COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00012 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source;
.ONCE CENTER
%3COMMENTS ON ENERGY COMMISSION'S %2"ALTERNATIVES TO SUNDESERT"%1

.once center
by John McCarthy, Chairman Stanford Chapter, SENSE


	The Stanford chapter of SENSE (Scientists and Engineers
for Enlightenment on Nuclear Sources of Energy) was formed in 1975
to provide said enlightenment.  Our members are mainly Stanford
faculty in science and engineering together with a
few graduate students.  Only of us is a nuclear engineer,
and I am a computer scientist.  Its main activity turned out to
be opposition to Proposition 15 in 1976.  In this we received good
support from the Stanford scientific community; for
example both of Stanford's Nobel Laureates in physics
supported our position in 1976 and support the attached
statement in favor of Sundesert.  With the defeat of Proposition 15
and its companions in other states, we hoped that America's need for
nuclear energy could be satisfied without further political hazard.
The Energy Commission's decision against Sundesert has roused us
into activity again.  All our activity is financed by ourselves.

	The present statement was written last night, but I think
it represents the general opinion of our group.

	We think our country is not preparing to produce enough energy,
and this will have serious consequences, and the campaign against
nuclear energy is having and will have particularly serious effects.
Specifically, we make the following contentions:
.item←0

#. Nuclear energy is safe enough and economical enough.  In considering
saftey, we consider as most conclusive the safety record of the
130 power reactors operating world-wide, some of them under
quite different regulatory environments than in the U.S.
On the scientific level, we rely on the impartiality and
expertness of the two studies conducted by the American Physical
Society; the first on reactor safety and the most recent on
the fuel cycle and waste disposal.

#. Many forms of energy are potentially available and all should
be explored.  The best of them are likely to have development
cycles like that of nuclear energy itself.  Research aimed at
power reactors started in the early 50s, a demonstration plant
at the 50 megawatt level was operating in 1958, and in 1966
utilities made the first decisions to build reactors without
government subsidy of costs of construction and operation.
In pursuing any particular idea, we must remember
that the laws of nature are not bound by our wishes, and economic
success is not guaranteed.  For example, fusion energy still looks like a
good bet, but it is proving slower than fission did.

#. Ways of saving energy need to be evaluated just as carefully
as ways of generating it.  They also require research, planning,
and pilot plants.  They too may require five to fifteen years to
go from pilot plants to large scale use.

#. It will be a long time before we find an adequate replacement
for petroleum for vehicles.  The worldwide demand for petroleum
is still increasing rapidly, especially outside the U.S.
Therefor, the U..S. has an obligation to its own safety and to
the economic well-being of poorer nationss to stop using oil
and natural gas for electricity as soon as possible.

#. Burning fossil fuels has incread the carbon dioxide content of
the atmosphere by more than twenty percent.  We don't know whether
this will eventually harm the climate, but prudence requires
that we develop energy sources that don't add carbon dioxide
to the atmosphere.  Nuclear, solar and geothermal energy meet this
requirement.  Burning more coal doesn't, although there doesn't
seem to be a short term danger in burning more coal.

#. Like most Americans, we believe the American life style is
worth preserving.  People who attempt to change it by letting
the country drift inot a situation wherein we can't heat our
houses or drive our cars, will be very sorry if they succeed.
Crash programs will restore the life style, but at great
environmental cost, and anyone identified with
environmental causes will be driven from politics.

#. A large increase in the real cost of electricity will have
bad economic and social effects.

#. California needs substantial excess capacity to allow for
dry years, breakdowns, coal strikes and oil embargoes.  Making
extreme efforts to avoid building one more plant than necessary
is skating on thin ice.

.once center
THE ENERGY COMMISSION REPORT

	In the light of the above principles the Energy Commission
report has several shortcomings, even though it has collected many
important facts about potential demand and sources of supply.

These are
.item←0

#. It is unrealistic about the development cycles about untried
ways of energy generation and methods of conservation.

#. It probably underestimates costs, because early cost estimates
take into account only those measures which are seen to be necessary
at the time of the estimate.  More necessary features always turn
up later.

#. It does not take into account the need to cut oil use for power
generation and even suggests increasing it.

#. It was prepared under the aegis of a Commission whose members
had taken positions on the issues, so regardless of details, the
conclusions had to come out right.

#. In our country, it has often proved better to leave economic decisions
in the hands of companies that will feel the economic consequences
of the decisions.  Government economic decisions have too often
been the means and result of struggles for power.

#. The report presumes too much about the willingness of other
states to generate our own energy.  If California does not solve
its own energy problems, others are likely to change their
policies in the direction of not exporting energy to us.