COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00010 00003	.if false then begin
C00012 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source;
.double space
.cb Nuclear Energy Statement by California Engineers and Scientists

	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
operation, promptly finish the plants under construction, and
build enough new plants to meet our growing needs and to replace
plants that use increasingly expensive oil for generating electricity.

	The price rises of the 70s, as well as the recession, have reduced
electricity consumption.  This circumstance results in a current
excess of electric generating capacity, although one heavily
dependent on gas and oil.  The State Energy Commission has, therefore,
projected a very low growth rate of 1.9α% per year for
electric generating capacity planning purposes.  Practically the
only way such a low growth can be achieved is to have another
Great Depression.  Indeed, the plans of the Commission, if
implemented, may contribute to such a depression.
Since the establishment of the State Energy Commission, not a
single new coal electric or nuclear electric power plant has
been approved.

	Here are the facts as we see them:

	#. Nuclear energy for electricity production is economical
and sufficiently 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.  We particularly cite the
two studies by the American Physical Society and one by the National Academy
of Sciences. (footnote)  These studies cover the problems of reactor
safety, waste disposal, and the economics of nuclear and other sources
of energy.

	#. 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 opposition to nuclear energy has prevented
new plants from being started and jeopardized the operation of those
under construction.  We are convinced that this opposition is
mistaken.


	#. California uses far more oil for the generation of electricity
than any other state.  In fact we use 20α% of all oil used for that
purpose in the Nation.  California utilities burn oil costing α$30 per barrel
that formerly cost one tenth that price.  The operation of the two
nuclear units now ready at Diablo Canyon would save 600 million
dollars per year - α$200 dollars per year per family in the PGα&E
service area or α$30 per year per resident of California.
And this does not take into account the increased vulnerability
to which every additional barrel of oil required exposes the
Nation's and the State's economy.

	#. The State Energy Commission plan for the 1990s is
unrealistic in several respects.  First it provides for very
little growth (1.9α% per year) in Calfornia's use of energy, especially electricity,
and studies have shown that the costs of shortages to the economy
are more severe than the cost of too much capacity.  Second it proposes
to increase California's energy imports from other states and
Canada and Mexico, which will surely give their own residents priority
in case of shortage.  Third it assumes that oil will continue to
be available and doesn't take its increasing cost into account.

	#. The "alternative sources of energy" that have been pursued
for ten years show few signs of paying off.  The State Energy Commission,
a major advocate of such sources, expects them to produce less than
one tenth the output of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant even by 1990.
They have coerced the utilities into building "demonstration" windmills.
that they hope
will produce electricity at an uncertain and much greater
cost than nuclear plants.

	We will conserve.  In response to rising prices the consumer
will undoubtedly conserve energy by a variety of means -
insulating houses, driving smaller cars fewer miles, etc.  California
policy, however, is causing %2unnecessarily%1 high energy costs.  When
costs are unnecessarily high, it means that our standard of living
is unnecessarily low.

	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
must be put into operation without delay, and planning must be
accelerated for 6000 megawatts of additional nuclear
generating capacity.  Six plants of the kind now being built would do
it.
.<< 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.
.if false then begin
	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.

	We are more and more
worried about California's failure to develop adequate
supplies of energy, especially in view of the increasing danger
of a cutoff or substantial reduction in oil supply.

	Seven years ago the Arab oil embargo emphasized
the need for America to secure its energy supplies.  Since then, instead
of strengthening our position, we have weakened it by delaying
the nuclear plants under construction, preventing the construction
of new plants, hindering the extraction of heavy oil and preventing
the construction of pipelines and refineries.  Alternative energy
technologies have been proposed, but none of them yet seem capable
of producing energy at costs anywhere near those of existing nuclear
and coal technologies.