“Too Cheap to Meter”: A History of the Phrase

Thomas Wellock

Donald Hintz, Chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said at 2003 conference that the nuclear industry had been “plagued since the early days by the unfortunate quote: ‘Too cheap to meter’.” Those four words had become a standard catchphrase for what critics claim were impossibly sunny promises of nuclear power’s potential.

Not so fast, Hintz countered. He noted that Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss, in a 1954 address to science writers, had coined the phrase to describe fusion power, not fission. Nuclear power may be a victim of mistaken identity.

Hintz was not alone in this view. Over the past four decades, antinuclear and pronuclear versions of what Strauss meant by “too cheap to meter” have appeared in articles, blogs, and books. Even Wikipedia has weighed in, on the pro-nuclear side. Reconciling the two versions isn’t easy since Strauss wasn’t explicit about what power source would electrify the utopian future he predicted.

The text in question:

“Transmutation of the elements,–unlimited power, ability to investigate the working of living cells by tracer atoms, the secret of photosynthesis about to be uncovered,–these and a host of other results all in 15 short years.  It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter,–will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history,–will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds,–and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age. This is the forecast for an age of peace.”*

AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss (sixth from left) can be seen at the head table at the 1954 National Association of Science Writers Founder Day Dinner. In attendance that evening were five Nobel Prize winners, including future AEC Chairman Glenn Seaborg (first on left). Also in this photo: Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (Nobel Prize winner) is third from the left; Alton Blakeslee (president of the National Association of Science Writers) is seventh from the left; Irving Langmuir (Nobel Prize winner) is sixth from the right and Edward C. Kendall (Nobel Prize winner) is fourth from the right.
AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss (sixth from left) can be seen at the head table at the 1954 National Association of Science Writers Founder Day Dinner. In attendance that evening were five Nobel Prize winners, including future AEC Chairman Glenn Seaborg (first on left). Also in this photo: Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (Nobel Prize winner) is third from the left; Alton Blakeslee (president of the National Association of Science Writers) is seventh from the left; Irving Langmuir (Nobel Prize winner) is sixth from the right and Edward C. Kendall (Nobel Prize winner) is fourth from the right.

Nuclear critics believe Strauss was speaking of nuclear power and claim that, as AEC Chairman, he spoke for a budding industry too.  The most thorough defense of Strauss appeared in a 1980 article by the Atomic Industrial Forum.

Citing the opinions of Strauss’s son, former AEC staff, and a Strauss biographer, the AIF argued that Strauss’s omission of a power source in the passage was likely deliberate since he could not make explicit reference to “Project Sherwood,” the AEC’s still secret fusion power program that Strauss championed.

Moreover, the article noted, Strauss understood well that nuclear power would not pay for some years and that his utopian vision might be realized only by his “children’s, children’s, children.” Neither the industry nor the AEC, the AIF article notes, shared Strauss’s optimism.

While the AIF correctly notes the AEC Chairman’s interest in fusion, there is no evidence in Strauss’s papers at the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library to indicate fusion was the hidden subject of his speech. Staff suggestions for the address reflected current issues in the AEC’s civilian reactor program—the new Atomic Energy Act, President Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace, the Shippingport nuclear power plant, the agency’s efforts to declassify information, and medical uses of reactor-produced isotopes.

While it is true that Strauss could not explicitly discuss classified fusion research, the speech is barren of implicit hints of a new source of power. Strauss focused on fission–the discovery of fission, fission-product applications, and the economic feasibility of fission power.

Strauss’s optimism for fission continued several days later when reporters on a Meet the Press radio broadcast asked him about the quotation and the viability of “commercial power from atomic piles.” Strauss replied that he expected his children and grandchildren would have power “too cheap to be metered, just as we have water today that’s too cheap to be metered.” That day, he said, might be “close at hand.  I hope to live to see it.”

By contrast, when Strauss finally revealed the AEC’s fusion research program, he was not nearly as optimistic. In August 1955, he cautioned “there has been nothing in the nature of breakthroughs that would warrant anyone assuming that this [fusion power] was anything except a very long range—and I would accent the word ‘very’—prospect.”

In the years after the speech, the lay public and the power industry never questioned that Strauss’s predictions were for fission power.  The New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning science reporter, William Laurence, attended Strauss’s speech and featured the catchphrase prominently in articles and a book. He wrote of the prediction, “All signs point to the realization within the next decade of a price for nuclear fuels so low that only hydroelectric power, which alone is produced without any cost for fuel could compete with it.”

The electric power industry was not happy with their new catchphrase. Industry officials distanced themselves from Strauss’s speech, sometimes diplomatically calling Strauss too optimistic.

Others were blunt. The president of Cleveland Electric Illuminating disparaged too cheap to meter as “a myth” given the small contribution fuel costs made to a customer’s electric bill. Electrical World called “too cheap to meter” a “delusion” that would make it harder for utility companies to explain electric costs to customers.  In the meantime, the editors declared, utilities would welcome many more customers “with a meter in each and every one.”

This skepticism was echoed by more sober evaluations of nuclear power economics at the AEC and within the industry. Former AEC Commissioner James Ramey was probably correct when he said, “Nobody took Strauss’ statement very seriously.”

It is likely, then, that nuclear critics and proponents are partially correct. “Too cheap to meter” was a prediction for a fission utopia in the foreseeable future. But Strauss was speaking for himself.

“A serious governmental body ought not to indulge in predictions,” he said to the science writers. “However, as a person, I suffer from no such inhibition and will venture a few predictions before I conclude.”

He may have believed that he could step away from his Chairman’s role, indulge in speculation, and that history would note the difference.

* Lewis Strauss’s full speech is available in here.  “Too Cheap to Meter” is on page 9.

More on Baffle Bolts

John Lubinski
Director, Division of Engineering
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

We described degradation in baffle-former bolts at Indian Point Unit 2 in an April 27 blog post. The degraded bolts were discovered by Entergy, the plant operator, while inspecting the bolts during a refueling outage. Since then, PSEG, the operator of the Salem nuclear power plant in New Jersey, discovered some degraded bolts while inspecting the baffles of Unit 1.

To recap, the bolts hold in place a series of vertical metal plates. Known as baffle plates, they help direct water up through the nuclear fuel assemblies, where it is heated and subsequently used for power production. The baffle plates are attached to eight levels of horizontal plates called baffle-former plates, which are in turn connected to the reactor core barrel.

Because of these findings, the NRC has initiated its process for dealing with emerging issues to evaluate the extent of the problem and determine how best to address it. Here’s what we know so far:

We are confident this issue lacks an immediate safety concern that would lead us to shut down U.S. nuclear power plants or prevent the startup of plants in refueling outages.

We have been aware of the phenomenon. Degraded baffle-former bolts were detected in French reactors in the late 1980s and 1990s, and the NRC published an Information Notice in 1998 alerting the U.S. industry. The higher number of degraded bolts seen recently however, was unexpected.

The 1998 Information Notice prompted several plants to inspect their bolts, and some made adjustments to their baffles or replaced bolts as a result. NRC-approved guidance from the Electric Power Research Institute calls for visual and ultrasonic inspections during a certain period in a reactor’s lifespan. The current inspections at Indian Point and Salem resulted from this operational experience.

It’s important to note that if bolt parts come loose during normal operations and damage fuel, the condition will be detected by routine monitoring of radioactivity in the reactor coolant water. During refueling outages, plant operators look for debris on the bottom of the reactor vessel as another indication of potential issues. Even during an accident, the danger of core damage would be minimal. For these reasons, the NRC does not believe it necessary to shut down any additional plants and order immediate inspections.

Plants with degraded bolts are required to perform analyses and/or replace the damaged bolts before restarting. Missing bolt parts (such as a bolt head) must be accounted for or recovered, or the licensee must perform a “loose-parts evaluation” prior to restarting. The NRC staff will independently assess the root-cause and safety significance of the bolt degradation at each reactor and take appropriate regulatory action.

Indian Point 2 has replaced all of the failed bolts, plus an additional 51 “good” bolts to add additional safety margin. They intend to inspect all the baffle-former bolts again during the next refueling outage.

So how many plants might have this problem? Only Westinghouse-designed pressurized-water reactors with four reactor coolant loops have reported significant bolt degradation. Although there are 29 such plants in the United States, the issue appears to be further limited by two factors: The degraded bolts have all been of a certain type of stainless steel, and they’ve all been in reactors with baffles in a “downflow” configuration, meaning the water entering the reactor is pushed downward between the baffle and the core barrel, which creates more pressure across the plates and stress in the bolts.

There are only seven four-loop Westinghouse reactors at four sites with both the susceptible bolt material and a downflow configuration: Indian Point Units 2 and 3, Salem Units 1 and 2, D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2, and Diablo Canyon Unit 1. (Diablo’s Unit 2 has been reconfigured to an upflow baffle.) Our resident inspectors at D.C. Cook and Diablo Canyon have asked those sites to consider the recent findings and implications for their plants, including their plans for future bolt inspections. D. C. Cook Unit 2 observed 42 degraded bolts in 2010, and as a result replaced 52 bolts. Follow-up visual inspections in 2012 revealed no problems.

Bolt degradation starts to appear sometime after 25 “effective full-power years” of operation (based on actual operation, not calendar years since licensing). So the NRC-approved EPRI guidance advises PWR operators to inspect their baffle-former bolts sometime between 25 and 35 effective full-power years. The NRC requires the inspections as part of aging management plans for reactors with renewed licenses.

As a result of the findings at Indian Point 2, Entergy decided it will conduct detailed ultra-sonic testing of baffle-former bolts in Indian Point 3 during its next outage in spring 2017, instead of March 2019 as previously scheduled. Since Indian Point 3 has operated for a shorter time and has put less thermal stress on its bolts that would cause fatigue, waiting a year is acceptable.

PSEG had been conducting visual inspections every other outage, and because of their discovery of degraded bolts during the current inspection of Salem 1, they decided to conduct the ultrasonic test now rather than in 2023 as previously planned. PG&E indicated to the NRC that it will inspect the bolts on Diablo Canyon 1 during its next scheduled outage in spring 2017.

While the industry is reacting to the recent findings at Indian Point 2 and Salem 1, the NRC will continue to assess baffle-former bolt degradation for any potential implications to the rest of the U.S. commercial reactor fleet.