!! spellx done
262  Scientists' Statement on Energy Policy
     April, 1975

     We, as scientists and citizens of the United States, believe that
the Republic is in the most serious situation since World War II.  
Today's energy crisis is not a matter of just a few years but of
decades.  It is the new and predominant fact of life in industrialized
societies.

     The high price of oil which we must now import in order to keep
Americans at their jobs threatens our economic structure--indeed,
that of the Western world.  Energy is the lifeblood of all modern
societies and they are currently held hostage by a price structure
that they are powerless to influence.

     In the next three to five years conservation is essentially the
only energy option.  We can and we must use energy and existing energy
sources more intelligently.  But there must also be long range realistic
plans and we deplore the fact that the public is given unrealistic
assurances that they are easy solutions.  There are many interesting
proposals for alternative energy sources which deserve vigorous re-
search effort, but none of them is likely to contribute significantly
to our energy supply in this century.

     Conservation, while urgently necessary and highly desirable, also
has its price.  One man's conservation may be another man's loss of 
job.  Conservation, the first time around, can trim off fat, but the
second time will cut deeply.

     When we search for domestic energy sources to substitute for 
imported oil, we must look at the whole picture.  If we look at each
possible energy source separately, we can easily find fault with each
of them, and rule out each one.  Clearly, this would mean the end of
our civilization as we know it.

     Our domestic oil reserves are running down and the deficit can 
only partially be replaced by the new sources in Alaska; we must, in
addition, permit off-shore exploration.  Natural gas is in a similar
critical condition; in the last seven years new discoveries have run
far below our level of gas consumption.  Only with strong measures
could we hope to reverse this trend.

     We shall have to make much greater use of solid fuels.  Here coal
and uranium are the most important options.  This represents a pro-
found change in the character of the American fuel economy.  The
nation has truly great reserves of these solid fuels in the earth.
Our economically recoverable coal reserves are estimated to be 250
billion tons and exceed the energy of the world's total oil reserves.
Our known uranium ores potentially equal the energy of 6,000 billion
tons of coal; lower grade ore promises even more abundance.

     The U.S. choice is not coal or uranium; we need both.  Coal is
irreplaceable as the basis of new synthetic fuels to replace oil and
natural gas.

     However, we see the primary use of solid fuels, especially of
uranium, as a source of electricity.  Uranium power, the culmination
of basic discoveries in physics, is an engineered reality generating
electricity today.  Nuclear power has its critics, but we believe they
lack perspective as to the feasibility of non-nuclear power sources
and the gravity of the fuel crisis.

     All energy release involves risks and nuclear power is certainly
no exception.  The safety of civilian nuclear power has been under 
public surveillance without parallel in the history of technology.   As
in any new technology there is a learning period.  Contrary to the
scare publicity given to some mistakes that have occurred, no 
appreciable amount of radioactive material has escaped from any commercial
U.S. power reactor.  We have confidence that technical ingenuity and 
care in operation can continue to improve the safety in all phases of
the nuclear power program, including the difficult areas of 
transportation and nuclear waste disposal.  The separation of the Atomic
Energy Commission into the Energy Research and Development 
Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission provides added 
reassurance for realistic management of potential risks and benefits.  
On any scale the benefits of a clean, inexpensive, and inexhaustible 
domestic fuel far outweigh the possible risks.
 
     We can see no reasonable alternative to an increased use of
nuclear power to satisfy our energy needs. 

     Many of us have worked for a long time on energy problems and
therefore we feel the responsibility to speak out.  The energy famine
that threatens will require many sacrifices on the part of the American
people, but these will be reduced if we marshall the huge scientific
and technical resources of our country to improve the use of known
energy sources.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------