"ENERGY DEVELOPMENT: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE"

James T. Ramey, CommissionerU.S. Atomic Energy Commission

Washington, D. C.

Introduction

I have chosen to talk today on the subject of en-ergy development. There are indications on all sidesthat the serious nature of the energy problems facingthis country is being widely recognized. Energy hasbecome so fashionable a subject that it now rivals"The Environment" and even "Women's Lib" as a topic ofdiscussion.

More seriously, however, I do believe that,throughout the Nation, there is a growing awarenessthat our social and economic well-being is inseparablylinked with the continuing availability and properutilization of clean energy supplies. As engineersyou will have a better appreciation than most of thereasons why this is so. You will also understand whywe need to take actions now to assure that our futureenergy requirements are met while simultaneously pro-tecting and enhancing the quality of our environment.

Signs of the growing awareness of understandingthe energy problem are to be found on every hand.There is hardly a periodical or newspaper of staturethat has not run a feature article or series of arti-cles on this and related themes. For instance, TheWashington Post recently ran a five-part series whichcomprehensively treated this subject in many differentaspects. The assessment presented by the Post in thesearticles did not differ in essentials from the Admin-istration view of the nature and seriousness of theproblem. And I must say that any time there is agree-ment between the White House and The Washington Post,the problem must indeed be widely understood!

Also worth noting in this connection is the extentto which energy is the prevailing theme of conferenceafter conference of major professional engineering so-cieties. So for instance, one finds The Energy Crisisas a major topic at the recent ASME Annual WinterMeeting in New York. In this same vein, the PowerEngineering Society of your own organization is spon-soring a Conference on Research for the Electric PowerIndustry in cooperation with ASME next week in Wash-ington. In other words, the message is beginning tobe conveyed to all sectors of society and hopefullythis can be expected to enhance the likelihood thatactions will be taken to cope with the problems in-volved.

In my remarks today, I would like to interpretand provide some insights on the Energy Crisis inlight of our past experience. T want to particularlydiscuss the contributions of the various constituentparts in the nuclear community in helping to providesolutions to our energy problems, with some emphasison the scientific and engineering disciplines involvedand the institutional and organizational arrangementsneeded to bring these resources to bear on the problem.

It seems appropriate in this connection to tryout and update a theory I advanced some ten years ago--based on the experience of the 50s and early 60s --

of the "right" and "left" in the field of science andtechnology teaming up on the vital center, or progres-sive as I call them, in developmental programs.

The mounting interest and concern about the three

"Es" -- Energy, Ecology, and Economics -- has tended toovershadow the means of developing solutions in theseareas. Thus I want to go back one letter in the alpha-bet to the three "Ds" who play such key roles in theprocess of providing solutions -- the "Dreamers," the"Doubters" and the "Doers." Briefly, the "Dreamers"are the idea men -- those who generate the conceptualideas. The "Doubters" are those who, for variousreasons, question and slow up or block the forwardmovement of technology. The "Doers" are the scientistsand engineers and others who get the job done. I'llhave more to say about the three "Ds" as I move along.

The Three Phases of Energy Problems

Notwithstanding the gains that have been made inengendering public understanding of the nature of theenergy problem, there is perhaps less awareness that westill have a long way to go in developing effectivesolutions. Nor is there appreciation of the fact thatthe types of problems we face are a function of thetime-frame being considered. It is important to recog-nize that there are short-term, intermediate, and long-term energy problems, and that the solutions for thesediffer significantly. Also the players and their rolesdiffer depending on the stage we are talking about.

To illustrate, our short-term difficulties insupplying electric power in the next few years are notlikely to be solved by some new technology such as thelarge-scale use of thermonuclear fusion or solar ener-gy. To solve our short-term electrical supply prob-lems (over the next 10 years), we need to develop im-proved methods for building and licensing power plants;these plants will have to use, for the most part, thecurrently available commercial power plant technology,fossil and nuclear.

Over the intermediate period (next 10 to 20 or 25years), we can expect more help from energy researchand development. In my view, development of the ad-vanced type of nuclear power plants -- the breeders --and coal gasification will have a significant benefi-cial effect beginning in, say, 10 to 25 years. Outfurther in time -- at the turn of this century and be-yond -- the more novel technologies might help us meetour long-term energy needs.

Getting back to my "doers" and "doubters" and myold theory, I would point out that a relatively new ad-dition to the doubter group has been the environmental-ists. By and large they take an exaggerated doomsdayview on current and future problems, and then latch onto evangelistic and far out solutions to the allegedproblems. Perhaps a recap of a discussion between aVice President of a middle of the road conservation or-ganization and me, held at the AIF/ANS joint meetingsin Washington last month, will illustrate my most re-cent application of the theory I referred to. Thisrepresentative is known as a moderate environmentalistand generally favors nuclear power. We participated ona Panel on "Nuclear Power and the Quality of Life," andhe took a somewhat "doomsday" approach to our almostinsurmountable problems of water use and pollutionstating:

"The present world situation for water use is de-scribed as poor with the future outlook uncertain;" on

43

air polution he said:

"The worldwide air pollution situation is bad, par-ticularly in the big cities anid the outlook is it prob-ably will get worse before it gets better;??

on food supply he indicated:

"The world situation is bad and the outlook, grim."

As to energy development and nuclear (fission) power,he stated:

"Many environmentalists, both from within andwithout the scientific community, are convinced thatfar too many crucial human safety problems in nuclearfission concerning the control and disposal of radioac-tive materials remain unresolved not to upgrade thepriority of technically maturing the newer, cleanerapproaches to meeting the insatiable appetite of thepeople of the world for energy."

In this connection he stated that:

"Nuclear fusion holds the most long-term promise,but is being developed much too slowly."

Our Environmentalist's conclusion based on theseutopian premises -- was almost foregone -- the statusquo would continue.

ItSo fossil fuel -- a nonrenewable resource and thebiggest air polluter -- will probably supply most ofthe world's energy needs for decades to come."

So we see here the uneasy alliance (for different rea-sons) between the utopian and the status quo, with usdown-to-earth progressives in the middle. This remindsme of the old story about the opponents of legalizedliquor down in East Tennessee near Oak Ridge. Therewas this strange alliance between the preachers andthe bootleggers that maintained the status quo atevery local option election.

Short-Term Energy Problems

In addressing this Nation's energy problems ourfirst concern must be with the here and now. In thenuclear area alone there are at present 152 nuclearpower units in operation, under construction or onorder. They represent an extremely large commitment inmoney and resources. Moreover, in the years just aheadthe availability of power -- and hence the public wel-fare -- will depend heavily on the timely completionand reliable performance of these many plants.

We must keep in mind that public acceptance of nu-clear power will depend to an important degree onwhether these plants, after a reasonable maturing peri-od, deliver the reliable, economic and safe power whichhas been promised from them. As we all know, the pub-lic is inclined to judge by the straightforward testof sucess or failure. Success in this first majorcommitment to peaceful nuclear power application willresult in a further and expanded role for nuclear ener-gy in the ways I and many others have projected. Onthe other hand, serious difficulties would impair pub-lic confidence in ways that would take years to over-come.

We are all aware that serious delays are being en-countered in placing new large electric generatingstations -- of all types -- into operation. There aremany causes for these delays. Some are the result oflabor and management problems. Others have resultedfrom deficiencies in design and construction which have

shown up in the pre-operational testing of the plants.In the case of nuclear plants, problems have resultedfrom the fact that the industry has had to expandvery rapidly to meet the demands.

While technical problems continue to cause diffi-culty, recent experience suggests that Governmentalregulatory processes at all levels are becoming a pre-dominant factor in the overall "delays problem."Again, there are a number of causes for the regulatorydelays; the most critical of these, recently, has beenthe need to meet the requirements of the National En-vironmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmentallegislation.

In order to minimize and eliminate undue delaysin nuclear plant licensing, we have developed improvedprocedures for public hearings and intensified ourefforts on technical criteria, codes and standards.Major actions have been taken to reduce the backlog ofaccumulated work. Procedures for improving licenseapplications are being stressed, and better reviewhave been instituted to improve the licensing process.

Despite our best efforts to expedite proceduresfor nuclear power plant licensing, further delays coulddevelop in several large nuclear plants scheduled togo into operation in the next year. The delays in op-eration of these nuclear plants combined with delaysin other types of power plants may result in powershortages -- particularly if we experience severeweather conditions.

These considerations have emphasized the need topress, as the AEC has, for the prompt development anddisciplined use of engineering standards, for exactingquality assurance programs, and for the assignment ofthe most experienced technical and management personnelto power plant projects. Taken as a whole, the prob-lems being encountered indicate the need for substan-tially strengthened management. This need extends toall those sectors of the energy industry which are in-volved in the design, construction, and operation ofnuclear (and fossil) power plants: the utilities,reactor plant suppliers, architect-engineers, construc-tors, and equipment vendors. All have important re-sponsibilities to make sure that these plants are de-signed, constructed and operated to meet requirementsfor safety, reliability and economics.

As most of you are aware, we have achieved a meas-ure of success in engendering increased recognitiontnroughout the nuclear industry of the need for accel-erating the development and approval of needed engi-neering standards and related quality assurance prac-tices. During the past year the Nuclear TechnologyAdvisory Board of the American National Standards In-stitute (ANSI) has appointed technical area managersto accelerate the development of high priority nuclearstandards. A number of these standards are being de-veloped under the auspices of the ANSI N41 and N42committees of which IEEE is the Secretariat. An exam-ple of the work being conducted under this effort isthat by the Task Force on Valve Operability which isresponding to recognized needs for standards in theareas of qualification testing and valve operability.Mr. William deMauriac has been made available by thePhiladelphia Electric Company to head-up this effort.

As of October 15, 1972, ANSI had approved 190nuclear standards, including 128 proprietary nuclearapplication standards. As the number of ANSI standardshas mounted, the regulatory arm of the AEC has inten-sified its efforts to review them and, where appropri-ate, to reference them in various Safety Guides. Onerecent example is Safety Guide 30: "Quality assurance

44

for installation, testing and inspection of instrumen-tation and electrical equipment," which referencedIEEE Standard 336-1971.

Les Rogers, our AEC Director of Regulatory Stand-ards, is going to discuss engineering standards insome depth in your Session No. 2.

Notwithstanding the many difficulties encounteredwith respect to engineering standards, it now appearsthat there is a substantially heightened awareness ofthese matters. One of the best indicators is thespeech of Shearon Harris, Chairman and President ofthe Carolina Power and Light Compnay, before the re-cent AIF/ANS annual meeting. In speaking of thecommitment to quality assurance, Mr. Harris said, andI quote:

"I would be less than candid if I did not admitthat our Company' s rush to establish and implement acomprehensive quality assurance program was sparked bythe AEC requirements. However, we have come to real-ize that this really was not a burden thrust upon us.Instead, it is a management tool without which we cannot perform our job as effectively."

I strongly recommend this speech for every execu-tive and every engineer in the energy business.

In addition to our continuing emphasis on qualityassurance and engineering standards, the Commission isactively encouraging and supporting activities leadingto greater standardization of nuclear power plants interms of their design, fabrication, construction,testing and operation. As indicated in a Commissionpolicy statement issued last spring, we believe thatconsiderable benefits to the national energy programand to the public will be derived from such standard-ization.

As far as our short-term problems of getting nucle-ar power plants on the line, generally speaking we cannot look to research and development for the answers.Development of the necessary base technology for lightwater reactors was completed several years ago. Theproblems now relate to the practical implementation ofthis technology. While the AEC no longer sponsorsextensive research and development programs for thedevelopment of the current generation of reactors, weare continuing to maintain a vigorous reactor safetyresearch program. This effort relates primarily tothe development of techniques for analyzing, measuring,testing and maintaining the integrity of the fuel andprimary system coolant boundaries and the effects ofpostulated accident sequences or abnormal operatingconditions. While these programs are expected to pro-vide considerable assistance to applicants for reactorconstruction and operating permits, and they are en-couraged to use test data and analytical methods de-veloped in the AEC safety R&D program, it must berecognized that the responsibility for safety and theadequate support of license applications restssolely with the utility owner and operator.

Thus, information from the safety R&D program mustbe viewed as base technology from which individual de-signers and operators can draw information to be usedin their specific plants. Safety R&D represents animportant factor in the design and safety assessmentin design of individual plants; however, it constitutesonly one of many considerations that must be factoredinto the judgments related to design, constructionand operation of that plant.

Intermediate Term Energy Problems

I would now like to turn to the intermediateterm, where research and development can and shouldprovide significant solutions to our energy problems.

The highest priority program in the nuclear fieldinvolves the development and application of the ad-vanced reactors -- particularly the breeders which areessential if the full promise of nuclear energy isto be realized. The President well characterized theimportance of this program when he stated in his 1971Energy Message:

"Our best hope for meeting the Nation's growingdemand for economical clean energy lies with the fastbreeder reactor."

In a very real sense, the breeder represents per-haps the most difficult and challenging energy develop-mental program ever undertaken in this country. Assuch, it will require reaching a new level of excel-lence by all parties participating in its developmentand commercial introduction. It will also demand aclosely coordinated and cooperative effort among theAEC, our laboratories and contractors, and the powerindustry.

In establishing these working relationships wewill need to draw heavily on our experience in estab-lishing sound and effective working relationships a-mong scientists and engineers, both of whom are neededto achieve success in advancing technology frontiers.I think all those in this audience will have somefamiliarity with the differing viewpoints and ap-proaches that characterize scientific and engineeringendeavors. We have found through much experience thatthe condition of success in any advanced project in-cludes finding ways of resolving such differences. Itfurther involves the establishment of arrangementswithin which both scientists and engineers can per-form in complementary and mutually supporting roles.

Our liquid metal breeder program provides an ex-cellent example, I believe, of a far reaching programembracing almost the entire sweep of engineering andscientific disciplines. This program involves theexpenditure of some 250 million dolars annually andis carried out in a large number of organizations.Significant measures have been taken to align, consol-idate and strengthen the key laboratory and industrialcontractors involved in the liquid metal breeder pro-gram. For instance, major strengthening reorganiza-tions have taken place at the Argonne National Labora-tory and the Hanford Engineering Development Labora-tory. The AEC's reactor development staff has likewisebeen strengthened. Emphasis has also been placed ondeveloping much closer relationships among the AEC,our laboratories, the reactor manufacturers and theutilities. Very considerable progress has been made inthis direction.

The LMFBR effort embraces research and developmentprograms across a broad spectrum ranging from fundamen-tal investigations in physics, metallurgy, and chemis-try to the engineering and construction of systems,components and facilities of widely varying scope andcomplexity. All these advanced efforts must be orderedone in support of the other, in systematic fashion toaccomplish the end objective of the program: thesafe, reliable and economic operation of breeder reac-tors on the power grids of this Nation. Establishingthese mutually supportive and mission oriented ar-rangements has been a difficult task. More remains tobe done in continuing to strengthen it. Nonetheless,we believe that we have learned how to effect the

45

needed coherence between the efforts of the scientistsand engineers in pursut of a common objective.

We are now, of course, going into the demonstra-tion plant phase of breeder development with a con-siderably greater role for industry-laboratory-AECcooperation.

In addition to the effort on the breeder, we needto intensify our R&D on the fossil fuels -- particu-larly on coal. Coal is relatively much more abundantthan either oil or natural gas, and from a resourcestandpoint could perhaps last a couple of centuries.Because of the shortages of oil and gas, it can beexpected that there will be a greater shift to coal inthe future. However, coal still suffers from a numberof drawbacks which will limit its growth. Many con-sumers -- including the railroads and homeowners --have shown a preference for other fuels. And perhapsmost importantly, environmental and safety problems --both in the mining and use of coal -- have grown in-creasingly more difficult to solve.

It is obvious that means to remove sulfur fromcoal, or sulfur dioxide pollutants from stack gases,are essential if coal is to achieve the growth expectedit. Another possible alternative is to convert coalto more desirable energy forms such as synthetic gas orliquified fuel.

If these problems are to be solved, there needs tobe considerable infusion of funds, direction and insti-tutional support.

Long-Term Energy Problem

As resources and capabilities are marshalled on thebreeder as the solution to our energy problems in theintermediate phase, many have been led to comment onour good fortune at having this option. We are indeedfortunate that nature has provided us with the oppor-tunity but we must also not forget that it is notmerely a matter of good fortune but also of foresightand vision of the Dreamers who foresaw the possibili-ties Over a period of two decades the Doers and theDreamers working in concert have systematically estab-lished a technology base from which we are now launch-ing into the demonstration plant phase of this program.

Some 12 years ago when I was Executive Director ofthe Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the Committeeheld a series of hearings in which it looked intoFrontiers in Atomic Energy Research. In its reportthe Committee said,

"It is evident that the long-range applications ofnuclear technology must come through a process thatstarts with the basic knowledge and proceeds throughplanning and purposeful action into what will becomethe short-range development projects a decade or twohence."

The Committee also took note of the fact that,

"Occasionally work in a peaceful context on a long-range application starts through general recognitionof promise in a possiblity; more often it startsthrough the long-painful, often discouraging promo-tional efforts of a single man or of a small dedicatedgroup.Y"

In these words is clear recognition of the importanceof the Dreamer.

Thus as we look for energy solutions in the long-range, we must remain ever aware that

"Whether we have options 20 or 30 years hencewill in large measure depend on our foresight and ourwillingness tc establish an atmosphere in which theseedling projects of far away applications can competeeffectively with the pressures, schedules, and require-ments of short-range urgent work."

With this in mind it is worth mentioning some of thelong-range possibilities now being explored.

One of the most important of these is fusionpower. This process involves the fusing of light atomsat high temperatures and pressures, and is similar tothe processes occurring in the sun and in the hydrogenbomb. The prospect of unlocking the virtually unlimi-b-ed energy available from heavy hydrogen in the oceansis indeed an exciting vision However, the first proofof the feasibility of fusion power is yet to be provid-ed. With additional R&D support, we hope to prove tech-nical feasibility in this decade. I might note thatfunds for the nuclear fusion program have been signif-icantly increased over the past few years from around$25 million to over $60 million per year, taking intoaccount laser fusion.

Notwithstanding the increasing level of funding,it must be kept in mind that we have only begun to facethe many difficult technological problems that must besolved before thermonuclear fusion can join our otherenergy processes on an industrial basis. With goodfortune and determined effort this may occur early inthe next century. I can assure you that when we suc-ceed in establishing the technical feasibility offusion, we will then proceed aggressively with the en-gineering development needed to bring this concept intoindustrial use. But it won't be easy.

There are a number of other, more novel, poten-tial sources of energy. These include, for example,solar energy, geothermal energy, tidal power, andharnessing the Gulf Stream. The potential of the morenovel sources should continue to be assessed, and whereappropriate, additional R&D should be undertaken tosearch for practical means of exploiting these sources.

Speaking of solar power, I am reminded that inthe JCAE hearings just referred to, Dr. Lof who wastestifying before the Committee queried me as StaffDirector as to whether we were exceeding our authorityin getting into this area. I recall my rejoinder tothe effect that inasmuch as the energy from the suncame from thermonuclear processes it quite appropriateilycame under the jurisdiction of the Committee, Sincethat time I am pleased to report the Atomic Energy Acthas been amended and the AEC has received some signif-icant new legislative authority -- included in our FY1972 authorization act -- that permits us to conductresearch and development in all energy and environmentalareas. Specifically, we are proposing to conduct R&Ddirected toward:

(a) The improvement of the heat rejection capa-bility of dry cooling tower systems.

(b) The development of underground electricalenergy transmission capability.

(c) The development of more effective means forbulk energy storage.

The Commission and its laboratories have broadexperience in developing technology related to the pro-vision and utilization of energy. For example, underthe law as it existed prior to August 11, 1971, ourlaboratories, in conjunction with private industry and

46

other governmental agencies, already had done extensiveresearch work in such fields as desalting, thermaleffects, and power plant siting.

We believe the capabilities of the Commission, itslaboratories and its contractors are uniquely suitedto work in the development of new technologies andimprovements in existing technologies for the produc-tion, transmission and utilization of energy. Al-though our initial efforts in the non-nuclear tech-nology field are modest, they represent an importantbeginning in our implementation of the broader charterprovided by the Congress.

Anyone who has carefully studied the energy situ-ation in this country recognizes that there will bemany additional R&D opportunities -- in non-nuclearas well as nuclear fields -- in the years ahead. To alarge degree the role of the AEC and its laboratoriesin these future efforts will be influenced by the skilland timeliness with which the nuclear energy programcommitments are met. Continuing evidence of progressin our civilian power programs, particularly in envi-ronmental, safety and breeder development programs,will provide the most meaningful demonstration thatefficient and useful contributions can be given tothe resolution of other problems that face the energycommunity.

Bringing long range concepts to the point wherethey are available as options for actual applicationswill place demands of formidable proportions on ourscientists and on our laboratories. As the basic tech-nology advances, more and more engineering effort willbe needed.

Similarly, there will be increasing need to bringthe resources and capabilities of industrial organiza-tions into the development efforts. As noted earlier,we belive we have acquired much experience that willenable us to effect the needed concert of action amongthe scientists and engineers and among laboratoriesand contractors so as to provide these advanced tech-nologies with optimum prospects for success. Thebreeder program is further enhancing our capabilitiesand understanding in this regard.

In moving forward with these advanced programs, wewill obviously need the best people we can find fromall sectors -- the laboratories, the industry, and theuniversities. We need to encourage ideas along theentire spectrum of activity -- ranging from the basicsciences to applied engineering. We know from past ex-perience that significant gaps exist between the areasof basic research and short-term development projects.There must be real communication and collaboration be-tween the basic scientists and the applied technolo-gists, in order to assure, as I indicated earlier, thatbasic knowledge proceeds through planning and purpose-ful actions into the development projects a decade ortwo hence.

Conclusion

In concluding, I would like to stress my beliefthat we must use all of our energy sources and re-sources to meet our future needs, and we must learn touse them wisely and efficiently.

Meeting this goal places a heavy responsibility onthe scientific and engineering professions. In par-ticular, it imposes a responsibility for each member ofthese professions, and for the societies who are theircollective voice, to measure up, as perhaps never be-fore, to the highest standards, both technological andethical.

Personally, I am confident that with proper or-ganization, planning, improved regulatory processes,and an intensified program of R&D, this Nation's ener-gy needs and the environmental effects associated withenergy production and use can be harmonized. We canand must have both additional energy and a healthy anddesirable environment, and the public will benefitfrom such an achievement.

And when we are proposing to build our firstdemonstration plant for thermonuclear fusion in the1960's, I'll bet that our Environmentalist's succes-sors will be saying::

"Don't do it. Fusion is too polluting with allthat tritium. Let's go for 'Gravity Power' based oncollisions of quarks."

47