February, 1973

energy to be found in uranium. While this is not an efficient use of the uranium, this source would provide several decades of all U.S. energy needs--at current rates of usage.

The second stage of nuclear energy development will presumably use the now-being-developed breeder reactor, of which a first commercial version is expected in the early 1980s. The breeder will use approximately 70% of the energy in the uranium and could supply the United States with effectively unlimited energy at current rates of usage.

Unfortunately, nuclear reactors produce plutonium that could be used in nuclear weapons. The result may be to encourage proliferation. Safeguards for fissionable material will become especially important.

The third stage of nuclear development will involve fusion reactions. Based on widely available deuterium, even a thousand years of steadily increasing usage of energy would become possible. Also at least at the present time-it seems that this method, which might become feasible early in the next century, would have the least environmental problems of nuclear methods.

Nuclear power is the obvious answer but it too has its problems. One problem is the disposal of nuclear wastes. A 1000-megawatt nuclear plant now produces a cubic yard of nuclear waste each year which must be kept in perpetuity. (But the comparable fossil plant produces 10 million pounds of particulates, 46 million pounds of nitrogen oxides, 100 to 190 million pounds of sulfur dioxides, and 300 to 380 million pounds of ash per year.) This waste must be guarded for thousands of years. However, the United States is already in the business of managing waste as a result of its weapons program; by the year 2000 we will have produced only as much additional nuclear waste through reactors as we have already salted away through weapons production.

There is a problem also of low-level emissions of nuclear radioactivity from the plants, with its attendant necessity to keep scrutinizing the standards to which man is exposed. And finally, most important, there are the safety problems of reactor operations.

Reactor Safety is the Most Serious Nuclear Problem

The reactor now most in vogue uses water as a coolant. If the water pipes should break, the reactor will turn itself off immediately but it will continue to generate heat nevertheless. Unless an emergency cooling system operates immediately, the fuel would melt through its container and large quantities of the radioactivity inside the reactor could be distributed over county-size areas. Such accidents are not especially likely. Hopefully, before any such rupture of the pipes, other abnormal indications would lead to shutdown of the plant. Still, the accident is possible; indeed, sabotage of some kind is a possibility. To protect against these possibilities, reactor safety research on emergency measures should be pursued vigorously.

The AEC originally planned to destroy a test reactor to check on the dispersal of the radioactivity. Later it was decided that this would not prove anything, and the idea

NEW TECHNOLOGY

"RUNNING LIKE A DRY CREEK"

Page 3

There is no longer a debate over whether the Nation needs a stronger energy R & D program. This is one of the few points on which the energy industry, the Government, environmentalists and concerned citizens all agree. We want clean air and energy too. But what we have are shortages of clean energy and an abundance of pollution. The Nation is on a collision course between environmental goals and the growing appetite of the American consumer for more energy. Yet the flow of new technology to produce energy in an environmentally acceptable way is running like a dry creek. . . . What is lacking, in my view, are the institutional arrangements and the financial commitments in government and industry to carry these options through the development stage promptly and effectively. In a word, the problem areas are the management and funding of our energy R & D programs."

-Statement of S. David Freeman before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, "Energy Research Policy Alternatives, June 7, 1972, pages 209 and 210

was dropped. Concern over public awareness of the radiation hazard may have played a role. Instead, it was decided to use the reactor to test safety devices such as the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS). The AEC Division of Reactor Safety first showed its concern that the test might not work out so well by insisting on building the reactor to even better standards than the average plant! This undermined the value of the experiments to be done.

The AEC says that these tests of ECCS are a year or two behind-considering when it was decided to undertake them. After some equivocation, AEC spokesmen say that a "proof-test" of ECCS is still planned. But there is a good deal of quibbling over what constitutes such a test and one wonders if AEC will, at any point, have the courage to risk the destruction of the reactor-with all the adverse publicity that might result-in order to see if ECCS works in at least one realistic full-scale experiment. As things stand now, at best, at least a hundred plants may be constructed before any integral test of their emergency core cooling systems is undertaken; conceivably, this test may never be done.

While all of these sources of energy have problems, the demand for energy continues unceasingly. Energy demand has grown at about 3.5% a year for decades; this is a doubling time of 20 years. Demand for electric energy has been growing however at 7% per year or doubling every decade. Considering the production shortages of gas and oil, this demand means that there must not be any missteps in planning for the production and distribution of fuel.

Energy Should Not Be Subsidized

In the meantime, a mix of energy sources must be expected. How best to see that the different forms of energy

Page 4

are distributed efficiently to those who need them?

It has long been U.S. policy to keep the price of energy low. This has undoubtedly stimulated the economy but it tends to depress the energy industry itself. Thus, very low prices for gas, enforced by the Federal Power Commission, can make it unprofitable to search for gas, especially the gas that is least profitable to find and produce.

In a period of potential energy shortage, therefore, we should be sure energy consumers pay at least the marginal costs of the energy they consume. Otherwise, if they pay less, and energy production is subsidized, the consumer does not need to recognize how expensive the energy that he is using really is. Hence he makes no effort to conserve it. If, however, he finds that the products that use energy intensively are becoming more expensive, he can exercise his desire to produce products or services that are cheaper.

Thus, while Government intervention in the development of new sources of energy can be very necessary, some Government intervention in the economic markets for energy can be counterproductive. While consumers use about 25% of the energy consumed in the country, industry uses about 40% so that the preponderance of rate increases would be passed along indirectly through industry adjustments.

Costs of Energy Consumption Should Be Internalized

Those who burn coal, or drive cars, or spill oil, have tended to pollute the environment without paying the costs of either protecting the environment or setting to rights the depredations they have caused. When we argue that the consumer should pay the true costs of energy, we should include these external social costs as well.

One very important case in which this occurs arises from the pollutant sulfur which is present, in varying quantities, in coal, oil and gas. One method of internalizing the cost of the air pollution that results is simply to put a tax on the sulfur emissions. FAS has long supported a tax of 20¢ per pound of sulfur pollutants, as have many other organizations. Another example arises in stripmining. Why should not the price of coal include the costs of restoring the land that has been disrupted by strip-mining?

Another set of costs of energy production that should be internalized are the health costs. Rather than have the Congress pay more than a billion for protection of black lung disease-an affliction of miners--the coal industry should pay for it. And the price of this protection should be included in a somewhat higher price for coal. Needless to say, this would not help make the coal industry competitive. But if the subsidies for gas and oil were ended, this method of pricing would permit a fair decision among energy sources in the light of their true costs.

Still another case concerns the Price-Anderson Act which limits the liability of nuclear power corporations in the case of accidents. Why should liability be limited? The price of the electricity should include the full insurance costs necessary to award damages. (Although, presumably, the Government would have to be the insuring agent.) This would conserve energy, protect the public in the case of accidents and keep nuclear energy on an economic par with other sources of energy which have internalized their health costs.

February, 1973

FAS CONCERNED OVER

NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

A large nuclear power plant, during full operation, contains an enormous quantity of radioactive substances comparable to those produced by a thermonuclear bomb. The power plant cannot detonate but, should anything occur to spread its contents into the open air, even a fraction of them is enough to endanger life in a county-size or even larger region to a dangerous level, demanding instant evacuation of all residents. It seems likely that such an accident could mean death to tens of thousands of people under an unfortunate set of circumstances. Therefore, the use of nuclear reactors to meet our energy needs and they can greatly help-depends on prudent design, careful construction and scrupulous operation.

Naturally, such an accident is not expected but, while it remains possible, we cannot ignore it. It can happen by the laws of chance. Of course, a single such event would likely end for a long time any public acceptance of the genuinely useful possibilities of nuclear energy. Therefore, we see great importance in the recent Union of Concerned Scientists documents on light-water power reactors. We believe that UCS has performed a most useful public service in forcing a public debate on the questions of reactor safety in general, and the Emergency Core Cooling Systems in particular. In the opinion of some of us, who have examined the problem, their documents have shown that existing Government studies do not support the reliability of the emergency systems designed to cool the reactor in the event that its cooling water is suddenly withdrawn due to accident or sabotage.

All things considered, we believe that a prudent course of action would include:

1. a priority reexamination of the licenses of opperating light-water cooled reactors with a view to lowering their permitted power levels where necessary, as a secondary line safety measure against the inadequacies of present emergency systems.

2. the same strict reduction of power rating for reactors under construction or on order.

3. a new emphasis on alternative reactor systems which promise greater inherent safety against such unlikely but terrifying catastrophe.

4. an increase in the development of long-range alternative sources of power, especially solar. fusion, and geothermal power.

5. a crash program of stepped up reactor safety research.

In general, we believe that the AEC should seek to bring the great resources of the national laboratories squarely to bear on these problems of reactor safety and should not discount arbitrarily the conclusions of outside research.

-Council of the Federation of American Scientists

February, 1973

RESOURCE DEPLETION ESTIMATES While the immediate, short-term energy crisis concerns cleanliness and distribution of fuels, the prospect for medium and long-run absolute shortages of fossil fuels is a real one. The material below, and the graphs on the next page are taken from an excellent report of a "Cornell Workshop on Energy and the Environment" sponsored by the NSF RANN Program, and issued by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

"If past history is any guide, 30 to 50 years are required before a new, acceptable, and feasible technological concept makes a significant, sustained impact on society. This societal inertia can be overcome, of course, by a concerted developement and implementation effort on the part of the federal government, but such an effort is fraught with political and economic difficulties. Thus, while there is no doubt that these technological solutions to energy supply problems deserve significantly increased attention and funding, it will be necessary to rely on more conventional energy sources over the next 30 to 50 years.

The question, then, is how to extend present supplies of energy (and how far they can be extended) until some of the new technologies are able to pick up the burden of supply.

We have examined four basic cases for each of two models of growth in demand (an extrapolated growth model-EGM-which assumes past exponential growth in demand for gas, petroleum, and electricity continues at 6.2 percent, 3.9 percent, and 6.1 percent per year, respectively; and a reduced growth model-RGM-which assumes that growth in total demand for gas, petroleum, and electricity drop to 3 percent, 3 percent, and 4 percent per year, respectively). The four cases are: (1) neither imports nor synfuel are available-all demand must be met by domestic supplies; (2) imports are not available but synfuel production begins phasing into the supply picture in 1980, and grows until it meets all of the annual incremental demand for petroleum and gas by 2000; (3) synfuel is not available but imports increase according to the NPC estimates until they supply 60 percent of domestic demands, and remain at 60 percent thereafter; and (4) both synfuel and imports are available as described above.

These results are summarized in Table 5.

The results are striking in several respects.

(1) If the low rather than the high estimates of ultimately recoverable resources are correct, the outlook for domestic gas and petroleum supplies is grim, despite massive imports and accelerated development of synfuel production facilities. Even the abundant coal resources will be exhausted by the mid-twenty-first century unless growth rates in demand are reduced significantly.

(Continued on Page 6)

Page 5

RECENT PROPOSALS REORGANIZING

ENERGY ADMINISTRATION

The President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization proposed, in January 1971, that the Federal Power Commission become a Federal Power Agency headed by a single administrator. In addition to FPC responsibilities (mainly supervision of gas and electricity in interstate commerce), the FPA would administer the Public Utility Holding Company Act now in the province of the Securities Exchange Commission. (See "A New Regulatory Framework," sold at GPO)

A "New Energy Sources Corporation" was proposed by Senator Frank E. Moss (D., Utah) which would, in particular, pioneer in the development of energy from oil shale, tar sands, and the sun. (S.2510, 92nd Congress)

A Joint Committee on Energy was proposed by Senator Henry L. Bellman (R., Okla.). It would not have legislative powers but would do appropriate studies and make suitable annual reports. (S.J. Res. 58, 92nd Congress)

A Council on Energy Policy was proposed by Senator Warren G. Magnuson (D., Wash.) and Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.). CEP would have its membership appointed by the President and would be responsible for setting national energy policy. (S. 3802, 92nd Congress)

Formation of an Energy Agency (or Energy Development Agency) out of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was proposed by S. David Freeman (statement to House Committee on Science and Astronautics, May 25, 1972) and by Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, former AEC Chairman (Science Magazine editorial, June 16, 1972).

An Energy Commission for research, regulation and planning was proposed on November 14, 1972 by a committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. In a book-length report, “Electricity and the Environment: the Reform of Legal Institutions," it also proposed an Energy Agency to consolidate development research on all forms of energy sources.

Cumulative consumption (cubic feet)

1012

Ryman's estimate

World ultimately recoverable www resources

(after Hubbert)

Page 6

RESOURCE DEPLETION, from Page 5

(2) If the domestic resource base is represented more by the high estimates than the low, the outlook is somewhat brighter. In this case each of the three options buys some additional time; and all three taken together can provide sufficient time for the introduction of new supply technologies.

(3) The most significant action that can be taken, in terms of extending the availability of domestic fuel supplies, is to embark on an expanded import program. This is, at best, only an interim solution for at least two reasons: (a) the implications for national economic health and security of essentially total dependence on foreign fuel supplies are not presently known and could be serious, and (b) world requirements for energy supplies are growing more rapidly than our own, so that there is the possibility that depletion of world energy resources could occur on the same basic time scale as for United States resources."

Cumulative consumption (barrels)

1013

1011

Fig. 11-Cumulative U.S. requirements for petroleu (Crude + NGL)

1013

1012

World ultimately recoverable resources

Averitt/Hubbert - minable

(World)

Averitt/Hubbert - minable* (world, excluding USSR)

Averitt/Hubbert/ADL- NEF (1970-71)

U.S. ultimately recoverable resources (minable)

www

Bureau of mines (1970)

1011

1

1970

Year

Fig. 12-Cumulative U.S. requirements for cool

DECEMBER FAS NEWSLETTER

the suggestions in that document in mind during the months ahead. When changes seem to be required by the passage of time, by the changing of world scene, or by changes in American attitudes, they will be acted on.”

Subsequent to the FAS Newsletter, Thomas Bradenthe former high official of the Directorate of Plans who initiated the infiltration of the National Student Associa tion-published a syndicated column suggesting that these activities were no longer necessary.

February, 1973

HARLOW SHAPLEY DIES AT 86 Today, FAS contains 40% of American Nobel prize winners, but none of our scientists was more eminent than Harlow Shapley, none more courageous, and none participated more vigorously in public affairs. An original sponsor of FAS, Dr. Shapley had intellectual and human qualities which we cherish, hold important, and seek to live by. At the December 27, 1972 meeting, the Council requested that the newsletter carry these sentiments; excerpts from a lengthy and excellent New York Times obituary appear below.

"Dr. Shapley used a newly discovered yardstick of astronomical distances to displace our planet from its last claim to special status in the universe. The yardstick, based on a relationship between the intrinsic brightness of certain variable stars and their pulse rates, enabled him to show that the earth and the sun are nowhere near the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, as had been supposed.

During the first half-century of his life, his accomplishments as scientist, educator, administrator and author established him as the dean of American astronomers.

But when World War II and then Hiroshima gave proof that mankind had the means to destroy itself, the learned Harvard astronomer and professor began to shift his attention from distant galaxies to the plight of the inhabitants of his home planet.

Having willingly left the sanctuary of the academic and scientific worlds, he entered the lists of public affairs to do battle against ultranationalism, greed, hunger, pride and prejudice. He espoused unpopular causes that he believed to be right; he condemned the cold war that broke out in the late nineteen-forties, and he urged in its stead a policy of coexistence.

In November, 1946, Dr. Shapley was subpoenaed by the House Committee on Un-American Activities to answer questions about the Massachusetts Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences and Professions, of which he was chairman.

After a heated wrangle with Dr. Shapley, Representative John E. Rankin, Democrat of Mississippi, who had been sitting behind closed doors as a one-man subcommittee, emerged with the angry comment, "I have never seen a witness treat a committee with more contempt." He threatened contempt of Congress charges.

"Gestapo methods," retorted Dr. Shapley, who concededly was scornful of the committees methods of investigating allegedly subversive groups. He advocated abolition of the House committee, which, he said, was making "civic cowards of many citizens" and was using the "bogey of political radicalism" to suppress liberal thought.

Mr. Rankin let the matter drop. A month after the incident, Dr. Shapley was elected president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a move that was interpreted at the time as a rebuke to the committee and a token of the scientists' faith in Dr. Shapley."

Page 7

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT BOARD

NEARS OPERATION

How did it happen? The first new addition to the legislative branch since 1923, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), joins the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) as the third resource arm of Congress. With an authorization of $5 million a year, OTA may have 85 or 90 staff people by the end of the next fiscal year. Moreover, the ruling Technology Assessment Board (TAB) turns out to be composed of six Senators and six Congressmen-in effect, the composition of a joint committee. It is now official that Senator Kennedy will be the Chairman of the TAB.

The conventional wisdom has it that the power of Chairmen or Congressional Committees would be so affronted by a creation of this kind that OTA could never come into being. Indeed, if the OTA had been first proposed as a Joint Committee with an enormous staff, it probably would not have passed. Instead, it was proposed to have outside experts on the Board until, late in the game in the name of Congressional control-it was amended to have Congressmen preside. But even so, one would have expected that some kind of charge of lost jurisdiction, or diffusion of power, would have been raised. It looks, however, as if most Senators hardly noticed the bill's passage; in the House of Representatives, they may well have rightly-considered the OTA to be a useful addition.

In any case, it is an extraordinary creation. Its hearings will have the impact of a Joint Committee since it will have the Congressmen and Senators to draw the press.

In addition, OTA will do six or eight month studies, much as GAO does in-depth studies of Government affairs. Alternatively, OTA can recommend that the National Science Foundation (NSF) do the studies. Since Senator Kennedy is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the National Science Foundation of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee, NSF will presumably agree.

Finally, OTA will undertake short studies at the suggestion of Congressional Committees. Here, it will function as a kind of Congressional Research Service with more analysis than CRS usually has time to produce.

The subjects available to OTA are very broad. OTA is defined in a related staff study as the "thorough and balanced analysis of all significant primary, secondary, indirect and delayed consequences or impacts, present and foreseen, of a technological innovation on society, the environment or the economy." Thus, studies could be done on energy, computers, medical technology, oceans, mass transit, and so on.

Still to be decided is the identity of the Director-although this seems likely to be former Congressman Daddario. OTA will also have a Technology Advisory Council of ten persons whose names have not been decided. They will choose their own Chairman. And there will be a series of ad hoc committees similar to the President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) but not restricted only to scientists. Technologists, environmentalists, consumer advocates and so on would apparently be welcomed also.