COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\magnification\magstephalf
C00013 ENDMK
C⊗;
\magnification\magstephalf
\parskip=\medskip
\noindent{\bf 5.  RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE}
\medskip
	In a previous article, I expressed the  belief that the world
has  adequate   resources  to  sustain  a  world  wide  technological
civilization civilization with a  few times present world  population
for  the  indefinite future.    Until  quite  recently this  was  the
general  view of  writers who  concerned themselves with  the future,
but recently more pessimistic views have been widely  expressed.  The
most  extreme  of  these  asserts  that  even the  present  level  of
technology is a temporary phenomenon,  and that the resources do  not
exist to continue more  than 500,000,000 people for a long  time in a
technological civilization.

	The number 500,000,000  cited in (Liebes 1970) seems to arise
from  a  desire  to  give  the  zero  population  growth  movement  a
reasonably goal as much as from a calculation.

	In  trying  to  show  that  resources  exist  to  continue  a
technological  civilization and extend American levels of consumption
to the rest of the  world after these have been expanded by  a factor
of  say  three,  we  have  to  consider many  resources.    How  many
resources have to be considered  could be estimated by a  substantial
technological effort,  but even such  an effort  might get it  wrong,
because the  study might not anticipate an  invention that would make
one resource substitutable for another.   Lacking such a study,  here
are some of the factors that have to be taken into account:

\item{1.}  \underbar{Energy}   Fortunately, this is the easiest problem.   The
breeder  reactor will  surely work well  enough.   Let me  say what I
mean by "well enough".

	There are  doubts about  the  safety of  reactors, and  those
oposed to them  imagine accidents that might kill  as many as 50,000.
No-one has been  killed by  a reactor operating  in power  production
mode.  (The qualification comes from the  fact that three people were
killed by a  reactor being tested to discover the effect of disabling
some of its  safety devices).   However, suppose  the cost of  energy
was that every  year there would be an accident  in the United States
killing 50,000  people and injuring 1,000,000.  This is precisely the
price in  lives we  pay for the  automobile, and  no-one believes  we
will  give up  automobiles  to avoid  paying this  price.  The margin
between the zero  deaths per  year that nuclear  energy has  actually
cost and  the 50,000 we  would surely be  willing to pay  seems quite
large enough.

	There  are questions about the  cost of nuclear  energy.  The
present  generation  of  nuclear  power  plants  is  being  built  in
competition  with  projected  coal  burning plants  located  at  mine
mouths,  and at  the time  these plants  were ordered,  the utilities
were not expecting to pay for cleaning up the  discharges of the coal
burning plants. Actually, we  now pay for electric energy 1.7 percent
of our GNP.  If  this cost went up to  five times its present  value,
we would pay it rather than lose  our civilization.  Considering that
the  first generation of  nuclear plants  must pay also  the learning
costs  of  General  Electric,  Westinghouse,  etc.,  the  costs  will
probably go  down as  a percentage of  GNP rather than  up.   A final
factor is  that with nuclear plants, a major factor in plant costs is
interest, and a civilization growing more slowly than  ours has grown
should have lower interest rates.

	The  third  worry  is  that  we  will  run  out  of  uranium.
Energetically, we  can mine  granite, and  this will  give enough  to
supply us for more than a billion years.(REFERENCE needed).

	The  final worry  is  radiation.   The  present standards  of
exposure  of  5 milliroentgens  per  year for  people  living  on the
boundary of a power  plant is 1/30 th  of the natural background  and
1/12  th  of  the  average   medical  radiation  exposure.    Tighter
standards can be met if necessary.

	All  this is not intended to be  an argument that the breeder
reactor is  the  best solution  to the  energy  problem.   Controlled
fusion,  solar  energy,  or  geothermal  energy may  be  better,  and
continued use of fossil fuels may be  better for the time being.   My
goal is only to show that civilization need  not collapse for lack of
electric energy.

	Unfortunately,  not all  our needs  can  be met  by centrally
produced electricity, although space heating can and  probably should
be converted  to electricity  for pollution  reasons and  because the
prospective   long  term  sources   of  energy  produce  electricity.
However,  energy  is needed  for  vehicles,  especially  cars.    One
possibility  that  has  attracted  recent  attention is  the  use  of
hydrogen produced  by decomposing  water using  nuclear energy.  (The
water  may be  decomposed electrolytically,  but  probably a  process
using  heat and some  catalytic reactions will  be energetically more
efficient).  Liquid  hydrogen as  a fuel  for cars will  work with  a
slight modification  of the  engines, but the  same amount  of energy
requires about  three times the volume of tank.  (Liquid hydrogen has
a density of 0.07 and  gasoline a density of 0.75, but  fortunately a
gram  of hydrogen produces  three times  the energy when  burned that
gasoline does).  Besides the  density problem, there are problems  in
handling a cryogenic fuel  though they can be solved  perhaps at some
increase   in  fires  and  explosions.     It  might   be  better  to
resynthesize gasoline  from  atmospheric  carbon  dioxide  and  water
using  nuclear  energy,   but  the  costs  of  this   have  not  been
determined.   The main  uncertainty is the cost  of collecting carbon
dioxide  which constitutes  only  0.032  percent of  the  atmosphere.
Plants do it so maybe we can.

	As a demonstration of  the solvability of the energy problem,
the above arguments may seem rather  rough and ready compared to  the
delicate  ecological  considerations that  motivate  many  people  to
consider  the  problem  unsolvable.   For  example,  many people  are
arguing against nuclear plants  on the grounds that 5  milliroentgens
per year  is unacceptable, because  it undoubtedly does  some genetic
damage.   The fact  that natural radioactivity does  even more damage
may be  regarded as irrelevant.   My  reply is  that the survival  of
technological civilization is  worth this cost if we  have to pay it.
This is not to  argue that we  have to pay the  cost in a  particular
case.   Someone may well  argue that a  particular proposed  plant is
unnecessary.
\bye