WI: Three Mile Island averted?

Suppose the Three Mile Island accident was averted (there seem to be plenty of ways to do this, so it shouldn't be particularly hard; for instance, Unit-2 is taken offline as per NRC regulations during routine maintence). What happens?

I would imagine that anti-nuclear protestors would have a generally harder time of it, at least in the US, for the next few years. Nuclear power might remain reasonably popular through the mid-80s, and many of the planned or under construction stations that were canceled or delayed indefinitely IOTL after the accident might end up being built.
 
We might be nearly energy independent by now, what, with all of the anti-nuclear power kneejerk reactionaries focusing on something else instead.
 
Anti Nuke would still go nuts after Chernobyl (unless that gets butterflied as well... which is certainly possible considering how retarded the 'test' was) So while we may have some extra power plants it wouldn't be all that many and it all comes to a halt in 1986 anyway...

Things get interesting if both are butterflied and there are no major accidents to replace them. For one our really old plants like Oyster Creek, NJ could actually be retired in favor of safer, more efficient, and simply better power plants. Second we wouldn't be so keen to pave over the desert with inefficient solar and wind power structures that are, frankly, just as bad and probably worse than coal in destroying the environment.

Funny how they did a study in the mid 2000's that showed there to be no spike in cancer anywhere near TMI and the estimates for deaths attributable to the radiation release is less than you can count on two hands... And for this 'disaster' we have thrown away and discounted arguably the most clean and efficient power source man has ever invented. (Arguably because while it is super clean when running properly if you eff it up you get wasteland time as the Russians discovered)
 
Three Mile Island was to a large extent averted anyways - it could have been a LOT worse, because the reactor's containment vessel held, despite the intense heat inside of it. If the reactor's vessel had failed, everything for a solid 50 miles would be a ghost town now and every nuclear reactor in the United States would have been shut down by about 1995.

OK, assume we don't have an accident at TMI - perhaps they figure out the problem with the reactor much more quickly - then we have a much, much bigger nuclear industry.

America had 129 power plants approved in 1979, which means more of them would have been built. The Chernobyl disaster in the USSR in 1986 would have galvanized the movement in any case, but by that time most of those 129 would be operational. That has a great many benefits for America's power consumption. The potential danger is that power plants in potentially vulnerable places, like Shoreham in New York and Satsop in Washington, would be finished and operational, which means if a severe accident happens, the consequences of it would likely be considerably higher.
 
Top