The environmental crisis which faces us today is well known to anyone who reads the papers, watches television, or listens to the radio. We hear of dying Lake Erie, a threatened Everglades Swamp, Los Angeles smog, polluted rivers, dying forests, and growing mountains of man’s garbage. And we as a nation are becoming concerned — properly concerned — with these things. After decades of apathy Americans are beginning to take more positive actions on environmental problems.

Visible national concern and action on these problems began early in the Kennedy administration. At that time they focused on such pollu­tants as chemical wastes and sewage in streams, and smog and smoke in the air. Indeed, it was the problem of smoke pollution which gave a boost to nuclear power in the 1962-1965 era. Thus, it is more than a little ironi­cal to find nuclear power the current target of adverse criticism as we strive to apply it in the struggle for a cleaner environment.

It is unfortunate that in our new-found concern for the environment we frequently overlook another crisis which is almost upon us — that of meeting this nation’s accelerating needs for energy. The warning signals are readily discernible: the great Northeast blackout of 1965, power shortages in New York during this past summer of 1969, and requests in our nation’s capital for voluntary curtailment of power usage. Those close to the problems of power generation believe we may have only seen a por­tion of the iceberg.

Energy is among man’s most important needs. Without it industrial society would be impossible. Although abundant and low-cost energy is not the only key to a nation’s progress and well-being, it certainly plays an important part. This is particularly true today, when almost every facet of modern life involves increasing energy demands. This nation’s ever-in-

creasing dependence on energy is illustrated by the fact that energy con­sumption in the United States in the year 2000 will be almost 2Vi times the 1965 level. The consumption of electricity is expected to increase over sixfold between now and the end of the century.

This means, quite simply, that more generating plants must be built. In the Midwest alone, a report recently submitted to the Federal Power Commission projected that electric utilities in eight West Central states (including Minnesota) must expand their generating capacity almost 5Vz times over 1965 levels to meet 1990 demands (West Central Regional Advisory Committee, 1969). To meet the mounting power need there is no choice but to rely almost entirely on plants which use steam to drive the turbine-electric generators. We can no longer look to hydroelectric power for much additional help, except for some pumped storage projects, because most of the good hydro sites have already been developed. More­over, steam-electric power plants, whether nuclear — or fossil-fired (that is coal-, oil-, or gas-fueled), are the most effective devices for producing electricity in the large blocks that are needed. Yet the utility companies, whether privately or publicly owned, are encountering increasing opposi­tion on environmental grounds in many areas where they seek to build the needed additional capacity. The opposition is not confined to nuclear plants.

Our vital dependence on energy and on electric power appears to be minimized or forgotten in too many of the discussions of environmental problems. The preoccupation of many is to resist any changes or develop­ments that would alter the natural environment. And this brings the two crises — environmental and energy — together and brings me to my theme: in matters related to the environment, we must consider both the risks in­volved and the benefits to be gained.

This must be done in an orderly way, balancing the benefits and risks early in the planning process, so as to avoid conflicts and crises at a later stage. As I said in testimony before the Muskie Subcommittee in the Senate: “It seems to me that the public interest requires a balancing of all of the factors associated with the establishment of large power plants of whatever type: nuclear, coal, oil, gas, or hydro. While the impact of such plants on our waters is a significant aspect of the total picture, the prob­lem of thermal effects is, of course, an energy problem, and not one which is unique to nuclear power. Other aspects of the picture deserve consid­eration too. I have in mind such matters as air pollution, aesthetics, eco­nomic development and the need for electric power, and, of special impor­tance with regard to nuclear plants, radiological safety.” (Ramey, March 3,1969.)

In developing a balanced approach to meeting power needs, the benefits of nuclear power must be taken into account. The economic ad­vantages are becoming known; they include the following: Nuclear power provides competition to other energy sources — competition which bene­fits the consumer by keeping power costs and rates down. Nuclear power costs do not vary appreciably with location — a fact of considerable con­sequence to regions which are distant from fuel sources. The use of nu­clear power will decrease the burden on the nation’s transportation sys­tems. The unit costs of nuclear plants decrease more rapidly with in­creased size than unit costs of other plants. This characteristic is impor­tant since the general trend is toward larger and larger electric power plants. Nuclear energy has considerable potential for improved operating economics.

In addition to those economic advantages, nuclear power has envi­ronmental and conservation advantages which are less well known. These include: Nuclear power is produced without releasing combustion prod­ucts to the atmosphere and thus contributes substantially in the fight for clean air. Nuclear plants have an aesthetically attractive appearance and in many instances provide opportunities for recreational activities in areas surrounding them. The use of nuclear power will help conserve fossil fuels for purposes for which they are especially suited — such as raw materials for producing chemicals, rubber, and plastics.

This country has been blessed with abundant energy resources. We still possess substantial amounts of fossil fuels, particularly coal. Never­theless, our supplies of fossil fuels are not unlimited and future genera­tions wifi need them even more than we do. The amount of energy in nu­clear fuel resources is many hundreds of times that of the most optimistic estimates of fossil fuel reserves. By using advanced reactors — the breeders — we can use essentially all of the uranium and thorium in nature and thus supply as much energy as this country can use for many centuries to come. This is due to the relative insensitivity of breeders to the price of raw ma­terials. In fact, uranium and thorium in only trace amounts, as in granite rocks, can be considered part of economical ore reserves, which thus be­come almost limitless (“Energy R&D and National Progress: Findings and Conclusions,” September 1966).

The energy of the atom also can be devoted to other purposes such as desalting seawater. The conjunction of two new technologies — nuclear power and desalting — adds a vast new dimension to man’s search for en­ergy and water. Large dual-purpose nuclear plants will enable us to take

advantage of both the atom as a resource for energy and the ocean as a re­source from which to obtain fresh water.

We also can envision nuclear energy centers surrounded by industrial or agro-industrial complexes utilizing the cheap energy. Such a grouping might include interrelated industrial processes for the production of fer­tilizers, aluminum, phosphorus, caustic-chlorine, and ammonia. The com­plex could also include large-scale desalting of seawater for highly intensi­fied irrigated agriculture. The availability of cheap energy would also make attractive the benefication of low-grade ores, such as some of the iron ores in Minnesota.