GOVERN MENT
Slowdown for A-Power Development? JCAE fears new fuel study may stress fossil fuel research at expense of atomic development Members of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy are fearful that the Administration may slow down the pace of atomic power development and divert funds from the atomic energy program to research on fossil fuels. Cause of the committee's alarm is a new government study of national energy resources, scheduled to be a major factor in next fall's budget discussions of allocation of funds for development of energy resources. The new interdepartmental study, ordered by the President, is designed to provide a perspective to judge the desirable level of effort and programs proposed by the Atomic Energy Commission and other government agencies in developing energy resources, Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, science adviser to President Kennedy and head of the Office of Science and Technology, told the committee. One of the questions the report will attempt to answer, Dr. Wiesner says, is "what degree of urgency should the nation attach to nuclear power development in the light of the projected availability of conventional energy re-
sources, which should last well into the next century?" And Under Secretary of the Interior James K. Carr did little to allay the committee's fears. "There is room for much debate on the question of how soon this nation will have to depend on nuclear power for a substantial part of its energy requirement," he said. Studies Galore. These developments, took place at the annual hearings on the state of the atomic energy industry. This year the committee restricted the hearings to AEC's report on the future of atomic power. In general, the AEC report urges strong emphasis on breeder reactors for the long term and new emphasis on developing efficient thermal reactors in the interim period (C&EN, Dec. 3, 1962, page 2 1 ) . According to Dr. Wiesner, the new interdepartmental study will complement the AEC report by covering fields not included in the AEC study. The new study, he says, will give a comprehensive picture of the whole energy program. Committee members were critical of
the need for still another energy study. Rep. Chet Holifield (D.-Calif.) pointed out that government studies of energy resources over the past 10 years comprise 30 volumes, and he exhibited a stack of reports more than 2 feet high to emphasize his point. "One of the best ways to kill a program is to study it to death," he said. Dr. Wiesner said the Administration has no intention of killing the atomic power development program. Rep. Holifield said he was glad to have that assurance, but he still fears that there may be delays in the atomic program and diversion of money from this field .to other projects. "A study is often an excuse for withholding funds," he says. According to Dr. Wiesner, the Administration goes along with AEC's proposals, at least for fiscal 1964, as shown by the budget request for atomic power development. But the Administration cannot commit itself to the entire AEC proposal in advance because the President must be free each year to make a decision in the light of over-all budget problems. As a result of the new study, Dr. Wiesner says, there may be some small changes in the atomic power program in the light of budgetary needs, but he foresees no great change. However, committee members fear that if a peiling is clamped on total R&D spending in the future, as seems likely, increased spending for research on other energy sources could mean serious cutbacks in the atomic power development program. Interior Speaks. According to Mr. Carr, the major points of the Interior Department's proposals for development of energy resources are: • The atomic power development program should go forward as rapidly as possible within the limits of available funds. • Research, development, and exploration in fossil fuels should also go forward on a scale commensurate with their present and long-term importance to energy resources. • More attention should be paid to non-nuclear unconventional sources of energy—solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy.
Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner
Rep. Chet Holifield
Administration has no intention of killing atomic power program
One of the best ways to kill a program is to study it to death
28
C&EN
MARCH
4,
1963
"The nation can ill afford an energy research program that puts all our eggs in one basket," Mr. Carr says. Even if nuclear-generated electric power accounts for half of the electricity consumed in the year 2000,
as AEC forecasts, nuclear power would still be meeting no more than 2 5 % of t h e United States' total energy requirements. We must develop a comprehensive and balanced plan that will satisfy all of our needs rather than only part of them, he adds. The Interior Department believes that there should be no delay in developing nuclear energy at the lowest cost possible; it would be unwise to wait until the development had to b e made on a crash basis. But Interior believes we should also proceed with research to drive down the cost of using fossil fuels. The rate of atomic power development proposed by the AEC report would extend the life of the fossil fuel supply by less than 100 years, Mr. Carr says. And, h e adds, this development would not assure retention of fossil fuels for chemical uses, as has sometimes been suggested. Development of atomic power will not appreciably lessen the need to advance all aspects of fossil fuel technology, he says. Fortunately, the United States is under no "sink or swim" pressure to achieve economical energy production from nuclear sources, Mr. Carr says. "We can act promptly but deliberately, without plunging prematurely into high-cost developmental projects that might become obsolescent in a comparatively short time," he adds. Committee members wanted to know why the Government would have to step up research on fossil fuels when this obviously is a problem for private industry. Mr. Carr pointed out that in some areas, such as coal gasification and oil shale conBEFORE version, the risk is too great and the RUN A DAY'S SULFUR DETERMINATIONS payout too far off for industry to MORNING COFFEE BREAK WITH FISHER'S NEW shoulder the burden. INDUCTION SULFUR APPARATUS In less time than it AEC Optimistic. AEC still believes takes to bring a conventional hot-tube furnace up to temperature, you can that atomic power will soon be competitive with conventional systems. run 10 accurate sulfur determinations with the new Induction Sulfur ApDr. Glenn T. Seaborg, chairman of paratus—and keep right on running them at the rate of 10 an hour. You'll the Atomic Energy Commission, told finish a day's usual sulfur work by midmorning. The new apparatus warms the committee he is even more op- up in 30 seconds, is simple to operate, can handle up to 2.5 grams of timistic this year than last that nuclear power will be competitive with ferrous or nonferrous metals. Connect it to a Fisher Model 36 Titrimeter® conventionally-generated power in and the entire analysis is· automatic. Full facts in free Bulletin 10-466. some areas by 1967-68. Write for it and ask about acquiring the Induction Sulfur Apparatus through And AEC commissioner Dr. Leland the Fisher Financing Plan. Fisher Scientific Company, 10.1Fisher Building, J. Ha worth pointed out that unless Pittsburgh 19, Pa. J-296 ' there is a marked decline in conventional fuel costs, nuclear plants should be competitive in as much as half of the large-plant market by 1975 and Worïdf s Largest Manufacturer-Distributor of Laboratory Appliances & Reagent Chemicals in a n increasingly large portion of Boston · Chicago · Fort Worth · Houston · New York * Odessa, Tex. · Philadelphia this market in the following decade.
_ FISHER SCIENTIFIC
Pittsburgh · St. Louis · Union, N. J. · Washington · Edmonton · Montreal • Toronto
