COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	%Panofsky version
C00010 ENDMK
C⊗;
%Panofsky version
\input MACRO.TEX[LET,JMC]
\def\A{\advcount2\count2}
\setcount2 0
\ctrline{\bf Nuclear Energy Statement by California Engineers and Scientists}

\yyskip

	We, the undersigned California scientists and engineers,
believe that it is time for California to stop dithering
about nuclear energy.  We must put the completed plants into {safe}
operation, promptly finish the plants under construction, and
build enough new plants to meet our growing needs and to replace
power plants that use oil and natural gas.

	The war between Iraq and Iran points up the danger to California's
welfare caused by our failure to take adequate action to ensure energy
supplies.  California is one of the most vulnerable states in case of
an oil cutoff emergency for many reasons.

	Here are the facts as we see them:

	\A. We are the most populous state in the union, so our energy
demands are large.

	\A. We have no coal, and we use more oil and gas than any other state
for the production of electricity.

	\A. California has the most cars of any state, {a very poor
public transportation system},
 and is uniquely
dependent on cars for transportation.  We use the most gasoline of
any state.  There is no short-range substitute for this, so it is important
to reserve oil for gasoline.

	\A. We also depend heavily on water power for electricity, and
the amount available has been sharply reduced in dry years.

	\A. Because of the opposition to all presently practical forms
of energy production by various pressure groups,
 California increasingly relies on imported energy
including electricity.  We import nuclear and water power from the
northwest, and we import coal produced power from Arizona and Utah.
While the State Administration proposes
further electricity imports, it has become increasingly risky
to rely on other states.
As energy shortages develop, they'll meet their own
needs first.

	\A. State energy rhetoric puts its main
hopes on such energy sources as solar, wind and biomass
from which the State Energy Commission itself expects little
production before the end of the century.
Geothermal and hydroelectric energy are extensively used in
California, but possibilities for expansion are essentially
exhausted.

	\A. It is our judgment that
nuclear energy for electricity production is economical
and safe.  It presents fewer environmental problems
than almost any other source of energy.
It produces electricity more cheaply than any other source available
to us.

	Enough studies, independent of the energy industry,
have confirmed these facts so
that there is no need for further delay.

	\A. Nuclear plants in the U.S. are now taking ten or twelve years
to build in contrast to five or six years in France, Japan or Taiwan.
Five years is enough with reasonable and stable Federal, State and
local regulations.

	\A. It is seven years since the 1973 oil embargo and
four years since the anti-nuclear initiatives were
defeated by the California voters.  In spite of the urgency and in
spite of the vote, the State Government has prevented
new plants from being started and now opposes the operation of those
recently completed.  We are convinced that this opposition is
mistaken.

	\A. The only way to avoid serious shortages and dislocations
is to conserve where feasible and to produce where needed.  We support
all reasonable conservation efforts -- improved building design,
gasoline conserving automobile production, co-generation of electricity
with process heat, etc., but such measures cannot in themselves solve
the problem.  New energy production is needed, and nuclear energy is
relatively the most economical and the most benign environmentally.

	\A. We can no longer afford to allow delaying tactics.
To prevent serious electric energy shortages in this decade, existing
nuclear plants must not be shut down, nuclear plants under construction,
in particular the completed plant at Diablo Canyon,
must be put into operation without delay, and the utilities must plan
for at least 6000 megawatts of additional nuclear
generating capacity in California for the balance of the century.
That would be six plants of the kind now being built.
A way must be found to license and finance the needed capacity.
%<< are six plants enough?  Taiwan, smaller than CA plans 20 by 2000>>

	Write for further information to Scientists and Engineers for
Secure Energy, 215 Market Street, Suite 919, San Francisco, CA 94105.

\vfill\eject\end