|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
The sharp contrast in political endorsement between nuclear and synfuel is mirrored in the levels of society-wide enthusiasm about the technologies. Many historians of nuclear power have observed a strong belief that nuclear power is imperative to the future of American society.6
The words of Francis Staszesky, executive vice president of Boston Edison, provide telling testimony of this nuclear imperative. When the antinuclear activists questioned “what's in it for you?”, he answered, on behalf of the utilities,
Behind the stubborn endorsement of nuclear power was a moral determination. In nuclear proponents' minds, they were promoting nuclear power for the good of mankind. To them, those who were antinuclear were simply stupid. The faith in nuclear power was almost religious. Such faith and determination have never been this apparent among the synfuels proponents.
The strong political endorsement for nuclear power was peculiar in at least two ways. First, it started when the technology was premature, and the market demand for the technology was nonexistent. Second, the public and private support for nuclear power development was unusually widespread and persistent. The story of nuclear power was much more than a technological miracle. The enthusiasm for nuclear power was indeed a social miracle. It might be true that nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm, but enthusiasm is often a dangerous virtue. Zealous enthusiasts often lack discretion. As I will demonstrate, the civilian nuclear power industry in the United States was very likely killed by too much enthusiasm.