DOCCMENT RESUME

ED 199 116 SE 034 685

AUTHOR Meyers, Paul A.: Witt, Frank C.TITLE Our Energy Options.INSTITUTION Rockford Public Schools 205, IlkSECNS AGENCY Department of Education, Washington, D.C.POE DATE 81NOTE 54p.: Contains photographs which may not reproduce

well.

EDES PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Energy; Energy Conservation: *Environmental

Education: Futures (of Society): Long Range Planning:*Science Education: *Secondary Education: *SocialStudies: Technological Advancement: *Technology

IDENTIFIERS *Alternative Energy Sources: Project APEC

ABSTRACTPresented is an analysis of alternatives available to

the United States in dealing with energy problems. Options explainedand evaluated include coal, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear,geothermal, wind, biomass, and energy conservation. The booklet ispart cf Project APEC (America's Possible Energy Choices), anationally validated Title IVc project designed to educate teachersof grades 9-12 about energy and provide related study units andiaterials fcr students in these grades. (WB)

*******************************************************st**************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

******,****************************************************************

I

Li S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION a WELFAREPA TIONAL INSTTTUTE OF

EDUCATION

00 I %AI- :. FIF % II/4.D.,CE ". I+f F .f

%

PC %', . ( A t` % %.OC% ..4F z, . el

E DL.r '% PON 0%

I

PERMI'.SION 1,4`MATERIA... BEE'.

aLcf cverdFraiLjtro THE EDUCE!NFORMATION...;F..."; ;i

APEC (AmericeLEoujble Energy Choices)

is a Title IVC program that trains high

school teachers (grades 9-12) in energy

education and provides the teachers with

study units and materials to teach their

students about energy. Teachers participa-

ting in the program are provided a 10 hour

training program conducted by the project

staff. The high school curriculum comprises

(32) lessons (in boxed kit form) divided in-

to subunits on (1) Ways of Making Electricity

(2) Present Energy Sources (3) Future Energy

Sources (4) Atomic Theory & Radiation (5)

Energy Conservation and (6) Pros and Cons

of Nuclear Energy. Teachers are provided

teaching materials which include: 37 color

transparencies, a narrated filmstrip, 52

slides, 2 tapes, 102 duplicator masters, 60

energy articles, over two dozen supplemen-

tary materials, a copy of the "Our Energy

Options" paperback, and directions for teach-

ing each lesson.

How Do You Find Out

More About Our Course?

By writing:

Paul A. Meyers

or

Frank C. Witt

Rockford Public Schools

District 205

121 South Stanley Street

Rockford, 111,61102

Phone:

815: 964-481U

OUR ENERGY OPTIONS

byPaul Meyers and Frank Witt

distributed by:

Rockford Public SchoolsDistrict #205, Rockford, Illinois

Charlotte HoffmanDirector, New Funded & Gifted

Arthur T. JohnsonSuperintendent, Rockford Public Schools

5th Printing, 1981

FOREWORD

Dear Reader:

Problems relating to energy are playing an in-creasingly important role in the lives of every schoolchild and adult in the United States. Especiallys.--ious is our dependence upon the Middle East for

1.

With this in mind, it is my pleasure to recommendthe booklet that follows to you. It exp,c -s andevaluates the many options - coal, conservation, solar,hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, wind, biomass andothers - available to us in dealing with these problems.

This booklet is an adjunct to Project APEC(America's Possible Energy Choices) a State of Illinoisand nationally validated Title IVc project. Hopefully,it will help you achieve understanding in this vitalarea.

Good reading!

Sincerely,

Arthur T. John n

Superintendent of RockfordPublic Schools, District #20IRockford, Illinois

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IntroductionPage

Energy Conservation '3

Undeveloped Sources 5

Promising Fuel Conversions 18

Nuclear Power

Nuclear Safety 25

Economic Costs of Nuclear Power 31

Coal 33

Increasing Domestic Oil and Gas Production 35

Continuing As We Are 37

An Agrarian Life Style 40

Summary Which Way to Go The Tradeoffs 41

Footnotes 44

iv

INTRODUCTION

It is alleged that we have an energy shortage in the United Statestoday. During the winter of 1976-1977, schools in Pennsylvania closedfor weeks, over 1,000,000 American factory workers were out of work,and many homes in the Northeast went cold. Yet, these circumstanceswere mostly caused by failure to deliver fuel to areas in short supply.

In our country there is really a lack of energy availability, rather thana basic energy shortage. The failure lies in our economic productionand economic distribution systems. We can solve our energy problemsand we have many options in doing so. Conservation, nuclear power,and imaginative development and use of remaining fossil fuels all pro-vide strong and significant possibilities. Solar, wind, geothermal,biomass, and tidal power have merit and are deserving of considera-tion and increased financial support for additional development in thefuture.

It is the purpose of this pamphlet to look at different energy optionsand compare their advantages and disadvantages, particularly in rela-tion to each other. Because nuclear energy has become a cont2 wersialsubject in some places, it will receive particular emphasis.

1

SWEDISH VS. UNITED STATES

ENERGY USE

DEN

UNITED STATES

2

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Sweden has a standard of living at least as high as the United States,yet uses less than two-thirds as much energy per capita.1

Swedish pursuits are similar to ours as well. They t_ avel a comparableamount at home and abroad, own proportionally the same number ofrefrigerators, washers, dryers, and TV's, drive almost as manyautomobiles, and have more vacation cottages. Temperature-wise,Sweden averages 50% colder than the United States.

Perhaps the United States cannot realistically hope to reduce theenergy used per capita by one-third. American agri-business, account-ing for 19% of our energy use, is more highly developed than that ofSweden. We have a greater development per capita of heavy industry

aluminum, steel mills, anti other heavy manufacturing. "`Teverthe-less, there are many Swedish energy economies that could be helpful.

How do the Swedes manage to use so much less energy? First, SwedishVolvo's and Saab's average 24 miles per gallon while American carsaverage about 13 per gallon.2 Swedish cars are lighter and less power-ful with the engines designed for more efficient use of fuel. They arenearly as roomy and comfortable as American medium-sized cars.

Secondly, Sweden has far more stringent insulation rep ulations.Swedish building inspectors for many years have made ce cain thatheat loss does not exceed .06 BTU's (British Thermal Unite) per hourper square foot from any newly constructed home, office, or f.,;tory. ABTU is defined as the amount of energy required to raise the tem-perature of a pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.

Typically, the United States does not have any insulation regulations,though homes built according to FHA specifications should not losemore than .12 BTU's per hour per Square foots Needless to say,American homes designed according to these specifications are notoften checked to see if they are up to standards.

Americans travel by public transportation 8% of theirpassenger miles.Swedish people go at least twice as far by public rail, bus, or plane; 18%of Swedish travel miles is done by common carriers.'

Good reasons provide for this nigher percentage. Trains and buseedepart freci-ucatly from major pants. There is a comfortable stream-liner every hour between Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmo, thethree major cities. Well-kept roadbeds, clean pleasant buses, and on -time rail arrivals encourage comfort-conscious Swedes to travel bypublic transportation much more frequently than Americans. Tales oftrains arriving two :lours late, air conditioning that doesn't work, andbumpy roadbeds with derailments all too often discourage us fromeven considering Amtrak.

Flights between major cities in the United States are at least as oftenas Swedish commuters by rail and road, but the relatively high fares,in most cases, keep our air carriers from making up the percentagedifference.

The last major area where significant savings are made has to do with

a little-used American energy technique co-generation. In Sweden

many of the large coal and oil-fired utility plants are located near to,or in the midst of, cities and towns. After the steam has been used to

generate electricity, it is piped to nearby factories, commercial build-

ings, and homes to provide space heating for the occupants. In Malmo,

Sweden's third largest city (with 240,000 people), about 50% of space

heating is provided by co-generation. Nationwide 19% of the heatingfor homes, offices, and factories is furnished by co-generations

Americans read mu h about turning off lights, eliminating such

things as electric toothbrushes and can openers, and cutting down on

occasional Sunday drives in tL family car. Such niggling economiesare of little significance when one considers that transportationaccounts for 25% of tote' energy consumption and space heating

accounts for another 25%. Improvement in automobile fuel economy,enforced improved insulation standards, better public transportation,and the development ofco-generation would drastically cut our energyconsumption. With our long history as a can-do nation of mechanicsand fix-it experts, we can use Sweden as an inspiration to make moreeconomical use of our energy. All that is required are practical incen-

tives such as profits, cost effectiveness, or possibly, government sub-

sidies to cause us to apply this proven know-how to our energy prob-

lems.

4

UNDEVELOPED SOURCES

GEOTHERMAL

Geothermal yenera.--- is one of our most exciting undeveloped sources ofenergy. Though this method of providing electricity has been feasiblesince 1904 when the first generating plant opened in Lardarello,Italy,' it has had little further development anywhere until recently.

Basically, geothermal power is derived by taking dry steam or hotwater that issues from fissures within the earth and using it to turnturbines which drive generators. When hot water is brought up, eitherit may be allowed to change into steam or be kept under pressure andused to change another liquid system into steam. The latter methodloses potential Power in the process of exchanging the heat.

The advantages of geothermal power are many. It provides littleatmospheric pollution; it does not burn valuable fossil fuel; there is nocost for fuel; the dangers of accidents and pollution in securing andtransporting this energy source are relatively minimal.

There are problems, none of which are incapable of soluti,, with ourpresent level of technology. When hot water is brought: oftencontains chemicals that cause working parts to corroc.:- 2.4irogensulfide leaves an Unpleasant smell as well as causing some environ-mental problems- In New Zealand where one large geot1-..ermal plantsupplies about seven per cent of the country's electricity, the con-densed steam is released into the nearby Waikato River causing sig-nificant chemical pollution-2 Environmental studies show the merc-ury content found in fish there to be high. The Geysers GeothermalPlant, located near San Francisco and currently the largest in theworld, solves this problem by injecting the condensed steam back intothe ground near the area of origin. This procedure keeps the watertable from being lowered as well as insuring the likelihood of con-tinued geothermal production.

In addition to the plants that operate in Italy, New Zealand, and theUnited States, small geothermal generating units are also located inMexico, Japan, and the USSR. Many cities use geothermal hot waterfor space heating, the most noteworthy bung Reykjavik, Iceland, forwhich home heating is provided for 100,000 of its citizens.'

Prospects are good for using more geothermal power in the UnitedStates. When fully developed, the Geysers Plant will provide enoughpower for a city the size of San Francisco. By 1979 the federal govern-ment and private industry will have two demonstration plants on line

one at Raft River, Idaho, and the other in the Imperial Valley,California.' It is estimated that there is enough geothermal powerbeneath California's Imperial Valley to supply the entire Southwestwith electricity. Estimates are that with proper development, abouttwo per cent of our electrical power can be derived geothermally by1985.5

There are institutions and corporate difficulties to be dealt with,

5

The Pacific Gas and Electric Company's GeysersGeothermal Power Plant located 90 maw north of sonFrancisco.

Total capacity of the plant ie 502.000 licw, enough for a

city the sae of San Francia:o.

Photos Cautery of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

6 1

however. The Federal Government's Energy Research and Develop-ment Agency has appropriated almost nothing for geothermalresearch to date. Four major companies, Standard Oil, Union Oil,Southern Pacific Land and Magna Power, have bought up the under-ground options in the Imperial Valley but have not developed the fieldyet.6

Geothermal power is a viable, significant source of energy. We shouldproceed with all reasonable speed to develop it. To do anything else isto do our country a serious disservice.

TIDAL

Another unused source of energy in the United States is tidal energy.In St. Malo, France, a tidal plant has been in operation for severalyears supplying enough electrical power for a city the size of Toledo,Ohio, or St. Paul, Minnesota.

The St. Malo Plant is located on the Rance River with a tidal rise andfall of about 45 feet. The incoming tide turns the big turbine bladescausing the generators to spin, thus making electricity. When the tidegoes out a few hours later, the turbine blades are reversed, generatingpower for a second time using the same water.'

The biggest tidal project in the world has been proposed for the Bay ofFundy between Eastern Canada and Eastern United States. A careful-ly constructed power complex there could supply the electricalrequirements for Greater New York City or all of New England? Inthe late 1930's, during the administration of Franklin Roosevelt,money was appropriated for preliminary surveys. However, certainprivate corporations put considerable pressure on Congress to halt theproject. World War II further delayed consideration of the FundyDams.

With federal money about to be appropriated in the 1960's, powerfullobbies were able again to keep construction at a standstill. Their chiefargument pointed out that expensive federally subsidized dams cost-ing from $200,000,000 to $9,000,000,000 each would provide unfaircompetition for private industry.' Private companies would be unableto compete with rates charged for federally subsidized power.

Last year Canada announced the appropriation of $3,300,000 inresearch funds to explore the potential of the project. Persumably,there will be little difficulty in securing funds through the Canadiangovernment to actually complete Fundy.

The advantages of tidal power are obvious: constant power, no pollu-tion, no necessary expenditure of fossil fuel, no difficulties in produc-tion, transportation, or waste. The greatest drawbacks are the largeexpense in dam construction and the fact that the world contains onlyabout 15 locations with a narrow enough estuary and a high enoughtidal fluctuation to make a power station feasible.

Nevertheless, a plant large enough to supply all of New England orNew York City is not to be scoffed at. The next time a massive power

1

Ginard

Ic

N 1111-

0144 lint

C.11t......tIII, et...0,0.ov

COTES-DG NOIPO

DingleCo..

'4%'*''7.1."

The Tidal Dam at St. Malo, France

Proposed

Tidal Dam at

Bay of Fundy

PCIWgHOU SI HIGH POOL

4.; 's 'a.-

- 11\7 'in ATIANITC OCEAN

corcu°

ir *4.'1

i=111CANN4:041.1.12

.

.

failure threatens New 7-wk C ty. will we be able to buy power from theCanadian tidal project? The real question is, how much longer are wegoing to ignore our self-interest and let the Canadians take the initia-tive away from us?

SOLAR

In the United States, solar energy is justifiably the most talked aboutundeveloped energy source. It should be pointed out, however. thatharnessing sun power is not exactly a new idea. Archimedes, whendefendina Syracuse against an invading Greek armada, had hissoldiers hold their shields at an angle so as to reflect the sun's rays ona designated spot against the lead ship's sails. Miraculously, the shipcaught fire causing panic. One by one the attacking ships were setafire and Syracuse was saved.

In 1914, an American engineer, Frank Shuman, designed a solar ther-mal steam engine in Egypt that successfully pumped water to irrigatefields along the banks of the Nile.' Later, and more generally, solarpanels were developed in the 1920's 1950's to heat swimming poolsand hot water heaters in Florida, California, and the Southwest. Onlythe coming of low-priced gas heat to those areas caused solar devices tobe abandoned.

Although solar-heated homes, offices, and factories in the UnitedStates today only range into the thousands, those figures will soonapproach the p .--ndreds of thousands. Already we have solar-heatedschools, banks, and office buildings. There is even a solar-heatedMcDonalds, located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Several private solardevelopments have been announced for construction in New Englandand Florida. North Lauderdale builder Dan Haley, for an additional$1350, will install an energy conservation package which includes asolar heating unit. Haley has many takers.

Needless to say, there are almost as many ways of collecting solarenergy as there are companies with products on the market. Mosttypically they involve a metal panel painted black to absorb heat; overthe panel is a glass or plastic sheet sandwiching a space between thetwo materials to contain heated air. The entrapped hot air may beblown to other parts of the house by fans, allowed to rise by convection,or used to heat piped water which is then pumped into the house. Waysof storing solar heat that are being developed include blowing it intotons of hot rock in the basement or pumping it into well-insulated con-tainers. However, there are considerable technical problems still to besolved in storing solar heat.

Another major detriment to widespread use of solar space heating iscost. Although an acceptable solar water heater can be purchased andiLstalled for $500 $700 with cost-free heat within five years, thepurchase and installation of a successful solar space heating unittypically is about $4,000.2 The costs of this solar heating system arenot likely to decrease in the coming years to a major extent, either,inasmuch as solar heating is primarily labor intensive and hourlyrates for plumbers, electricians, (*Arne -Liters, etc., seem to go up and up.

97 .7-7

For those with "do-it-yourself" skills, of course, expenses will be con-siderably less. In any event, even at today's increased oil and gas rates,it will take many years to recover the cost of this installation vs. a con-ventional fossil furnace and fuel.

Additionally, solar heat will only provide 65-75% of the needed heat inmost states; a back-up fossil unit will be necessary. While solar energyappears to be excellent for heating swimming pools and hot water andworthy of consideration for space heating, there are greater problemsin building solar-powered electrical generating plants. In Barstow,Arizona, to date, the United States' major effort in generating solar-powered electricity, a large field of 1,800 expensive mirrors focusesheat on an equally expensive steam-making apparatus located intowers high above. This demonstration plant will produce 10MW ofelectricity, though 15-20% of the energy produced will be required towipe the dust from the mirrors. Hopefully, a less difficult and moreefficient way of generating solar electricity can be found.

It is true that by locating solar generating plants in the Southwest,such as Parstow, few days of electrical generation would be lost due tocloudy. rainy. or snowy weather. On the other hand, a Southwesternlocation creates an additional problem, as much energy is losttransporting electricity the many hundreds, even thousands of miles,to major cities where it is needed.

Solar power of all kinds has not been developed to a greater extent fortwo major reasons. Until the energy crunch, it was cheaper to burngr.s and oil and in many instances, still is. In addition ERDA, thefederal government's energy research branch has been, until recently,tight-fisted with funds for solar research. Budgets were: 1973$41,000,000; 1976$89,000,000; 1979$500,000,000; 1980$650,000,000. In the same years fusion, light water, and breeder reac-tors each were receiving money totalling hundreds of millions peryear.

In spite of these problems, non-polluting, solar heating is a feasiblereality-and it is becoming more significant with each passing day.Estimates of our total energy production from this power source rangefrcm 1.5% to 3.5% within the next twenty years.4 How high the percen-tage will go depends upon the determination of our c;overnment,businesses, and home owners to develop and make use of an energysource whose time has arrived.

WIND

The wind is not a brand-new energy source; man has used its powersince time immemorial to drive his ships through the seas. Forhundreds of years millers have ground grain with stones moved by thewind. Well into the 1930's, farmers used windmills to pump water andgenerate electricity in areas where the REA had not yet strung powerlines. A casual drive into the country will reveal many remnants ofthese mills still standing today, though in most cases, they serve asrepositories for television aerials, provide decorative interest, or simp-ly haven't been tcra down yet.

11

In the early 1940's, a determined effort was made at Grandpa's Knob,Vermont, to build a large 1250 kilowatt power station, enough topower a village of about 1000 people. The giant windmill was builthaving blades 175 feet in diameter and standing over 100 feet tall. Itwas booked into Vermont's power grid and functioned successfullyfrom 1941 to 1943. Finally one of the rotor blades broke and was notrepaired. This power was not needed at that tim because of higherproduction costs. Nevertheless, the experiment did prove that thewind, on a limited scale at least, covIci provide commercial electricalpower.

There are a number of significant limitations to wind power it isintermittent and of varying intensity thus calling for more consistentback-up systems; the Southeastern part of the United States, in par-ticular, lacks sufficient wind; windmills for electrical generation canmost effectively be built atop hills, knobs, and small mountainsthereby laying themselves open to destruction by tornadoes and critic-ism by lovers of scenic beauty. It will take eight hundred largewindmills to equal the generating capacity of one standard-sized nuc-lear plant; to equal the present generating capacity of the UnitedStates, one million windmills strung out for 40,000 miles will beneeded.2

Wind power proponents are optimistic in spite of these problems.Professor William Heronemus of the University of Massachusetts hasproposed an offshore wind power system costing $22.4 billion to pro-vide adequate power for all New England. Professor David R. Inglis ofthe same university believes 6,000 six-megawatt wind machines builtoffshore would provide enough power for this system.3

There is considerable cause for optimism at this time about the futureof wind power in the United States. A consortium of NASA, theDepartment of Energy, Westinghouse, and Lockheed has just com-pleted a wind turbine at Clayton, New Mexico. Costing $1,250,000, therotor starts turning when the wind reachs 12 mph and while operatingproduces 200 kw or enough for 60 homes. Projects of a similar size areunder way on Culebra Island, Puerto F:co, and Block Island, RhodeIsland, to test thq effectiveness of the wind under different circums-tances. The Department of Energy is spending $38,000,000 for windpower in 1978 ans has scheduled fe r completion a much larger windturbine in the same year. Located at Boone, North Carolina, this tur-bine will provide 2000 kw or enough energy for 600 homes whenoperating.

Predictions vary as to how much of our nation's electricity in thefuture will come from the wind. Some private experts say 10% by theyear 20 "O; Department of Energy officials are more cautious, settlingfor that time period. 1- the meantime, the government is study-ing th, feasibility of erecting fifty, 2,000 kw wind turbines inMedicine Bow, Wyoming, where the wind blows at 17 mph 80% of thetime. Such a power conglomerate would provide enough electricity for30,000 homes or a city the size of Rockford, Illinois. In Wyoming, asparsely settled and relatively remote state, wind power obviously hasa significant contribution to make. If successfully developed there on a

13

community-wide scale, there are implications for the rest of the

United States as well.

GARBAGE AND PLANT POWER

Although it is feasible to burn garbage and combustible plants in

boilers to make steam, and although this source is being used today in

Chicago, Milwaukee. and Ames. Iowa. among others. it is unlikely thatthis method will ever account for very much of our energy production.

In the case of garbage, there is the problem of collecting enough sup-plemental contribution to the burning of coal or gas. Experts estimatethat of the millions of tons of waste materials that could be burned, it

is only practical to collect 16% of it) The rest is spread out over too

broad a geographic area to make collection feasible.

Some authorities have suggested growing alfalfa or other highly bur-

nable gas fuel, but it would be wasteful to devote arable land to thegrowing of crops solely for fuel when food throughout the world is in

such short supply. Two hundred fifty to five hundred square miles of

arable land would be needed to fuel one 2000 MWe steam cycle power

plant, based on optimal dryweight biomass yields of 10 to 30 tons per

acre annually. The cost in fossil fuels for cultivating and fertilizingthis crop land would run about $150 an acre, considerably reducing the

amount of energy and money saved by the energy plantation.2

If the plants are converted into oil instead of steam, about seven bar-

rels per acre would be obtained at a cost of $20.00 a barrel, not includ-

ing the processing of the oil which would probably add another $10. Oil

testing $30 a barrel is so far above today's market price as to make it

extremely uneconomical for commercial development at this time.

Some energy conversion proponents point out that significant savings

of gasoline can be made by converting starch residues left from pro-

cessed corn, wheat, potatoes, beets, and barley into a 200 proof grain

alcohol. Approximately one part of this grain alcohol is mixed with

nine parts of unleaded gasoline to form a new fuel named "gasohol."

State vehicles in Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois recently underwent

tests to determine the usefulness of this biomass product. The results

in Illinois were particularly encouraging with similar results in the

other two states. The gasohol-powered vehicles averaged 11.9 miles

per gallon vs. 11.2 miles per gallon on gasoline. Carbon monoxide emis-

sions declined 32% with gasohol while average hydrocarbon emissions

dropped 7%. The greatest drawback of gasohol is the fact that cost ofproduction is a few cents higher than for gasoline.3 Development of

mass production techniques could decrease the costs, however.

Another feasible use of biomass energy today is the growing of trees

for firewood. It is estimated that with the right incentives the growing

of wood could be doubled in the United States.4 Trees provide a higherpercentage return of energy than any other plant, store their energy

well, and when burned add little in the way of pollution to theatmosphere. Problems standing in the way of future firewood develop-

14I

meat are the need to develop a demand for wood fuel as a replacementfor oil or gas, need for equipment that will burn wood efficiently on asmall scale, and the development of a wood fuel supply industry.

Some proponents of energy plantations have suggested harvestingkelp from the sea or using grassland not suitable for crop raising.While these are more reasonab'.. suggestions, it remains to be seenjust how much fuel fodder could be glear:_d by either method.

In the meantime, use of garbage power is likely to continue and beexpanded upon in our larger cities. Experts in Milwaukee point ourthat when garbage is burned in their boilers along with coal, energyproduction is supplemented by about 20%.

It should be kept in mind, however, that if the United States were touse all of its garbage, food, fiber, and wood supply, it would only supply25% of our energy needs per year.5 Biomass has an energy contributionto make under such circumstances, but it must be a lii ,ited one.

OTHER UNDEVELOPED SOURCES

Tremendous amounts of power are theoretically available from theprocess of fusion the fusing of nuclei in the hydrogen isotopes ofdeuterium and tritium The problems encountered so far in makingany practical contribution to our energy pool have been staggering.Although ERDA has invested hundreds of millions of dollars yearly inmagnetic fusion and laser pulse machines in such research centers asthe one at Princeton University, the results have not borne fruit: inorder to fuse these nuclei a temperature of 100,000,000° Fahrenheitmust be achieved.1 Much, much, more energy is put into achieving thishigh temperature than has ever been regained when the hydrogennuclei fuse. No one knows how long it will take before this and othertechnological problems involving fusion are workei out. Fcr thisreason, fusion should not be considered a viable energy option foranswering our immediate energy needs.

The same can be said for power from ocean thermal gradients. Severalplans have been put forward for tapping the energy from such warmwater belts as the Gulf Stream. Theoretically, surface water at anapproximate temperature of 78' would come in contact through a heatexchanger with a chemical liquid such as propane or freon that wouldboil upon contact.

The steam created would turn the blades of a turbine, which in turn,would spin a generator. Then cold water is piped up from a much lowerdepth to cool the chemical back into a liquid. There are no ocean graclient plants operating or planned at the present time; how muchpower they could generate and at what expense is unknown.

An energy option with more positive immediate benefits is the photo-voltaic cell, originally developed as a part of the space program.Basically these ce!Is are made of wafers of silicon and boron whichwhen activated by sunlight make electricity. Other materials andshapes have been produced that use sunlight equally successfully tomake electricity. Already this energy source has proven its usefulness.

9 ;

FUSIONPOWER

Pictured above is a hypothetical Fusion Power Plant, thedesign for which was completed in 1974. The majorstructure is to be stainless steel while the reactor will be

fueled by the hydrogen isotopes of deuterium and tritium.

PHOTOVOLTAICCELLS

..-*7---1,--,r.,3.7' 7,....:.4.::-;,.....

+ + +++ +++ + +

-...........i.-

-,- 7..4.0-r.--r,-,;----!.'-...:.::..... ,

47.4r;.-

+- + + + ++ + + +

+$ $ $+ + ++

vOttAGl

When internal photoemission takes place near a pnjunction, the electric field forces conduction electronsenergized by the light to go into the nside. charging itnegatively. Excess holes are similarly forced into the p-side, charging it positively. An electric circuit can usethese charges in the same way that it uses the charge from

a chemical battery. In this manner, silicon cells haveconverted as much as 12-15 per cent of the energy ofincident sunlight directly into electricity.

Refrigerators on remote Indian reservations are powered by thesecells to cool medicines so that the sick may continue to live and hecured. U.S. Coast Guard buoys which keep ships from colliding in LongIsland Sound are powered by photovoltaic cells.- In Nebraska an 80-acre cornfield is equipped with 97,000 solar cells producing a peak of25kw to run a pump which irrigates the cornfield as well as producingenough electricity to run fans drying 12.000 bushels of corn.'; A con-tract was just awarded for solar cells capable of delivering 362 peakkilowatts of electricity to meet all the power needs of MississippiCounty Community College in Blytheville. Arkansas.4

The advantages of photovoltaic cells are many: (1) they do not''ute. (2) they use a renewable energy source. the sun, (3) they

produce electricity directly, by-passing such technology as steamgenerating plants. (4) solar cells contain no moving parts and assuch have a very long lifetime. (5) solar cell arrays are modular inconstruction and as a result can be used as efficiently to power a 100watt remote refrigerator as they can be to power a multi-megawattcentral Power station.

By far the greatest obstacle to further use of the photovoltaic cell isexpense. Though the per watt cost has dropped from $200 in 1959 to$10 today, this is still considerably above the $.20 $1.00 per wattcost of a conventional power plant. The Department of Energy esti-mates photovoltaic cost will drop further to about $.50 a watt by 1983.The federal government is assisting in this drive for cost effectivenessby allocating a total photovoltaics budget of $58 million for 1978.'

Closely aligned with the above problem in photovoltaic development isthe need for more markets so that mass production will bring the perunit cost down. Again the federal government is providing assistanceby buying solar arrays of 32, 50 and 70MW for the years of 1970, 1980,and 1981.6

Also facing the solar cell are problems of storage and maintenance.Keeping track of thousands of small solar arrays dispersed on residen-tial rooftops is more difficult.

In spite of these difficulties the photovoltaic cell appears to have abright future. Corporations ranging in size from Westinghouse andRCA to small one- and two-man inventor shops are enthusiastic; thefederal government is becoming increasingly liberal with start up seedmoney each year: and the technology is already proving itself by work-ing successfull: under varying circumstances.

17

PROMISING FUEL CONVERSIONS

COAL GASIFICATION

One of the most economizally and environmentally promising of thecoal gasification processes is being developed by the Laramie EnergyResearch Center at Hanna, Wyoming. Coal is being gasified under-ground there to be used as low BTU heat for powering steam electricalgenerating plants.

In making coal gas underground, two wells 20 to 50 meters apart aredrilled to the base of a coal seam. Burningcharcoal is dropped into onewell to ignite the coal while air is injected into the second well. Wyom-ing coal is permeable enough so that the air from the second well seepstowards the first well and draws the flame toward it. The fire thenlinks the two wells at the base of the coal seam by a channel as large asone meter in diameter. Once linked the fire expands and consumes allthe coal between the two wells. By appropriately controlling the flowrate of the injected air, it is possible to obtain partial combustion ofthe coal so that low energy gas is emitted from the first well.'

The Russians have employed successfully on a commercial scale an.underground coal gasification process slightly different from the Han-na Project for more than five years, proving that with properadministration and engineering, this is a viable process.

The advantages of underground coal gasification are many. It ischeaper than above ground coal gasification because there is no needto build a processing plant. It is also quicker because it is not necess-ary to wait until a plant is finished. About 80% of the coal of a givenseam is used as compared to about 50% when the coal is removed.About five times as much energy is likely to be produced over what isinvested, though in a large project this return could run as high aseight to one.

Possible disadvantages are land subsidence after a seam has been usedup and the pollution of nearby water resources. The Russians have hada somewhat similar underground process in operation for a number ofyears, however, and have yet to be faced with such pollution problems.

There are a number of other below and above ground coal gasificationprograms under way. Some of these include the Lawrence LivermoreLake Project in Wyoming, the Morgantown Energy Research Centerproject in West Virginia, and the Texas Utilities lignite gasificationprocess being tried along the Gulf Coast. Large water requirementsand additional environmental damage from this type of mining makethese projects appear less desirable.'

Problems of cost face all coal gasification projects whether they yieldhigh (synthetic natural gas), medium, or low BTU gas. This product,estimated at $3.00 per million BTU's is much more expensive thannatural gas.3 Each rise in natural gas prices makes the production ofsynthetic natural gas more feasible. And with sufficient coal on handfor the next 300 years in the United States, coal gasification, howevermined, seems to have a place in the future.

18 9

OIL FROM SHALE

The process of obtaining oil from shale is one that has had its ups anddowns over the Years. First, it is seen as an answer to cur growingdependence on Middle Eastern oil. Then, water resources are con-sidered too meager or construction costs too high to make it a feasiblereality.

Some recent developments by the Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum Cor-poration working in conjunction with Ashland Oil in western Coloradohave given shale oil enthusiasts cause for optimism. Oxy hasdeveloped an in-situ (cn-site) demonstration project producing 2.500barrels of oil a day which reduces water cons . mption by at least 66%,decreases land residues by 80%, and requires only one-third the workforce.

Basically, Oxy's Process is to first remove the soil over-burden andmine out a small portion of the shale nearest the surface. Then therest of the shale is blasted creating a rubble-filled cavern. The shale atthe top is then ignited, and separation of the oil from the shale begins(retorting). As the retort zone moves slowly downward, the released oilflows to the bottom where it is pumped into storage)

In spite of the success of the Oxy project, there are still problems withshale oil. The 2.5% nitrogen found in the oil causes automobile enginesto knock. The 1% sulfur in shale oil fouls refinery catalysts andpollutes the air. Paraffin waxes clog engines. Air quality standardswill also have to be relaxed in such states as Colorado before realisticcommercial development of this process can be expected.2

Standard Oil of Indiana and Gulf Oil are working on another in-situproject nearby, but progress is not as advanced.

However, due to these two projects, surface retorting developmentshave been neglected for a number of reasons, the chief one being cost.Surface and in-situ retorting plants of similar capacity are estimatedto cost $1,200,000,000 and $400,000,000 respectively. Under such cir-cumstances, no pilot plant will be built on the surface without stronggovernment assistance.

As for future prospects of large scale development of shale oil, muchdepends on the price per barrel. So far there is little agreement onwhat this will be with estimates ranging from $12.00 a barrel (Oxy) to$26.00 (Conoco).3 With current oil prices in the United States in theneighborhood of $19.00, this uncertainty is definitely in need ofclarification before oil companies will be willing to invest their moneyeven with strong governmental financial aid.

As for shale oil reserves, they must be characterized as incredible.According to the National Academy of Sciences, there is underneaththe Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming about 2,400billion barrels of oil which at our current rate of oil consumptionwould last us nearly 100 years.4

19

GASOLINE TO ELECTRIC AUTOMOBILES

With transporation controlling 25% of our energy budget andautomobiles making up 80% of our transportation energy budget, one

is tempted, with gasoline in short supply, to find an alternative way of

running automobiles. One way to do this is by converting to electric

cars.

At present there are four commercial manufacturers of electric cars in

operation in the United States. Costs for these vehicles range from$30,000 for the Transformer I produced by the Electric Fuel Propul-

sion Corporation of Troy, Michigan, to the $2,998 Citicar turned out by

Sebring-Vanguard Incorporated of Columbia, Maryland.1 These and

other experimental models total less than 3,000 EV (electric vehicles)

in America with U.S. Post Office Fleet Jeeps accounting for nearly 400

of them.

The advantages of these vehicles include no pollution, quiet rides, sav-

ing of fossil fuels, and no need for gas stations.

However, there are a number of problems that need to be eliminated.

Most will not go over 45 mph, with even slower speeds for going up

hills, Worse is their range typically around 50 miles. Some drivers

save battery power by turning off the ignition while waiting for a red

light to change.

Batterr..s seem to be the key Stumbling block to the electric car'sfuture. The present generation of lead-acid batteries is far fromsatisfactory. They are heavy, expensive, run down after 50 miles, and

take ft.= six to ten hours to recharge. The Department of Energy is

striving to develop the next generations of nickel-cadmium or lithium-

sulfur batteries which are lighter and provide cars with a wider range

of operations. Their problem is that they operate at a temperature of

575° to pr. Ice energy?

In spite cf ..hese difficulties, the Department of Energy is pushing

ahead and Las appropriated money to put 2,500 electrics on the road by

December, 1978, and another 5,000 by October, 1984. This is still a far

cry from the some 30,000 electrics in America in 1912 but with hard

work and a little luck, some auto industry analysts foresee 20,000,000

electrics on the road by the year 2,000."

20

NUCLEAR POWER

Generating nuclear power is a relatively simple process that can beexplained as follows:

When a fissionable atom, such as uranium or plutonium, splits intotwo or more unequal parts, it releases much energy. One fission event,for example, produces 50 million times more energy than the burningof one carbon atom, the primary energy source in coal.

In fact, uranium is to a nuclear power plant what coal is to a fossil-fueled generating station: the firebox used to boil water to producesteam to run a turbine. Approximately 100 tons of uranium oxide isused in the most commonly built reactor. This material is processed toslightly increase the percentage of the Uranium 235 isotope (whichoccurs in nature at 0.7%) to about 3%; the remaining material is theUranium 238 isotope. This process is called "enrichment." Theuranium is used in the form of small, cylindrical oxide pellets justslightly bigger than the eraser tip of an ordinary pencil. There may be6.5 million to 9 million of these pellets in a large, modern plant, withthe pellets stacked atop each other inside long, narrow tubes likebatteries inside a flashlight. Typically, there are 200 or more pellets ina 12-foot "cladding" tube, and 40,000 such tubes are bundled andclustered together to form assemblies. The assemblies constitute thereactor core.

The atoms of Uranium 235 undergo nuclear reaction called fissionwhich breaks them into small particles releasing energy, as well asemitting neutrons. The neutrons go on to trigger the splitting ofadjacent uranium atoms. The process is a continuous one and is calleda "chain reaction."

The pellets become quite hot in the reaction and the heat flowsoutward to the cladding (made of a steel-zirconium alloy calledZircaloy). So much heat is generated that both pellets and claddingwould melt rapidly if it were not for a cooling bath of water that iscirculated up and through the fuel-rod assemblies.

In one type of reactor, called a boiling-water reactor, the water picksup the heat and boils directly to become steam. In another type, thepressurized-water reactor, the water is kept under great pressure(about 2,200 pounds per square inch) and is prevented from boiling.Then the super-heated water is run through a series of tubes that areimmersed in a second, separate and independent water system. It isthe water in this secondary loop that boils and becomes steam. In bothtypes of reactors, the high-pressure steam that is generated is directedinto a turbine generator, turning it to produce electricity.'

As of early June, 1979, nuclear electricity, coming from 72 commercialreactors in the United States, supplied almost 10% of the nation'selectrical energy? With 77 more reactors under construction,3 it isprobable that in less than ten years, 25% of our electricity will be

21

Pellet Pin Subassembly FUEL

CORE

To be used in a reactor, the enriched uranium is formedinto cylindrical pellets. These pellets are placed in hollowtubes made of stainless steel or an alloy of the metalzirconium. The filled tubes are called fuel pins, and are ofsmall diameterabout 1/2 inch or less. The fuel pins(40,000 or more are in a reactor) are then bundled intofuel subassemblies. The subassemblies are fitted intoplace in the reactor as part of the reactor core.

22

nuclear-generated. A government-ordered moratorium (halt in plaintconstruction, halt in nuclear electrical production, or both) coulddrastically lessen this figure, however.

Ralph Nader and a number of other critics are working vigorously tostop construction of nuclear plants. In Washington, D.C., recently,Nader stated that all construction of nuclear plants will be stopped infive years. There is little evidence that the majority of the peopleagree with him, however. A recently released Lou Harris poll showsthat the American people favor continued construction of nuclearenergy plants by a margin of 52-42%.4 In June and November of 1976,voters rejected proposals in California, Montana, Washington, Oregon.Colorado, Ohio, and Arizona which could have all but haltedconstruction of new plants. In Missouri a proposal on electric ratedesign that tends to curb nuclear energy was successful.

23

ReactorVessel

Low PressureTurbine

High PessureTurbine

Generator

Condenser

Cooling Wale-

Pump

In the U.S.. the are two distinct types of Light WaterReactors. In both, the heat extracted from the core is usedto make stem. In a boiling water reactor ($R). thesteam is generated directly by the heat from the core. Thissteam mils a turbine to generate electricity. Thus, it is a"direct.cycle" system.

'RESSURIZEDHATERREACTORS

BOILINGWATERREACTORS

In a pressurized water reactor (PWR), the water heatedby the core is circulated through a closed system. called a"loop." This first loop carries the heat from 'hesteam generator where the heat is transferrt o a secondloop. It is in this second loop that the steamto Produce electricity. The PWR operates at 2,- 0 poundsper square inch and 600°F.

24it/

tvuclAI:e SAFETYd be kept in mindty of rttl is corN,4

Aa a le elpthe , ent f',,S of elec reCent - ProductionTCLA engine .1..

hes eg -rrn t eto4it all Pr life. P

--zir over cal en' -"ered, it should

le. study by L i (.1 1 `mgrgy

orot.,,rieurnaticiavid 0k example' unexpeetast5

%DapsDam in the hilk

po-Aessor r cert,.rent c... ,tanees. -1,;e d doubts.wer tlrld iq o, fn,circu- , Can Li

His projections show.. that thea 1 c e °f the Stc'f'; weelfzienta i,A cottia eEtizIo VC s' cause beo.rst ic200.000

or ---ssiL AI projected fur ;1ve fly more

b e s t4sidera eitdown l'an th ger 0 hu health in coaliole death L'

re wellkno%

.. nil1,2415,0' doroo e 11 tencdt r

0-t.tlelear. rtli. tran The dal" nd pow nlansir ri. au,Nuctio t, cases _atm co itioZncl. a %nand lung disease;:ith mar!" for 1000T- hea,..; per year.

n,ritri hat Spillsasthma.

and the naturalitcountiOeountry u deaths 1.. Spin, from oil tankers corningQI,Ito the erit. Arner e a e,N.roieurn

with io ,,an P ljeoths to theIn-LI tute fire

severe nucleara,,vironni

generation

L.t.oil fireigh aa ti._ snore_ :tsiiitY of a

to life

tilee as weed, 0i'i e_proh'oeyonne, in January. 1973.41%:eident. :,;-th Brookyires in iu

Public at 1 in MOM: this iscorresponding

gild in S° 0 the beeeYn in 1.95-statips(t)ilcisutiEstimatet pollutionp o zi ted

threatblew

Lc) rhdi--47 eeev:aair

Jersey,se erdvo airi dial t r w i c hkovere Olo Luckily .tr,ber.nds

lied 3,91-trrying Lx.:41e w!_uifieddNatUral Gas) are a serious

threatin

tr,..44kers c14 an 1.,"GG (Lic14."xploGed i_.--k) ; in lv voiving 1 ,,_tan `"

Id we continue to

Ll Cleveland kLastly.the

osTident la,tri invoiv&;_ZO of th_einLtNernaa

erhaps the musthe Arnerieb'ert upon V.1.ent incosternttiaoetirilltar carries.

war shiosup

8 depend eat to th wilddle,P_Ii peopflell sourcestious

tries

Withabove e, bierris statedorein uci gY pr ,iy Safetyei,-th the e n

ear enerb

eerAmerico

8°11!tiont°5 to thern.

consideration will noW beProblems and some possible

constrliticlear plaliNtsr,\TIRor4gENTAL

deeta,errmRei ng: -III la on,

Likelihood of

re_-re a O., the Nuo-..t can ' Cory c eted, the power companies areew otim, . ion-sitl' ' byIra,

ruction oforder independent.

f a nuclear plant willtacbl -trliss*zli4ileds,,eri. anialai vege e life

e4 huff torn4d0.... ana. _oat. and are considered asw_rthquak, op are h_,,_tidai v:/ce i Do

if Hear',ned rttlee,ld to 111. _;ion satiatiesPossible factors

may constructionthe pig,'" end any'ear sw in our ,

in the area.

4ible for citizens to object. Only

c-Urt system.Illrnissin`" liceris. challeng ado electri. sys itted. Often after

the Nuclear Regulatory

44ti Ote itig to rod are or4Al ant

0 aeration,was ordered to

A case in point ispr es Ilen*'44rit is leaith Edik,_,chn _deo,city be perm

dered as well.lih,11, ton ergency oe_rl.s Cori. ech .1 nu0,,_

plants. andfor it to enlcoOling. b. rinds tillieged.th the

11"i8` PlantRiver

water raised theal'liege ci,_'''s use of the MississiPPi

canal was orderedetnt reactor of the

to fish.elf ihs illat -ie processed

rivercausing

Inste'ro ge`oe M'ssisa" ter .

antri_ Pere ,isLi 7°°rOPin w ich th 1 e via v401-11d be recycled

ad a spray c . .

set 'e built the river e sail':

which

cled without being

1-ned tnOr is taken ing th e

.Great care in choos 9s proper place to build nuclear

plants. Recently it was discovered that the Diablo Canyon plant inCalifornia is located near a projection of a geologic fault line. The NRChas held up the license of this plant for more than a year while furtherstudies are conducted.

PLANT OPEF.ATION

One hypothetical story of a nuclear reactor disaster is described in thepopular press like this: Sensitive instruments in the control room of anuclear power plant warn that temperatures inside the reactor arerising toward a danger point. Somehow the main pipes carrying waterto the reactor core have been broken or clogged. The back-up watersystems also fail. Without fresh cool water to control its temperature,the reactor begins melting from its own heat. The machine and its fuelcollapse into a molten mass that converts the surrounding coolantwater into steam, The pressure rips a hole in the massive concretedome, releasing a cloud of radioactive gas. Tens of thousands of peopleliving nearby are contamins.,ted by radioactivity. Many die withindays. Others suffer lingering illnesses and develop cancer years later.7

The probablity of such an event occurring is minimal. To date, afterabout 25 years of operation, not one single person has been killed in anoperating commercial nuclear plant accident in the United States. TheFederal Government commissioned a study by Nuclear PhysicistNorman C. Rasmussen about reactor safety, and Rasmussen concludedthat an accident similar to the one described above could happen lessthan once in a million years if 100 U.S. nuclear plants were inoperation. Nuclear critics have tried to raise doubts aboutRasmussen's report on a number of grounds. (1) He is biased thereport was commissioned by the Federal Government and the FederalGovernment favors nuclear power. (2) Rasmussen is using onlystatistics in drawing his conclusions, and he needs to substantiatethese conclusions with actual tests of plants in operation.(3) Rasmussen does not take human error into account. (4) How doesRasmussen account for some 1,400 "abnormal occurrences" in nuclearplants each year?

Nuclear proponents are quick to defend Dr. Rasmussen on thefollowing grounds: (1) Rasmussen's reputation and scientificcredibility is far greater than his most vociferous critics. (2) TheRasmussen statistics are based on actual component operation. Thereare no statistics on major accidents because none have occurred.(3) Rasmussen's analysis did take human error into account in everystep. (4) The abnormal occurrences are used in the data for the si udyitself.

Perhaps the most significant "abnormal occurrence' took place inMarch, 1979, at Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island nuclear power stationnear Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. As of June, 1979, most authoritiesagree the scenario for trouble went approximately like this: First, awater pump in the secondary (steam) line failed. When the pumpfailed, the turbine and generator automatically shut off and thecontrol rods, which control the rate of nuclear fission, dropped.

26

1111111I IIII 111111111/

Asthe ra;, puroD . dary linea lt °I rhea 4141' f thTheate In the eo°11 tivat thepri,_ resu ove tett e o vet. d e a ooP ac ed thhs gl, ary looP cooll4R sv The ° would nil etoroaLicaliv .rary I _tom

priroar.loop

is "rth,etip waleExcess heOtem 011t be sy tivl,he'lptIved the her area. L from occordirY_ 100p by_rel 3.0? Ces

thei°11*.t0 ant.°0tallt.ttiline.iftb"°vvievive05 the ga,,m8 because he deactiv n terroneo,N to severe either did",

neiL Lor til ...10 Ler, alwhet

gauge. , 00 gtedtheIve, or co`"iitig 3p et Wn saw, a

backup cu-ce°- e t eeP , itt, a 01 the

f in orts mined thatin ,it

retivea to red's ciret/lat.

Drihsch later.

Part °ther bulitr,r1' loop tr,dioahactivvaelwvet:,

tod gotten n rrierly rot, and was deter opened sevth to. d eruival-.4aryloop ii.e pressuttn too_ the Prirn, e opera-t..0tUch fto

Ws :ce presstirthere' weed to anciva !lashed

to steara'r1g, the r! vented to .7' and was Lne,nut; .released

lde.the fuel

be en so molly Oncnver let 0 tamedWil water

ot -rtecl tof the

actor vessepwainingwatehersetirne part ill the jetted an-st,

startedgalt,ezieting viii.

A 5' tarteri- melt. The 1'41 the metal tth-41ne acidic gener4,rise heat' d at the top In

t\eci hydru blescnieh collect!: pumping ofth rtiel rods, erit vessel. L

jeer iating 111°Ote

eire cootainroellre coldmater in

0,e rea_ otrcljth "48 avoidedidea '-'1. Cold rid

bed the 4bsorpo gig' he1,rhydr,:otor vesseil-s, the wit'er

gen. Th ..tto throi4.,a

of vater II:on tergtac,114" the rw- ill, 0 Op* Water wasdel, 'ally a tobs0 oiled tk j tirpge ell rtitt.A. ter. re This hydrogdroatlallydial that fle.

fashion `tcf:Ole reactor 4Ing in the re r

aba_he"t'heci the rid

4i eel° dr°g" 41,13r()CeSS40 'ie t° out 'cl cesi ethe er andv nted Cooled ritaln a.

-'4ch w-Chlt Mile / to do with thetitea of c_ r.,000..°ovnt.eY a tit Thr the stsland has ocl its Pnsaihieourlt rodiod iollgtLe 4°- .0t° A report'"phere a the Natioo

1teased Ifectaihr n issued 12; Will Prodila4

no hs.'er/Iv of e2-e to -A Nstr4 NI shar,t g: ocekstatzt4ge ef

SaesThree

Mile acCidenttiAdes that tease the norznee,be eOfLetineer beY°,./1und in DeobliiWith, CageS 0

46 r-'Ire that "at w?uld (.1ti°nal.IY5vieeekx,--mtedto beL'o", 129). e,v00 tb- f the m-rditiarl

14 10 mile 14, 191'`44t. crle°1nclusiorh, enta agenciesTo ,ore d l ageh .try ell P.ditionitive figs Ile. HE., s cre ph

co" tio goverrall tarY Joseare te rea d adnzki , yes- such st TV

e financed to_Calife:Inclootilir lY a n°44 in Or r for tldiestit funded b Iced fb te r 13. ofle, trot and thrSa00-40 reCe NO t 1, t cell ot vital Isease - cl health, ataNat'.°°° and r IfisoPttlte he Alewithin statistics a:i the pitInt to

ro d efro '°441cancey0.° De o, will C'..,g 70

:IeLe-giriees°tmheet'itierthree tradjaoviiiin, toecet i4forin-atio.ifil not c,providzi:nattT4- The ° ,..ese Lticii_ tidies ord

u 1 con

oce trine zilifano.

1.. Whig ye miles "Lrbt have heeh they Mil' of a sirnil n

so data (..Dcieriee

rooant ottlle lio'in

f1.4,,,,t.e. Even tj5110/1gh the s, aCe rO° h Valuable 66Ni ..4 all rs, t /9, P. i.tr Will Pewe, swe 19June 9,

eN111,'UYEES

Care tiori the hezi) ty Of workerill thititld COnS1de

III t 44.lee 4 the given v.°,00ae elaIlth and steorking in th:vielo,-- nuclear octet atjtOsehreS ,iced to Dloyees 7neter or a filrt,

badger'Y of the re . ccrefte Ztre reCit-of these dear a closii-nd hedges Elt,

Itt all 6113ea. °airnett ra a'.l'eading;,/

')__../11 ..../i111 IIIIII._ ..._

technicians. When radiation levels on the badgerniero, bY

trained

Cotrig a Point behas been determined by the Nuclear R

le,t unsafe, these workers are required to be rnt'ogvueidatini)rt:vo

ve areas for their job assignments.1 -88 radioactive

SAII0TAG

other explosiveear critics worry about possible sabotage t

forces and

u cl terrorist groups breaking through Plant security

ciflleBvti:e11761°TirIsPsiilbaaYnrctihngsatchel charges. I

of 1976, the NuclePa'arstRicesg,aioartory Commission

releasedIS

figuresrevealing 99 threats of violence

nuclear facilities between 1969 and 1976.'cuprathercial nuclear4'1°. one

irentallY unstable former employee of aetakti eight-foot fence and entered a top.security area. The public-

eitvtricco' involved was fined $8.000 for lax security,

of nuclear plants point out in rebuttal that since the first11s/enders

years ago,reactor opened in Shi

tZe_niyerci:elPPingl"rt Pennsylvania,

ago, there has been only one instance of plant

UnitedStates by any domestic or foreignaabt'iltat :in the U

further point out that nuclear plants are wellcircuit 7,a V at plant perimeters, are armed with security

i- -Ards, have quick access to state and local police reinforcements, and

navenuclear

reactorsIttvli,th closed

_terrorist

well-nigh impregnable with steoefltahnedescgtoiunmacarrdteeetdde

w nucthree feet

walls over °25, 0 le whoet thick. Additionally, the majoritywork in nuclear plants throughout the world are

1eeku°° Pe°P guards, and security officers whose prime function is14'45i:0'

ThP.FTcommercial nuclear materials while in transit, this is

stealing United States at the present time. Most uranium:A8-41ifkrelsytelaul,,-7trioved frox.-

the reactor core is maintained in large swimming pool'

like on site. The exception to the rule involvesI, tanks shipments to a site near Morris, Illinois.

11-`clear w

out -of state

Plant workers are checked by a metal detection device

Walk through.upon entering and leaving

attempt to bring in explosives or try to steal uranium,

whichthey

ee yy

would register their illegal materials, and tsheecuprliatnyt.gua

subject violators to a thorough search.

assemblies

in, this device

reactors containused in large, water-cooled

guards would

Fuel uranium, are about 14 feet in length. about 5.8 inches1500 Pounds each. Insquare cross section, and weigh from 500 to

drieal

rStlioactiivelinwhen this spent fuel is shipped, it will be loaded into a

the future, steel vessel about 16 feet long, several feet in

weighing 20.25 tons.difficult to hijack.

dEiqa:penit9eerrit of such weighk. ,A'ould be er.ct edinglyassembly would lie lengthwise in a central cavity surrounded

uy 8... inches °I lead shieldinl. Once th is in place. it islead Plug and gasket arrangement.

ee assmblY

sled by itThe heat ge3erated by

28'1

h the Ith,, spent fuel is fed by conduction eud shielding and theuctionsteel jacket to the outside. 14oeTo.wgui,atri:.V.rirbt:'eld.ut-IT'Iti'l Pera t ure limit. a nd

that the external.withstood testing undev

surface of the jacket be keptit is designed accordinglY. The cal syk

inexample.

collision and fire. !various types of vehicular acci,.,

tegritv.after bteing dr()PPeduents

30 feet ont.example. it has maintained inflat unyielding surface and %vitt,'osto.od I., drop of 40 inch.onto the top of a vertical 6.mch A,

,...urde

.1 i n r ibL.Yo la,

miamett-:cn.Nc steel bar.' '

A program currently being ;III Plementcd requires that the vehicletrans escorted

byat least uneporting spent fuel be

with other vehicle incontinuous radio contact witn nearby .st

_cunt). forces,

AIR ATTACK

Although American nuclear building.withstand direct reactor

buildingsnsuL.11ree des, gned to

ar bombs orintercontinental ballistic missiles ec;uired v an i nuclearwarhead doPose serious threats. There is no atomic iC energy

.rtg":"1 t, Plant or. for that

withstand amatter, any other structure yetsuch

con sat f: c

iation pollution of the ground water

,it couiddirect nuclear hit. The result of Well lead to a steam

meltdown with resulting radloactive

pollutionescape lndr a coreexplosion with resulting rad:

underneath the plant.

WASTE MATERIAL

nuclearSafe storage of lowlevel and L igh-level waste material is

solve. Hprobably the most difficult probil defend.er.s

--.7idiferastibactiyit;.fpnuclearpower to

plutonium. a partigh-level waste has lonente:rn for

waste, has a radioactive hay, of over 100,speck of plutonium finds

000 years. and onceits way

into a person's lungs, it canproduce deadly cancer.

The United States Government

Period of storage. High-level

low .level contaminated nuclear militarY,barrels and tanks that have le ke

from underground tanks in thewasais ttdP:esleakagethei e.Yhas

ta of Wet 41.1 ngf n.

vwaste

tnroughout a 20-yearabove ground in

So far, it has beenurred repeatedly

worst offender, storing

ground water. thus avoiding radiation con

exceas1 occurred

different ways. Britain

reported that such leakage has been deteu-taminatiGn.it seeped into the

Other countries handle theirreprocesses much of it for reuse inwaste "' reactors; the remainder is

steel, and/or concrete and seal

Russians are busily engaged inWaste for use in breeder reactors

sealed in

reproce,:bsainn-gd-0:ferrid.ereactors; the renl-

breeder

plower is encased in glass.of their nuclear

encased in concrete and dumped The Germans, French, andat sea.

one of th s:alt mines. TheJapanese plan deep burial of their -ell" nation's smallwaste on

ReguiatorY Cmnrnission has yet toreactor

uninhabited islands.

In the United States, the Nuclearmake a final decision about waste storage.Nuclear waste is the responsibilcit7yrnomferciathe commercial utility for the

el :--29 ....k.,)

--"1111111 '-iift

first five FederZ__isotencotertc,44presentthat. : the C

responsibilityyears uf ita

becomes the

of thering enp_ga.ver .P:e .7 :a te,sa.it Commission

is seriously conste nconcre ai. and

metal and buryinigclt deep p in-li, ing tP in:_tabilri gis ,,icoi forro Lons.

Nuclear vaults beinfts xi. di ntin.the earthcie01."tittert.'tk 106ge0- it beds 'n. New

Mexico, shale deP°Ilis__Isri theln_ci.ciuweOtAti1.tieari.t:e"'d9?ositl, in the

East. A decision on u P° 41 4itesmils elte t'ts::re'll9f;°.

BREEDERREAcTOR

.ient in ors,The next develoPA- .70x atoin eect in the breeder. ery

efficient (It usesor iC redy its fasts.

reactors.), and Gs-a dnes 1.2% int ouuf IlY'8

mot, en .turappiliti. - r1111,1;,ruel _To, I,, ,s1A. Deuvri

1,,,, fuel I/years

breeder would extenau hoseatilyttr fueo _oilLlzt., foror 11_4e arnou ts orCritics say it crest

tjtithisvat.erlisnaelidtIglindplut resfelcui4P Itit1:sescit:: power sources.

N),,rriativ appropriations

$80,000,000, 01Aitincal i.,'iter Reieir, 14 tee re breeder . to

with Proponent an- -1313%

ttleiei i.es first 11c:1y to continuetle ov ileo J.,, ti 1' advantages and

eots env 'it -er isItg itsdisadvantages.

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION united StatesUnfortunately entriescan stop other

iicirittnraierstf:44riouszi,nleort:otkway theocsever,niuNcle_r

power plants are 11°P erequitn. ambo materia None

of the nuclear-Wearns

nationsthe "nuclear club:

'ens uset-f°f Cw llilz:ln t mate

iik..Critics of nuclearrered electricity r:et-4 thatreztetectriin dem_ tin,-..atcountries with

reconstruct

sPPlthethat do or will proc,IrenePthatnr7ra trigt te: Ls`l

typical light-wate'

or uli,ed in to .bs A

Ad thatretCneeds of a city of ollke ion ,Lt gre sloid ticIduttligh Pacugh Plutoniume mill* thlurnoefP0 Pry

to

a single year to lo.'ze.bo

sco it,f.-that' .

cities of similar 01.that tit,tY ra lc a- ed . -=e

,!%111441ear13-lithlit C°0°Ocnt Itt. eS er:oreto

PlUt°nillin used inth°°reprocessing plant

at ,_ builni;vie k.tletilllY be,idited to Prevent-'111 be sal and au

diversion.

The technology of rnakin, AO iI a. 6 at bav 111 ri- 4 tl-at c" `41t.

,.1 ar resp, " alrea`;,,'t5t1r1 4 test )3°- dproducts of a ntl",,,-cfore :arch se' 11Yback in the Isla' n la h'rn'e ..14/ 4`'S It 1S Orli

ith the bygenie -fah w*

pii es ins a- y a

matter of time 1.'"" T _cxxch rear' 1{:014ttliibeYet":10, ntries ans, Ls1bya,Taiwan,

nst 44cIn, ixisoutti thet:4,crinlierci4et bombs

of etotlr Isrse.th or without thePakistan,or

sJyriordwisL'iv

assistance of coin- 'Al nuclearrep s. Wn wi

have atomic

capabilities, liployittileaders

" otvivlsj0 tl,

Americans can ° l. Pe - -ri- ,,'%- counriL, shrewd enough,

enough tn leaders. oppreventand courageous

%1 i-ioug dents from using

them.kovernA-

30 ':',, G

ECONOMIC COSTS OF NUCLEAR powThe

expense of building nuclear 1 . titsn1.1 r huyiro,urao.lticreasing

already cut int() the economic.enerL4tt has thot novi.,""s -.240 rnegawottIllihy has over coal. Commonwealth Edison 2

build s Plant is estimated to cost $1,000.000.000 andit is finished in the it is likely

u...; 41'

t cost we '')''i ettake 10 Yell .t0

on i 3' Before

auyaotitgaend "' adv. ti

1980's.Enev.uillion dollars and to take longer than the

material shortages alland reactor safety standards, risischeduled tentY.".irs'

serve to i,ectuilt,r(lhconsTIlleilt and

mentalIn the meantime.

-.crease c(); ..,krI-Prices hrnut -..

, tiR labor ces-7. anciti

uraniumroct.`14tiction timecos4eteti from $7.00 a pound in 1973 to $25.00 in

the early 19SO's." 1976 to an esti ed

W- hit , gn uranium reserves risinglylow.

domesticQi $43.00 by

and foreign s runi-rices even 'eventhan the year 2000, the result will be to force r,

vea;, the present. A comparable coal plant was built about.:' ,..en

United St

almost equal to nuclear costscost -; With significant savings in construction

lea time aner st

costs,NOW C(:4111

Plant

to -,,PPear a and the i

erve

mates

that has

der:ears. These costs. along with reduced esti

d enerpt,

ofdeferclef I, have caused public utilities in theer ntorfor nuclear reactors and coal-burning power P 3 S.

States tO c- 1

meallu silo

1/iany orders

aireaitself worthwhile; the percentage

rt, nuclear energy is a recently developed

extent. t°ubliec.-it a erPtlik dY Prover:generated by the atom increases monthly. The

---.7 source i

will'is,,,Wers accept its use and the willingness-etn by the r--, and

privalltess toour energy needs will

to finance the hi k

be determined }-,

of go.erritven' nu

hf our electrical

entail: utilities !ear powerities g.. construction cost,s nuclear

31

/46%urge

Nation,cost

Es("TuG4co 1"-4 FOR

300 17'4'uts

pa3uap!na se `lsaJun Joqe-/ (g) -asdeno3 sump auiuz pauopustre cages a3uap!sqns a3e3ans tuol3 2uep ameJap!suo3 este Si alata -sa31:1111/3qns 31;(01 tipm siaml pus stueaals XqJeau alnitod tialtpit sno tzttJ re3IU:taq3

luanbasuo3 pus `splay papola `saud Geis `saloq ,q2n qvAi pajavas ap!sicaluno3 a41 sansai ualjo `211T.11 11303 1113 30 jpq icialetuPctudde ao.) sluno3313 tp!tim lum!tu 5!..119

(I) :all? 13-1a1420 '10(38(11"-IP Xjuo aq.; 1,uaJe /Cato leo3 salmluenb a2Jej 2utsn ut pamoAti! sztaigoad Ja!to awl a.ze slau!tu of =mg lea!sXqd pus uo!lnuod Jr tI2nou

atmaiq sulaiqoad Bunt aidoad Jo.; ljn3upp Lon I! 2upietu an! 991 JO 130101tpuojci aUl (nu! Xidaap apulauad arbto saauslsqns apcol 2upcxx130 11a134.red

paz!sontuiqns 'Cup aql anotuai lou op sa31Aap asato lnq '215 aPPnrio aql (nu! T.110.13 Injtes luana2d of saom!dpald 3P131130.43a/a pus slaqqn23s aim; sweid 2u!leJaua2 3upala panj-isoa 190W II103 Jo s13a33a !!! awl Janes s2un1 asoqm saau!tu .1snf 1ou s! li <Aialgunuojun

-else so!VID `a2xvliot/s A-21aua alp 2u!Alos lnoqe 02 01 Asia luaptud s ApeaA sarpe2ell

reuoslad asatil 2u!iqnop si leaX Jac! slau!tu Jatuloj pus 134auttu 000'0i palrluPsa ue s!seq an!leintun3 s uo sip)! '&1/laic acp nano lenp loop 2u!tilsalq Aq uo 1421noJci aseas!p Bunt ;pals -an Jo; P91790113Pduxsa

painfui ale alotu ssalluno3 !Ltau!tpetu glint swappas pug 'suo so2 .suiaete3 auitu ui patini ale slau!tu jo spalpunq IgaiC 4.1ana

SUOIled sno.toup 11330 rt 1SOUI s,piaom awl Jo atm Si 2u!u!tu 11303 ;13atiaXed Tepuelsqns 13 u5141 a3il 01 aaout Si alaq; 1541 'zaitamoti ino I 1iod of 313!nb aJe 1130330 11311tip

seals passa.zdap XiJel!tu!s pus r1431/Ieddy 11111,1i.ka2 splemo; 153 02 !Linn rorpnpold 11303 u! uiooq 5 P" pied 113.% 315 .+1Jeirdal vox, otinn slaum sanaasal 11303 J!aql Jo.; PaloU a.;;; t:loo!!!! pus aassauuaj, '/C;(3eluam InusitiXsuuad 'e!u1/111A lsaAN '4%o! 3.1t: sia,kal atuo3ut 1elaua2 put; 3!uolq3 Si luaulcoldtuaun alatim suo!Baa ut sqof alotu ap!noad !pm uoil3npoJd 11303 2u1iqnoG .as!mlBc 3 110!1!god .1111011s

r; spuetuuJo3 11303 'a3unisq u0 X113!313a1a jo lunouis r aonpold 0; Ho Jo sea usql sgai Xiquap!suo3 swop leg umutun ut,4 amsuadxo alotu Si lanj B se !Roo (C) Jaitannoq 'awes awl Xialsui!xOadds R1R03 lurid 1503 Is! Ol papps aie saaqqni3s uatuyi Jana 11am o; sawo3 lueld Juapnu lualsit!nba us a lnoqe slso3 lueld 1;303 a2.1131 Jol3e3 1503 awl s! a-1941 Uatu,

wfm'000000000./t

slueld ittapnu ut uoymuntnuo3 ar,!.13eollyea .to

gut:3°171:a:

se saitidollsole3 le!lualod toes luasald 10'1 op slueld 2ullwaua2 /et° (1 ) :Siddns luopunqo u! 2t!!aq se Ham se salmis/438 Jatou gg4 1503

sauaA 00V 1.11 aoi q2noua ane4 ant .ueldwnst103 30 1)tu pallaryaladns s!tfl 1u uana Imo 33121e svadxa .,oluno3 ino u! 3.\.404.).1 !ow snopuatuall 041 s! assanu! pal3acold Suiddoqm st91103

41'1'4 ,1141, 1 "uol 000.000.000'1 _ono Ham 0.1 asaiC iad suo; 000'000'009

!nog!! 111013 uoilanpold 1e03 utnuatuy aseal3u1 of adoq Ja2u!s!aitos --)turr %*Joi,)Joas A"liaou3 pus all tutufload X2Jaua Rig jo sau0113JouJo3

14 1 3u .,uo 5113 uownpold luoa Nutiqnop sasodold Jal.reD luaP!Ralci

FIVOD

--by the winter coal strike of 1977-19,A. oik" voko

an4

Unreliable eergy source as many coal-hots were r,) ' at tift142'.;',. cr

substantially reduce power production Pri, our futtn)tItti to del.,' ;ire

so rickety there is considerable.- diffi4,,v in gettilik ''' railrel' al to

Power plants, let alone doubling the %aunt- 14 1,t.resent (.)01 is

required to use the same scrubbersymisa":; ia power pi "stern dirtier

Eastern coal." Shipping Western coalim' distances .t.tots as plus

forcing, scrubbers on the FT% n,ifes c","Ipetii,°, tnarket'ocr

fuels difficult. 15) The, coal industry de.,,,1-t, at tuts Pt-, "c1Pn with °nay('Western (.041'

the capital to drastically increase li i by ope,.;t4.ent tirpe,;. newproduction ..ing man.

rnine4

34

INCREASING DOMESTICOIL & GAS

PRODUCTIONDrama tically increasing domestic oil and gas production is one energyoption often overlooked. This is eminently possible, th.,tagh our oilcompanies have not done it.

Geologists, government analysts, and oil industry spokespersons arenot entirely in agreement, but a general consensus concludes we haveunderground enough oil and gas that can be economically brought tothe surface to last for the next 30 years. This can be done even if weincrease production by one half to eliminate importation of oil.'

We are not tapping remaining oil and gas reserves as much as wemight because these reserves are found in smaller pools, require moredrilling exploration, more wells, and deeper drilling. Development ofequipment able to tap gas in areas where geological pressures mix itwith water will also lessen supply problems.

Oil companies have found that such additional expenses woulddecrease their profits substantially. Bigger profits can be made byinvesting the same money abroad in foreign fields where the cost ofbringing oil out of the ground and shipping it to the United States isless than current domestic pumping and shipping expenses. Thischanged attitude was reflected in a decrease in exploratory drilling inthe United States from 16,000 such wells in 1956 to 7,000 wells in1971.2

To actually get oil and gas companies to increase their domesticproduction will require changed circumstances. Price controls willneed to be removed (especially on gas); the price of oil produced abroadwill have to rise dramatically; the government will have to imposestringent import restrictions on foreign oil, or subsidies will have to beprovided to oil; companies as compensation for producing moredomestic oil.

With the profit motive dominant, privately-owned oil companies canhardly be expected to voluntarily develop domestic reserves as an actof charity. Yet, it is unwise to continue as vie are, being virtuallyhelpless at the hands of Mideastern oil sheiks and dictators shouldthey become angry with our foreignpolicy and as a consequence, turnoff the oil and gas spigots to the United States. This brings up anotherenergy option continuing our pattern of energy consumptionwithout change.

A e

35

The offshore oil drilling rig has become the symbol andmainstay of American domestic oil production.

Permission to reprint is granted by the Electric PowerResearch Institute.

36

CONTINUING AS WE ARETwenty years ago Dr. Harrison Browa, Professor of Geology at theCalifornia Institute of Technology, published a seminal book entitled"The Next Hundred Years" in which he anticipated the beginning ofthe end of the petroleum era. He was recently quoted as saying thatwhen he wrote the Sook, never dreamed for a minute that wewouldn't have done something about :t by now."1

Dr. Brown is right. For all practical purposes, we haven't doneanything about the problem. Actually we are still increasing ouryearly consumption of oil and gas by increasing imports, rather thanholding the line or decreasing use. The only alternate energy sourcewe have expanded to any significant extent in the last twenty yearshas been the nuclear one, and that has been used almost entirely inthe development of electricity.

There are arguments that favor continuing to import between onethird and one half of our oil. Some say that importing so mach oil is aboon to such relatively underdeveloped nations as Ghana, Mexico,Libya, Iraq, and others. Our oil payments provide them with theworking capital to attack disease, illiteracy, poverty, lack ofindustrialization, and to provide consumer goods for their people. Thisargument is a tenuous one, however. With oil in short supplythroughout the world, these same countries would have little troublemaking lucrative sales to Western Europe, Japan, and other countrieswith tiny oil reserves.

A better argument for continuing our oil and gas dependence is that itencourages world trade interdependency and, as a result, helpsmaintain an admittedly uneasy world balance of power.

As a matter of fact, should this world balance of power be upset byanother oil embargo, there would be those in this country advocatingarmed interventiuon to seize those Middle Eastern oil fields vital toour national interest. This option was given serious consideration byKissinger and Nixon during the Arab oil embargo of 1973. The optionwas dropped due to expense, the probability that world public opinionwould severely condemn the United States for its action, and the factthat we were getting enough oil from domestic and non-Arab foreigncountries to keep our economy running. If the United States shouldfind itself without sufficient oil in the future, the military opinioncould be more attractive.

Another argument used for continuing as we are points out that areally serious and thoroughgoing attempt to develop alternate sourcesof energy will require tremendous sacrifices in energy and expendedcapital. Whether it be for individually heated solar units, geothermalor tidal energy, masses of wind-operated electrical plants, orconsiderable retooling to fully implement conservation, ary one ormore of these projects will cost time, money, energy, and frequenteconomic dislocations. There are those people in American society thatvenerate and revere the status quo and, in this argument, find goodreason for keeping things as they are.

/

Permission to reprint is granted by the Electric PovResearch Institute.

Government slogans and higher prices aren'tgoing to force me to give up what I need.

38

T/1 11' rt for noUpo are ow-, . ea for err!' er ov

l''t eOw trigpenency

a.retunen This de continuing our dependenceIna;

threat,.AbutisoPolits,' other *VI

places o ur forfefiert ram of cutting o. oiinaDo-"'Ett tbehes us. to Ln eat'es tiR

inuing

alro_tts fore1-dbr in ,! more _,.003vp '-nt cov,r0;:in them -'1111g ac' w ichort,4 j

1- ease ,f wereven rno

''. circumspecetx,igaenoacieastof the

not seem to beavoi24 scene' italLicatio_This is not ao r' nat'healqi,itl, the tion for kly, a. eigll

h t-"stito the

alone one with a

times cannre, fearswne.

tractisq3,sitiO!pclePende,_ 47,

tion as 1 --- as 4.1-X1,%11

lin. 1°- `o be in, let

the threat ofeootitb If our jr.taail rei:ainations could,ris two, or e,. nt of OPECon 4 111.ic b11;_% basis or

a' or medium -term basisof t.Nlort_tex".iiiiost ,tot,,, year our ecou:ot

cut off,

raising oil and gaspal n years, v- that fly so.'Pr

wourt-en on a m

d notbasis,

*as mu' te 12,---,Aerican P ceivabi°I:A for !co nolorice vorse . is col? e that on a short -termY

bybe able to compete

,-ro

Pict

could , it s t...s" stagnatePoas,,, it,7nim ptiblnk."1-1414 °oar pies rYlillg to buy the fuel' It is likely

economically ormat 43, ever; ckt cire arse oto

would grind to a haltcatta.Uoder opemploL'etanee5d ensuing dsr4nent an148' mas0

Altho optio4.intling as ,,, is all ' to consider,in rzi. eh Con ,.... ,5iderabl_ e are. tptatnt the

ePression.

the argumentsaspects of doingnoth;or are cv,ort, the 4..L.Y.Nvea_s.fe ii. i e negative asPe

poeitng, In 0'14 of At elv hotiatriP_Aitioli L...--... us that we have notbeetkl7e aspecaeted, scIfctan crs-oeia y i the last few

e" n uci- ions counter to the more

41clifferent in

the worst`iv ours o actio nu

de'Etti 8° alivie will alio' an elves t° eonti e following such ani to be taetiori: In oaf°Pti:4 that Present " n 13 4 is likelylieu° 9

4.

39

AN AGRARIAN LIFE STYLE

An improbable solution to our energy difficulties would be a return to

an agrarian, pre-industrial life style. Horses would replace autos and

tractors, fireplaces would be the major means of heating, and our

clothing would be homespun to mention a few of the changes.

There are advocates of this solution in America today. They argue that

our society is too complicated and is chronically on the verge of

collapse. The 1977 New York power blackout is simply a precursor of

the future. Advocates of this simpler life style believe that cancer,

which is more frequent and acute now as a result of industrial society,

would all but be stamped out. Psychological problems stemming from

fast-paced living, as well as the monotonous routine of assembly line

work that many now face, would disappear. Such improvements are to

be taken seriously.

On the other hand to change our living habits so drastically would

require efforts almost greater than we can imagine. It is difficult to

picture Americans at home in the evening in these changedcircumstances. There would be no TV or radio; they would be reading

by candlelight, and receiving warmth from the stove. Their reading

material would be reduced as only hand-ope:ated presses could

produce publications.

In every other phase of our lives, changed conditions would prevail.

Our large mechanized farms, which make it possible for oneagricultural worker to feed 30 others, would disappear; tens of

millions would be forced into back-breaking labor to secure enough

food to stay alive. Towns and cities of all sizes would becomeimpossibilities as they are now constituted; lighting them, heating

them, and moving about in them would be horrendous, if not

impossible. As for the functions of government, effective police an ..1

fire protection would be knocked out over large urbanized areas; ou r

national defense (infantry and cavalry formations only) would be easy

prey for virtually any aggressive foreign power. The very future of the

United States as a sovereign nation would be in serious peril.

In short, in spite of the advantages of an extreme agrarian society as

mentioned above, such a reversal in living would be almost universally

unpalatable.

There are others who advocate a lessening of energy consumption to a

degree not quite so extreme. They cite the energy savings made in

Sweden by having smaller and more efficient automobiles, the

attractions of improved public transportation, better insulation, and

use of boiler steam for making electricity and space heating (co-

generation). They advocate energy sources that require the work of

many human hands, such as solar and windpower, as opposed to those

that require the expenditure of much money for technology, such as

nuclear-powered electrical generating stations and coal-powered

electrical generating stations equipped with scrubbers. As with any of

the options mentioned in this primer, there are almost as manyvariations in a general basic belief as there are people advocating

them. 40

Str),..'VAI Wiilli oAsTo qf- TILE

r.rfiAtot.ofrEve, even?),

Pt' beg e shoitS positiv hd

Will -4 Ce isthe 'llag these rtior

u,_ 4.30. 0, r our ,00e8 ao, Ions ... niti.

-eikr,,, ,ie of pl q1441).. svOerioine the

co ttlinu.sl'or,_elePine:riestidaelrl;titinullie

f /111P.elle

e and ne.glifitrivs

e.escebnled.13' weEllerIleed to clet

,duable 16:tation ado, vow because

extentrvo rgY co,., seem - P

ti°11 wr°141t1 0 v- rograh7ticy to in oride a largetrujyR '3' conse rie

sib vnutnbePositivefeet ro-tlY Artl....--,,ng gentle insulation Pgrad.

.0 irsprovett-' Would pro our horheairissioni., r of jobs off tItireA`""crthou" espe additionai Iroad r°11iilejag 1:41,?tier liter4,t.g0PC"latio.4".

°I ;WI:Piller :laity our ra'a drasticallystok' Poublic:dg' w°1.110 ' eY- ail° the e-aPilort-recha ettd leraler)t r 0J--- ould '41e ZicearaurlitYen_nza for thet ergy to heatho he en1 0 wake

electricity°11s. v vi Provide a h°/iP

builtr Eta well a'ru e un t

offer ,,,,g

ItIg trades.S.

ENteorte o

iota,here

woniobackbe draw,1t'"With con°They eat exh... ,arnrig

they, vv°141ddouble Would beleagthe e he /less or In timeerter their nu

gr e. ittle rede5;sPensivegr. autos sersoneY, andole th Quid ve insulation;1121131'ov /48e W. tr Ntti

gy cl° snepo e effect/ 01° re-alireng ratioh

, Aznericarl to uPgraderailr ed public thewild on iwo.rig.stook billions of01x1 sire e alone; ro-bs to relocate

hOba Pikras g° d fa /les excessor on ler steps den.

elect road ce°ad bed0 ati4 ttew r eld r ergy -44-10LIS eti°3 ea-

riot._t nearby

`mss knees, e ees, es nergy These $ °n'Etty to place a Par with Swec'ttserva"

..pez-ba too hi or snald be wise. 00 and geeel 1 lo 14," use the

inaril'Oe ht-pa prob MouutitAimerIc art lo a0,60PPear 5,1P

too 1lVate.ial t 1 e 114111

1.1 lieS' I Each

Villatelt There ti

oceicie,, e ps"sibl seriousorlow P0 ili 14 Position of robleni

'''' Well.bor., 118'4.) t scrtibbe ss expeh..Cell° Alen, bet`"iii froth . Witb°/ist eneirlY

RougiVe, thei2-8

are spec:41 abunc:80trop le ar:etihdrceey,aarneril tbeethere areaarll

they. do,. ,,r fuel c tli tire or eatP see 20,00 eni die Y(OLIN'''. t presenu Ai. 4, "ke . . t see

d011131 v ruiners

. DIP' early of

tleit d spa that the. k Would eri vvonidalso would he

power 3). an a; ctothe rrla, a oat

3+' to /so eratini? ,er o

pootle rsta the pric-r 'was' c16 11 and re to repla-

,, itb peril react°

po *,-48 thus it,

renuclearfor leotr7;a1 gerieet, a.nd i;ttite. Ilitran'razi7cttion.

But svacieetedsaved

could go

yeatat'oO

he 11.e-- S thou u° 000 b

1,000,0,,14 State yes e.r1 Year -37 build' radiationfonts thtite ov h" ro the or a territo abillty, ears to

bleadioactive

, tx,,,.,, ..t. CO _de Are......4 ,., A.

the °tack' with a' toki WIllinli°11% the aSunt willing ttObnucr

we .iir- .yeu pert:, in the ceoiovfefde bty,,wi 0 11 n . leles not se effect"lull d0eof c, e . o a e°4171. bete ?"ee we tie teeno acceP-eowiced

an aver to thet the

be 7.:(1, greenhey.tiage of 50?Tbert .t1, °rid c BfroebY Nv

Areill° that a re: ure od under

11els°1411d miningslag Pileseriviront:e is thiprioe

e h of ero Iltface ix r P° 'tie%) unsightlYold pit,, ent in L- i09"1%1, ?late

' and cave'tent, ,., if coal ,..ile in theCoal easir

iiiii3 particularly 14 gasified vii'leation41 ... ,

.

e., .

0 mil,

-sw-

pollution

gveniad corsitu). There are vast coal reserves readily awilable and in-sitxi eou_stsion to low BTU gas for electrical producuon eliminates

gasification is in itsproblem because of the clean-burning quality of

cost is an unknown inasmuch as in-situ113414,,,,, Faccerive use of water and scarring of the enviro

t.9?Ci alliti0112unegative tradeoffs often cited.

nment are

Ghtsiniog oil from shale has similar tradeoffs. The United States con-

tanut e Areas of shale, and the oil extracted, when burned

13rnvides relativelY little pollution. Excessive conversion expenses,

%lingof the environment, and heavy demands for water in process

ilae p Cie negative considerations.

properly,

It is row'

l-boggling proposition to weigh the drawbacks of conserva

tie N nucleand coal power against each other.

arksybe is best to develop more intensively our known and

(241 and gea reserves, and everything will go smoothly for awhile atlesst. But of must temper this emphasis with the knowledge that

these ,,,,, atilt.? sources. At some point in the next century, we really

will u. -out or oil and gas or else reacheiceedinglY uneconomical to pump these sources from the ground.

private businesses to

Potential

a point where it will become

Ilicentivee orregulations will have to be given

eneo ge them to push exploration. The only other route is govern-baeuowried gas arid oil companies with attendant problems in ineffi-

ciency cartiPtice, and distribution too well -documented

entries detail here.in other

eveothertnelpower offers a bit of hope to the West and Southwest;

a potential panacea for New England. ButthesePow renewable energy souces do not make the difference as

heartland of America is concerned. Wind

of talltsath;:seetr

power would be

ekPensive, intermittent, and difficult. It would take hundreds upontall, unsightly towers to supply just one city

offers the brightestkiunespelis St. Paul with electricity,

gaest hffar

Perhaps solar, Power, literally and figuratively,

the size of

newton of all. Even so, it should be kept in mind that at most it can

be,_cticallY installed to heat space and hot water in millions of

18 staggering $120,000,000,-111, eriosi,

ham"- The cumulative cost

.;_ut)0 ifsolar water and space heaters are installed in 30,000,000 dwell-

ixijulmuni cost of $4000 each. Who will pay for this? Who will44gs at athe incentive for effecting changes of such magnitude? And

e.nergy willjob is completed, it should be remembered that in many

th theprovide a maximum of 75% of the

ing needel- A f°ssil-fueled back-up system will need to beAnd fu 1-2 a

tafied,e.,.. ready to go on short notice when a succession of

spells a halt to solar-provided heat.cloudy daYs

space

or spites_ite of its cost and lack of dependability at times,

ofpossibility of tremendous reductions in the burning of fossil

solar eh an es cr :

fuels which .ar, e a rmite energy source and pollute the atmosphere with

Arbonaioxiae ag 1 Oncewell. ..,..ce a solar boom does get underway, these

Units can42

be installed rapidly and offer increased employment to

ten-year ametal workers, and

armies of carpenters, electricians, piumberso,nshceeettnr,e, ,other tradesmen. There will be ,, delay as is the case

owner of a home,with a large electrical generationmind to

station Oncefive. or

takil solaroffice or factory makes up his

matter of vi-eheating, it canbecome a practical reality in a trl s at most.

Electricity generated by the photovoltaic cell is poli

souce L--Qtion free. In addi-,.hat can t betion, the sun provides an energy

used up. Majordrawbacks to this process are high nroduction costs -... enough cells tospite offf si-grlificant cost cut-

energy per

light a 100 watt bulb cost at least '$100 in.radeo sting in the last five years. Other Include high use ofand large areasr watt in constructingnegative t

ide an ed house withneeded for collectors. (To Provelectricity often requires moreprovides.)

averaghe-siz

an the house's roofPhotovoltaic cells only 0square footagethan

and widespreadProvide foruse of photovoltaic cells could serio.-- netuations in power

Peratesunlight

Aght,

Photovoltaiccells

use, depending upon whether the sun is shilling Or not

This explanation of our energy options ends now. We are not lacking inchoices. We even have the choiceof doing

nothing, for a time at least.

much w ,:1ebveloWhich options are chosen and how P each option willbe decided in the coming monthsby a Mix of consumerand W.:-choice, government action, and the choices of privateindustry. A balanced diverse development g °el: is. eraivd

-: scurces or a possi-ble decision to eliminate one or more of themo. fn is difficult

to make.

ng P(InulaNti:rnri.roodpromotion of

It could well be that with our expa

to proceed fullconcurrently expanding. economy, choice. isth e besrtBrown of the

steam ahead with all options. T-0 quote Dr-California Institute of Technology _ would

be well advised to, again rersifydso thatPursue all technological approaches --.at if anything"to dinot be caughtgoes wrong with one, we will have spread t"-vi..p load and

short."'

,41-/43

-"miaow'

to.044IT ca.4%; Allan et tfI Use and

Well -Being The S'...edit% 4.4etttenvr- h-Atient, ,c,01976, P. 1001.

alple," `%ember

2Thicl, p.1004.

albicly P. 1005.

%id, P. 1006.

p.1007.

Geothermal poweriiitomic industrioi Forergok od 414,,, D-C.: by.

the organization, " 221/44. 19;k17. l'wag)

;Robert C. Axtviann,

5,Ptoi Itetet thermal Power

Plant," Science, 7 March 1.9731:11e137g6'4z)f a Ge°

S. PP

3"Background 101°7 op. it 12 November

1977, P. 487-.

5"Geothertold Energies," j),()Ile 19"IP.

76

1 4 Oct

1974.

Geotherriltki s,Cfr°13.jele' °bet

Tidal Power'Tidal Oil '' 11 June 1973

liCark Reyerlebef' .'4 bEtzt st- '4' bze Ntion'p. 756.

2"Tide Power forCanack'''Bt'

eience 443er 19ot 16, P. 15'

&Teat Energy$°Iirce

19e Ticie°1 eieDigest, October 1977

P. 62.

Solar Power

ID.a Flalacy, 7/210 444!Row, 1963), pc,-

2Ralph Nader,"Ralph

1976' P.

York: HarPer

Age of S°N8°1

Nader IleP°Ista''' LadiesHome Journal,

44 .

401..

aNati don and Park Asso., 071...s.2rEArlin Recregi-vir a by Lee Stephenson, P-etou, eol"ble;gam Nuclear Power: The Unvia1301.6'1976), pp- 258-259.r°1418 Press,

manual for

Alto:r.

parks,

wiudtbowerLerger, op. cit., p. 301.

OTti7b,Vork ITIPPel and Robert H. Williaraa, "plar Tech/101008,"of Atomic Saznnsts, November 1975, P. 29.

a Op. cit., p. 302.

ectlicity from the Wind," Time, 13 FebruarY 1978, p. 53.teary19147n47elartd Clark, "Power in the wind," Newsweek, 20 Feb

fieluaas bage & Plant Power11olztrogi?

grzergy Environment Source 13°°In k'Washingt°1:"DC.:- - rowlerTeacher's Assoc., 1975, P. 2"-*Plati°41 Science

"Ault el.° a Source of Fuel and HYdr°carb°n"likeMa-s

t risle'"°cielwe. 2 Deb 1977, PP- 942-944.soAi lie, 10nohn1

Mixture Bikes Mileage," Rockford Register Repah1978,"."2"p.

i'Solar ti F4nergy: An Overview of U.S. Potential" scienic''' 10Osteh 1,9771:sps. 041-1048.

elbici'PP- 1040047-

Other it_ttdeveleped Sources

"Iler, Op, cit., p, 215'

States of Department of Energy, ,.SolarElectricity

fromWaited01."101.t4lic conversion," Washington D.C., P- 5.

tOargaret "The Sun on a Semi- conductor," zpia joarrial,bah 1978, p, 23.4rtee1978,p. 45.elch,olio Reality of Solar Power," Natinit, 21 JAPtigtrY

L,

hete,op. (it., pp. 21-22.

Weekop. 45.

--1111/

Pr°1114in f"1 C4411'' el°,7asificationL. g ,4...01" Coal,"

rem: cellt. 19771°4: AO, ate W4Y tokaul

' bp.%id. 16 Ve,

DO- 133./3

---11111111111/

,'New cool Aware;19John16

Fuels frog"A- F001

A conversion tk,01 Oft ShalePrOtati._ eir- ersi "'gale1 °'"cig 441/13 Oil s egg I'Veek, 30

Shni er to ,,ie uPply,v, BusitiJarmae: The r -t. uome.o,

--`3* 1910' 9December"Pg. - .A

1977 -cue: 4/Qii k-, ff°114,1kkets c)11 the tjp5sill gaill''' ScieAce'

DA. 1011-3atg,sb,. k, 09 tit.,

leas Wee'411oid

''D, 55,

01 -c)thre 6°stIline to 'c PatomoblleProk, . tleCtrl-Ong1977`Zleattic Sete

Sepal en est,lcUlfpp, 7. uc vehew

and15.

u

11.5etir lzuti,-k_

r October I. ande, Fortfrot'ture

el 4-7

-11.

,ferN'tteL._yark T'intes 2011_1_ -mkr r tei "Row 0 °Ugh ?,,fe

NealDon meifl, 7' 41. Safe i5e 1976, el/11)1y R ,`14t1211an offire%1!..clenr, 1977. eDort,

Fa tlut 01$ Wash' °we IPeta fland flpA, 1

Auks 1/, r-e 40,419t3,,,rlml

01011°,4

1)4,.. % t 19 101s,

Attlillie.1.1

r 1%76,P' fear Power,

Wahingt°P

pe Ow

dear P 0 wet,:

by the

12 April

A. 73of califo-P Ori

Stelikk

Be04 tiNg Pi Na.ortpl,a fo ant,%.

46

ti

on Safety of

'"The Great Nuclear Debate," Time, 8 December 1975, p. 36.

Why Atomic Power Dims Today," Business Week, 17 November 1975,p. 105.

9GwYnne, op. cit., p. 71.

cit., p. 72.

1lLeonard A. Sagan, Human and Ecologic Effects of Nuclear Power,(Springfield. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1974), p. 181.

12"One Reason Atomic Power is Under Fire" U.S. News and WorldReport. 21 June 1976, p. 36.

13Cotarnonwealth Edison, "Byron Nuclear Power Station," p. 3.

"Business Week, op. cit., p. 106.

Coal

1"President Carter's Energy Message," Rockford Register Republic, 21April 1977, p. A5.

2Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Oregon StateUniversity, Electric Power Generation: Comparative Risks and Benefits,by C.H. Wang, by the organization, 1973, p. 23.

3Hurbert E. Risser, The U.S. Energy Dilemma,Geological survey, N. 64, July 1973, p. 42.

Urbana: Illinois State

4"Sorne Second Thoughts About Coal" U.S. News, 13 March 1978, p. 25.

Increasing oil and Gas Production

IparrY Commoner, The Poverty of Power, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,1976), p. 57.

2Ibid., p. 53.

Continuing As We Are

'John N. Wilford, "The Good Life Has Found a Limit," New York Times19 July 1977, Section "News of the Week," p. 8.

Summary Which Way to Go The Tradeoffs'Wilford, op. cit., p. 8.

47

partraenvt h 4farld,Paul A. Meyers is a former science de -um eritcl in f?0:/a, nIllinois, and holds two degreesa utaddition, he has Completed graduate

A frell1Prothethe University of Portland, Northern iiiiht)zinvo 1:er an usUniversity of Illinois. He has been activelY -a,science curriculum studies in theterms as chairman of the High Schoo- sciene eo4r4g fort flea s

Rockford aree Zervi in ri ve

Committee.1

f the R_, andFrank C. Witt was, until recently, chairman 0- 1, --uci dieEnglish Department at Wilson Middle ScillyeuandlIck7 Stu Illiv°1e,Holding degrees from Northwestern rr ll,,_, ord,_ allege,he was previously employed as --,nivers-t- N't,, it. ford Co

hisinstructi°vraeducational television system in Araericari Sati2sa. Av,lsor witti tiiwife, Janet, Witt has written a social studies to exit 61, ..9.1I. -tow. with ens

of Revolt and Rebirth Africa, Asia, and the tile eisititu4:,,

The activity which is the subject of thi8in part by the Unitedreport

505supported in whole or

DepartInent of Education. However the °P141 tateexpressed here in do not necessarilY teflett)Ila Do5ition or policy of the United States Departrti the F

Education, and no official endorsement bY thIlt of .dStates Department of Education s;;Jed be 1.4 Un='-'

l'recl.