It is my purpose in this paper to provide an overall energy perspective to the role of nuclear power in the years to come and touch on some of the applicable public policies. The small Energy Policy Staff which I head is part of the Office of Science and Technology, directed by Dr. Lee A. Du — Bridge, the President’s science adviser. The task of the Energy Policy Staff is to attempt to coordinate the efforts of the differing and often con­flicting government programs dealing with the various forms of energy — oil, coal, gas, nuclear energy, and hydropower. The Staff also sponsors studies of the long-term questions facing the nation in the energy field with a view toward reshaping policies to meet future needs.

First, I shall step back from the current controversy over nuclear power plants and examine the role of energy in the economy — past, pres­ent and future. Today we live in a high energy civilization. But man was slow in developing the ability to use energy sources other than his own muscle power. From prehistoric times until about 1700, man’s supple­mental energy was confined to animal muscles and the energy from wood and other materials used essentially for cooking and heating. The amounts of energy involved were trivial. Even so, they enabled man to inhabit many regions of the earth that would otherwise have been too cold to sup­port human life and to make the few tools and utensils which were essen­tial to his survival in a hostile environment.

Even as late as the early 1800’s the amount of energy consumed was exceedingly small, and practically all of it was supplied by wood, wind, and waterwheels. The fossil fuel reserves of coal, oil, or gas in the United States were virtually untouched. Wood was used as a fuel for the early steam engines, riverboats, and railroad locomotives, which were invented

and slowly developed in the 1700’s and early 1800’s. Until 1830, this na­tion obtained all of its energy from renewable sources. After 1830, coal became a contributor to the nation’s requirement for energy, but even as late as 1870, just a century ago, wood still provided 75 per cent of the energy supply, and coal the remainder.

By 1870, the industrial revolution was in full swing; steam engines and other energy-consuming machines began to contribute to the rapid growth in energy supply which a century later shows no visible signs of tapering off. This growth was, of course, accelerated by the fact that in the 1880’s energy became available in its most versatile form — electricity.

Many Americans identify hydroelectric power with energy supply because high dams and the lakes they form are much more photogenic than other energy sources. However, hydropower has consistently sup­plied less than 5 per cent of the nation’s energy supply, and its role in the future promises to decrease in relative importance because most of the best hydroelectric sites have already been developed. Electricity has to date primarily been generated by fossil fuels. Of these, coal made possi­ble the rapid industrial growth that occurred in the late 1800’s and the early 1900’s. By the turn of the century, it had displaced wood and, if both bituminous and anthracite coal are combined, accounted for about 90 per cent of the energy supply. In the succeeding 70 years, overall en­ergy consumption has grown so that the annual consumption of energy in the United States is now nine times what it was in 1900; in the process, oil and gas have replaced coal as the dominant source: Petroleum, first discovered in the United States in 1860, became a major source of fuel after mass production of the internal combustion engines began in the early 1900’s. And around 1930, when the technology of long-distance pipelines enabled natural gas to be economically transported for long dis­tances, the use of natural gas began to grow. Since World War II, natural gas has moved from a minor role to its present supplying of about 31 per cent of the energy supply; oil supplies about 44 per cent, coal about 20 per cent, and hydropower about 4 per cent. Nuclear energy today supplies less than 1 per cent of the energy needs of the United States.

This brief history stresses the recency of the use of nonrenewable energy sources. But of even greater significance is the enormous rate at which such uses have increased. Per capita energy use in the United States today is almost three times as great as in 1870, and the total energy con­sumed is fifteen times as great. It is really impossible to convey in mere words or statistics the enormity of this nation’s use of energy, and it is cer­tainly impossible adequately to portray the even larger quantities of all sorts of fuels which wifi be required in the future. However, some feeling for the rate of growth can be conveyed by the facts that in the next 20 years this nation will probably consume more energy than has been con­sumed in the previous 70 years of this century, and that next year’s con­sumption will exceed all of the energy that was consumed in this nation before 1900. Electric power, with which we are concerned here, is the fastest growing form of energy. We blithely speak of doubling the use of electric power every decade, but that doubling process has reached the point where a very big number is being doubled —an investment of $80 billion.

In this age when large statistics in terms of dollars and quantities are part of everyday routine, one tends to be oblivious to their implications. However, the enormous projected growth in energy needs goes to the heart of the question of using nuclear power. First of all, we must face up to the impact on the environment of producing, transporting, and burning the enormous quantities of energy that will be required to supply all future needs. The most limiting factors in the future production and consump­tion of energy may well be the already contaminated air, water, and land resources. Environmental, health, and safety problems seem to play no favorites in the energy field — they are present with every form of energy. At the production end, there are serious health and safety problems in the mining of both coal and uranium. Strip-mining of coal has left many a scar on the landscape. And experience at Santa Barbara suggests that taking oil from the rich offshore reserves in some areas presents far greater po­tential hazards to the marine environment than previously assumed.

Electricity is transported through high-voltage lines, which are met with increasing opposition from those who consider them an intrusion on the landscape. Natural gas transportation involves the safety hazard in­herent in pipelines under high pressure through populated areas. And the transportation of oil by tankers poses a threat to the marine environment and shorelines when accidents inevitably occur.

The burning of fossil fuels — whether in automobiles, industrial plants, or otherwise — contributes the major share of the nation’s air pol­lution problem. Fossil fuel electric power plants lead to major environ­mental air and water pollution, as well as spoil the scenery. Nuclear plants promise to alleviate air pollution, although they have special environmen­tal problems which have been brought out in the earlier papers in this vol­ume. Minimizing these environmental impacts seems to me to be the over­riding challenge which is crucial to the future of our use of energy. It is a problem that should command the best research talent, large funding, strict enforcement of regulatory standards, long-range planning, and,

above all, a determination and commitment by the American people and all levels of government that the job must be done.

The enormity of future energy needs has another lesson to teach: Those Americans who for decades have been concerned with the conser­vation of natural resources were right — there is only a limited quantity of fossil fuels. And although the quantities are large, from the perspective of overall history, our high energy civilization may consume them in one big luncheon.

The magnitude of the nation’s future energy requirements also sug­gests that we should strive to develop greater efficiency in all aspects of energy use. When such large quantities are at stake, obtaining the same energy output by even a small increase in efficiency means annual savings of millions of tons of coal, millions of barrels of oil, and like quantities of other fuels. There are opportunities for increased efficiency in the conver­sion of fossil fuels and uranium into electricity, in the conversion of gaso­line to energy in an automobile, and elsewhere. Aside from the need to conserve our resources, increased efficiency is extremely important in terms of environmental protection. The surest way to alleviate air and water pollution and other environmental problems is to obtain energy by producing and consuming a smaller quantity of fuel.

The most striking fact about energy resources is that though oil and gas dominate the energy market, and will continue to do so for the foresee­able future, they are the two energy sources for which there are the small­est known potential supplies. In broad terms, resources of natural gas and oil in the United States are sufficient to meet growing needs for decades, but certainly not for centuries. There are quite large untouched reserves of shale oil and coal reserves, but when one matches these reserves with the projections of future demand, it is clear that the availability of nuclear energy is timely indeed.

In addition to being an energy source, the fossil fuels are an irre­placeable raw material for the fast-growing petrochemical industry and are even a potential source of proteins for food. If fossil fuels alone were used to meet increasing energy needs, there is the real possibility that na­ture’s product of a hundred million years could be consumed within the next century. Nuclear power offers an alternative which should have great appeal to a high energy civilization which is awakening to the fact that its resources are limited and, without conservation, could be exhausted.

The enormous future growth in energy use also points up the impor­tance of its price to consumers. One of the foundations of our economy is a low-cost energy base. There will of necessity be upward pressures on the cost of electric energy to reflect measures to protect the environment. To offset these increases, there should be technological developments that provide savings. Nuclear energy is already producing helpful interfuel competition; the development of the breeder reactors is the most promis­ing prospect for cost reductions in the next few decades. Also needed is a much more intensive research and development effort on the fossil fuels. Otherwise, the huge reserves of coal and other fossil fuels may be avail­able only at steadily increasing costs after richer deposits run out and less accessible, marginal sources must be tapped.

Usually those of us associated with the energy field paint this picture of future growth in a most unquestioning manner. But we should pause to ask, Is all this energy really needed? The growth in energy supply is, of course, not an end in itself, but merely reflects the needs of a growing in­dustrial nation. But isn’t the preservation of our remaining unspoiled areas more important? Wouldn’t it be preferable to stop the uncontrolled growth of industrialization? Perhaps it would. Many of us, I suspect, long for a simpler life. Many of us oppose any industrial threat to the natural envi­ronment, including power plants which are big and hardly beautiful.

Unfortunately, however, a return to the “simple life” is not in the cards. First of all, the growth in energy consumption reflects the increase in population. If we are serious about checking the deterioration of the en­vironment, we should give more serious attention to population control. But the growing demand for energy has consistently outstripped popula­tion growth — it goes hand in hand with a rising standard of living for peo­ple and a greater mechanization of industry. Dr. Jean Mayer, President Nixon’s nutrition adviser, has pointed out that people in affluent societies such as the United States and Western Europe are responsible for a much larger drain on resources and the environment than the people in underde­veloped nations. Pollution is a by-product of affluence, not poverty. This rather obvious fact is overlooked by most people who think of population control as a program necessary only in underdeveloped areas or countries where there is a shortage of food. Americans are occupying larger homes, which they keep at warm temperatures in the winter and, increasingly, at cool ones in the summer. A family which operates an automobile — or two or three — consumes more energy for transportation than it would to go a comparable distance in a less affluent country, where it would use mass transit. Each new household convenience is a consumer of energy. As in­dustry becomes more computerized and more mechanized, its consump­tion of energy tends to increase. Increased productivity, to meet increased needs and desires, often requires more intensive use of energy.

I doubt that there are many Americans who are willing to turn their backs on the comforts which are made possible by the increased produc­tivity of our economy. In one sense, the adverse impact on the environ­ment of the increased use of energy is part of the price that we are appar­ently willing to pay for the standard of living that most of us enjoy and to which the remaining citizens in the land aspire. But we must reduce that price to an absolute minimum if the race is to survive.

There is even a more fundamental reason why abandonment of the present growth pattern is unlikely. After man’s long struggle for bare sur­vival and simple comforts, the stage has been reached where most people in this country are trained and paid for thinking. An abundant supply of low-cost energy is essential to continue this trend, freeing man from bur­densome chores and enabling him to spend more and more of his time en­joying the pleasures of affluence, leisure, and education.

It is for these reasons that national policy has long been to assure an abundant supply of low-cost energy. This policy has been implemented through a variety of approaches. Favorable tax treatment has been af­forded to producers of oil, gas, and minerals to encourage exploration and development. Low interest loans have made rural electrification economi­cally feasible, and federal dams have produced low-cost hydropower. Fed­eral lands have been opened for fuels development. Regulatory agencies have assured that the price of natural gas and electricity are reasonably related to costs. And perhaps most important, large sums have been spent for fuels research and development of new energy sources, primarily for nuclear power. These various federal policies, administered by many dif­ferent agencies, have all contributed to an energy supply that is among the cheapest and most abundant in the world.

In recent years there has been an awakening in the land to the fact that we have failed to recognize the damage to our environment that was being caused by our production and use of energy and by other activities. Thus, an overriding and, to some extent, apparently conflicting public policy has evolved to protect the quality of the environment. We have come to realize that the use of energy is more costly than formerly sup­posed. Needless damage to land, heating of rivers, contamination of air, and other external effects are being caused by man’s use of energy. These costs have not been reflected in energy prices, but the costs are neverthe­less real and the public at large and future generations are paying them. The response has been a steadily increasing number of governmental ac­tions to minimize the damage to the environment.

The public policy for environmental protection is already having its impact on the energy industries. The Water Quality Act of 1965 estab­lished the machinery for fixing water quality standards that impose limits on the discharge of waste heat from steam power plants into waterways.

Under the Water Quality Act, these thermal pollution standards are adopted by the states subject to approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Within the past year the standards have been made effective in almost all states. In a similar manner, the Air Quality Act of 1967 has provided for state-imposed standards for air pollution control that are subject to ap­proval by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The first standards under this act are for the control of sulfur oxides and particulate matter, of which electric power plants are a principal contributor. They are now in the process of being made effective in the major metropolitan areas where air pollution problems are the most pressing.

Increasingly rigorous standards to control the major source of air pollution — the motor vehicle —have also been put into effect in recent years. And there are countless other instances, such as the coming enact­ment of a strong coal mine safety bill, which reflect the intensifying public concern about the overall effects of its need for energy. As a reflection of this concern, President Nixon has formed an Environmental Quality Council, made up of Cabinet members. Mr. Nixon himself serves as chair­man, and Lee A. DuBridge as executive secretary. The Council brings en­vironmental questions to the highest level of government for decision and action.

The new concern for the environment in the energy field is trying to catch up with environmental problems that have long accompanied the use of fossil fuels. The air pollution problem in the cities, which is almost entirely the result of burning fossil fuels in motor vehicles, power plants, and industries, is not a problem of the future — it is with us today, every step of the way on the city streets. The research and regulatory efforts un­der way involve a concerted effort to reduce existing levels of pollution and to provide technology to do so at reasonable costs. Similar efforts are being exerted with respect to mine safety, control of oil spills, and numer­ous other environmental problems. It is going to take a great effort to pre­vent these problems from getting worse by sheer weight of increased us­age. It will take an even greater effort to improve the quality of the envi­ronment.

The intense interest in the environmental problems of nuclear plants therefore is not an isolated situation, but merely a part of the growing con­cern for the environment which is subjecting all industrial activities to greater scrutiny. The problems of air pollution and other issues discussed above deserve and are receiving the same kind of scrutiny and attention as is being given the nuclear plant problems. Those in the nuclear energy in­dustry have little basis for feeling that they are being singled out, even

though this is perhaps a natural reaction of every group when the public interest in environmental quality first addresses itself to their problems.

There is, however, a fundamental difference between the environ­mental protection policies for nuclear energy and those for other fuel sources. The effort to perfect the peaceful atom is of recent origin and was started with full recognition that building safety into nuclear power plants was absolutely essential. The civilian nuclear power program began as a monopoly of the federal government. When the Atomic Energy Act was revised in 1954 to open the door to private enterprise participation in the civilian power program, Congress lodged in the Atomic Energy Commis­sion the responsibility for administering a substantial licensing program to protect the health and safety of the public against radiation injury. Thus, the public policy of environmental protection with respect to radia­tion hazards from civilian nuclear power is reflected in the very birth of the commercial use of nuclear power.

aec’s nuclear safety program consists of a combination of regulation and research which has been strongly supported as a central feature of the aec’s work. My purpose is not to justify the aec’s regulatory program— there are other contributors to this volume far more capable than I of do­ing that. I merely want to point out the contrast between energy policies generally, where environmental concerns are trying to catch up with pol­lution that is already causing great damage, and policies in the nuclear field, which is now only emerging and where public health and safety have been a primary consideration from the beginning. It seems to me that the current controversy over nuclear plants reflects the merger of these two trends. Nuclear power has come of age at about the same time that this nation is beginning to manifest an intense concern for environmental pro­tection. In a sense, the current controversy reflects the success of nuclear power as much as its problems. In the past five years there has been great progress in the terms of economic feasibility of nuclear power. It seems to me there has also been a much greater acceptance by the general public that the combination of engineered safeguards and distance from areas of dense population affords adequate protection against the dangers of major nuclear accidents. I do not suggest that there are not lingering questions on this score, but the major focus of public concern now appears to be upon the subtler environmental problems associated with the low-level re­leases of radioactivity to the atmosphere and the surrounding waterways, and other problems such as thermal pollution and the general question of the optimum siting for power plants and transmission lines, which are at best an intrusion on the surroundings.

The aec’s regulatory authority is narrowly focused on radiation safe­ty; it has been in the embarrassing position of holding public hearings on nuclear power plant license applications and having to inform people that it cannot deal with important issues such as thermal pollution and aesthet­ic questions of siting. The situation is a natural result of public concerns that simply did not exist even as recently as 1954 when the aec licensing charter was granted.

We are moving rapidly into a new era where nuclear plants are no longer a scientific curiosity but will become more and more numerous and supply a sizable fraction of the growth in electric power supply. It is timely that we re-examine the associated public policies. There are questions as to federal policy with respect to nuclear power, such as funding of re­search and development for the breeder and fusion reactors as well as eco­nomic regulation. But the subject which I believe is of most concern to this audience is the one that we have been discussing — namely, the proper framework for reflecting the public’s concern for protecting the environ­ment against the dangers inherent in the peaceful use of the atom. For that reason it may be well to discuss for a moment a few of the controversial aspects of aec’s present program in that respect.

I believe that few will dispute that in terms of experienced personnel the Atomic Energy Commission is uniquely equipped to carry out its stat­utory assignment of regulating nuclear plants to protect the public health and safety against radiation damage. This regulatory assignment obvious­ly requires a wealth of specialization which aec now possesses. The regu­latory staff is a separate group within aec. One advantage in this arrange­ment is that the regulatory group is in the same organization as the scien­tists and engineers who are conducting the research and development ef­forts on new reactor concepts as well as developing new engineered safe­guards for existing reactors. Information flows freely among them.

I believe it is, however, relevant that in addition to being charged with regulating the nuclear power industry the aec has the responsibility for promoting the utilization of the peaceful atom. I doubt that there really is any conflict in the basic objective of safety and promotion because aec would certainly fail in its assignment of promoting nuclear power if it did not guard against a major incident. Nevertheless, these dual responsibili­ties do raise in the public’s mind a question of conflict, especially as we begin to focus on questions of the degree of protection against low-level wastes which involve trade-offs between stricter controls and associated costs. It is important where possible for public policies to avoid the ap­pearance of conflict, even when no such conflict exists in practice. It therefore seems to me that the policy issues of whether aec’s regulatory function should be completely separated from aec’s other responsibilities is one which deserves thoughtful consideration in the future.

Another troublesome aspect of current policy is one to which I al­luded earlier. The programs for protecting the environment from the by­products of electric power plants are somewhat fragmented. At the federal level nuclear plants, but not fossil fuel plants, require a license. Even when licensing nuclear plants the aec cannot consider the many environmental problems other than radiation. At the state level the responsibility for wa­ter pollution control, air pollution control, siting, and routing are often lodged in separate agencies and in some instances may be nonexistent. There is obviously a need for better coordination and more comprehen­sive treatment of all of the environmental problems associated with all types of power plants. Under the sponsorship of the President’s Environ­mental Quality Council we are now in the process of taking an intensive look at this question with a task force that includes the aec and other in­terested agencies.

Another controversial question is the proper division of responsibili­ty between the state and federal governments in these environmental mat­ters. Some aspects of the problem such as the routing of transmission lines involve questions of scenic beauty which affect the interests of local resi­dents to such an extent that I should think there would be broad agree­ment that state and local agencies and not the federal government should have the primary responsibility. The federal programs for air pollution and water pollution control have also given the lead to the states. On the other hand, until very recently the aec exercised exclusive responsibility for protecting the public against radiation damage from nuclear power plants. However, the existing policy is confronted by the new, broadened concern and interest in environmental matters which has resulted in this policy’s being questioned in Minnesota.

All of these issues suggest a need for re-evaluating existing policies in the light of the future growth of the nuclear power industry and the awakened public interest in environmental protection. Surely, the prob­lems are great enough to warrant encouragement of informed and positive contributions by all levels of government; at the same time we should all act in concert and not in conflict if we are to achieve our objectives.

Nuclear power, perhaps more so than any form of energy, can be a great blessing or an awful curse to mankind in the future. The basic ob­jective of the nuclear energy program is to provide energy that is cheap enough and plentiful enough so that it becomes a basic raw material. The present light water reactors are but the first commerical step along that road. If the dreams and aspirations of the nuclear scientists and engineers can be achieved, the abundant supply of truly low-cost energy from the breeders and fusion power will provide answers to the pressing shortages of food, water, and metals here and throughout the world. They could move mankind into a new era of material abundance. We are no doubt decades away from the achievement of these goals, but the progress to date suggests to me that the dreams can become a reality if the necessary research and development effort is sustained.

Nuclear energy has great promise for mankind, but we must not and cannot lose sight of the fact that it is inherently dangerous to mankind. It probably is a happy coincidence that the beginning of a large-scale nuclear industry coincides with this nation’s general awakening to the environ­mental crisis which is already with us. As the aec itself points out, the standards and patterns for environmental protection are subject to con­tinual revaluation. As public policy generally begins to reflect the grow­ing concern with the environment, it is both fitting and inevitable that this concern also be reflected in the standards for the emerging nuclear plants.

From my experience, a government regulatory program always benefits from an informed public’s taking an active interest in its work. With the continued scrutiny of nuclear plants by the aec and a lively and questioning attitude by interested and concerned groups throughout the country, there is every reason to believe that damage to the environment from the peaceful atom can be held to a bare minimum and that nuclear energy will indeed become a blessing to mankind.