(3 of 6)
Prudence dictates that the U.S. build nuclear plants only when practical, economical and safer alternatives are not available. There is still time to search for alternatives, while also working to tighten the safety of nuclear plants themselves. Electric generating capacity nationwide exceeds expected peak demand by 33%. That figure is not quite so reassuring as it sounds; utility-company officials contend that at least 18% "excess" capacity is required to meet unexpected surges in demand, guard against breakdowns and allow for maintenance. Still, the nation has some breathing space to figure out how many new nuclear plants are required, and how soon.
A study by the Harvard Business School indicates that the U.S. can indeed reduce dependence on nuclear power while avoiding holding itself up to ransom by foreign oil producers. It is summarized by Professors Robert Stobaugh and Daniel Yergin in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. The key findings:
Under present policies, nuclear power, which now provides the equivalent of the energy in 1 million bbl. of oil per day, would supply the equivalent of 3 million bbl. per day by the late 1980s. Even so, imports would rise from the present 9 million bbl. per day to 14 million. However, policies can be envisioned under which nuclear output would be only doubled, not tripled, and oil imports still held to their present level. The nation would have to adopt a rigorous conservation program (for example, better insulating of present buildings and requiring that new ones be held to tight standards). As President Carter noted in his energy speech last week, "Conservation is our cheapest and cleanest energy source."
In addition, the U.S. would have to make a heavy push on solar energy, which the authors calculate by the late 1980s could produce four times as much energy as it would under current strategies. To achieve so large an increase in solar power so quickly, say the professors, the Government would have to pay out generous tax credits and subsidies, redirect research away from huge solar satellites and "power towers" toward smaller panels fitted to individual buildings, and encourage utilities to finance and install solar gear for their customers. "Solar" in this case means not only energy from the sun itself but also from so-called biomass: burning garbage and agricultural waste.