prompted by broader reform movements in American politics and society.
From its birth in the highly secretive Manhattan Project, atomic energy was defined and perceived in military terms, which meant that access to program information would be severely restricted. This concern with maintaining the "secret" of the atom set the tone for the atomic program far into the future and would persist when the atomic program's emphasis later shifted from defense to the commercial generation of electricity. These conditions all but guaranteed that an exceptionally small set of governmental actors would have a virtual monopoly on information concerning the program and that public knowledge and involvement would be minimal.
From the outset its supporters worked to ensure that the atomic energy program was identified with the national interest. Most obviously, the development of a constructive use for the atom would further the nation's cold war geopolitical aims. If the United States could win the race to develop the atom as a cheap and plentiful source of power, it was argued, it would bolster Western European economies while helping to contain Soviet expansionism. Furthermore, it was believed that atomic energy could revolutionize industrial society itself by dramatically reducing the costs of production. Consumer products would thus be affordable and more plentiful, contributing to rapid economic growth and a vastly improved standard of living. In short, a vigorous atomic energy program was thought to be necessary for a nation seeking to exert military, economic, and technological leadership in the postwar era.
Until the 1960s very few people had reasons to challenge this position. Because the issue was perceived in military terms and was technologically complex, the number of decisionmakers was severely limited. The end result was that an exclusive and undemocratic nuclear elite made atomic energy policy, while the public was largely inattentive. Criticisms of the program were virtually nonexistent. By the mid-1960s, after nearly two decades of generous government subsidies, American utilities were rushing to build nuclear reactors.
The boom market for nuclear power coincided, however, with the rise of the environment as an issue of national importance. Initially, concern for the environment was perceived as a boost to nuclear power, which was presumably cleaner than coal and other energy sources. Ironically, though, the first consistent opposition to nuclear power emerged in response to the environmental consequences of "thermal pollution," caused by nuclear plants' discharge of heated water into nearby lakes and rivers. Early opposition was local in nature, directed at particular reactors and not at nuclear power itself. Relatively quickly, however, concerns emerged about radioactive emissions from reactors and nuclear waste disposal. But the most significant factor in the expansion of the debate over nuclear power was the emergence of reactor safety as a prominent issue. This controversy energized the opposition to nuclear power and thrust the nuclear issue into the media spotlight, making it difficult for public officials to ignore. Reactor safety attracted more attention and generated more controversy than other environmental issues, in large part owing to the unique traits of nuclear technology, which were still relatively new and unfamiliar to the American public. For many Americans, especially those raised during the height of the cold war, it was difficult to distinguish the civilian and military aspects of the atomic program. The mere mention of the words atomic energy conjured images of nuclear bombs, mushroom clouds, and terribly destructive forces. The partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island reactor near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 1979, and the accompanying evacuation of women and children from the immediate vicinity, unleashed these fears. Although there were no fatalities, the accident generated intense media coverage, and the tide of public opinion turned decisively against nuclear energy. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, it had yet to recover.
Once nuclear power became entangled in these contentious debates over environmental protection, nuclear radiation, reactor safety, and nuclear waste disposal, public perceptions shifted and became increasingly negative. Ultimately, many new players were drawn to the issue in the 1970s, and the politics and economics of nuclear power changed dramatically. Reduced demand for electricity, combined with more stringent safety regulations and rapidly escalating construction costs, led many utilities to cancel more than one hundred reactor orders.
The fate of nuclear power changed markedly once a variety of social, political, and moral questions were introduced to the debate. At the height of the conflict, fundamentally different world views were evident in the positions of both sides. Supporters of nuclear power tended to be scientific optimists who believed that increasing the nation's energy supplies was essential to economic growth and improved living standards. Antinuclear activists, on the other hand, were less trusting of technology and believed that technocrats had no special authority to make political or moral decisions.
Economic and political environments will likely lead to a continuation of the policy drift that characterized nuclear politics for much of the last two decades of the twentieth century. What distinguished nuclear power in the 1990s, however, was that the issue no longer occupied a prominent place on the governmental agenda. The only time the general public and most policymakers paid attention to the issue was in the context of the never-ending debates over nuclear waste and reactor safety. If these conditions persist, a rebirth of nuclear power is highly unlikely.
Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues: Nuclear Power
National Institute of Standards and Technology: Energy Portal
Encyclopedia of American Studies, ed. Simon J. Bronner (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018), s.v. "Nuclear Energy" (by Robert J. Duffy), http://eas-ref.press.jhu.edu/view?aid=578 (accessed August 23, 2018).
TOP
Save/Email Citation
