Basic HTML Version
(1) Get along with less energy and
face the consequences, '!'ith all its poten–
tially disastrous etrects on the economy
and our standard ofliving.
(2) Rely more on imports of oil and
gas. competing with the rest of the world
and placing ourselves in a precarious
and vulnerable position with respect to ·
future price increases and/or em–
bargoes.
(3) Develop new, alternative en–
ergy sources ofour own. This option will
take time, foresight, and dedication, and
certainly is not without risks and pos–
sible failures (see accompanying articles).
Actually, all these choices should play
a. part in Aínerica's energy future. The
first option has already bee!l exercised to
a .certain extent. Electrical power con–
sumption is down. cars are being engi–
neered for better gas mileage, and borne
insulation is increasing. Much more can
be done in terms ofconservation and tbe
reduction of waste. But, conservation
alone is not the answer. We need op–
tions two and three as well.
Option twó, the dependence on for-
' eign oil, may be acceptable in the short
run if it cushions the transition to op–
tions one and tbree. But if it only delays
or precludes the implementation of the
other options, the increasing reliance on
expensive and uncertain foreign source,s
of energy.can only spell economic, polít–
ica~
and perhaps even military disaster
in the future.
·
•The greatest long.term hope must líe
in option three - the development of
altemative energy sources. With a good
measure of luck and hard work, option
tbree may provide the ultimate answer
to our energy oeeds. But time is short.
. Robert
C.
SeamaJ;Is, Jr., the head of
ERDA, puts it this way: "Twice before it
has happened: from wood to coa! in the
19th century, and from coa! to oil and
gas in (his century. Each time it took
about 60 years to reach maximum use.
We cannot atford to take another 60
years to accomplisb the chaÍigeover we
need now."
L9ng before 1776, Americans 'had
come to consider themselves a distinct
aoé:l ditferent people, totally free:·and in–
dependen
t.
Tbe irony now is tbat we
Arnericans, on the eve of our bicenten–
nial, must confess tbat in energy - tbe
very thing whicb he!
pe~ mak~
greatness
and afflueoce possible - we are not in–
dependen!. Instead, we mtist bearken to
the voices of non-Americans with oil
whose declsións will drasti91lly atfec;
our ability to produce, to move, to grow.
America now finds herself in a posi–
tion where the decisions of others atfect
her unemployment rate, her ·economic
bealth, her standard of living. her for–
eign policies, and pertiaps even her mili–
tary security.
Only a dedicated and united people,
witb strong and decisive leadership, can
bope to overcome what is rapidly be–
coming the greatest economic, social,
and political crisis this nation may face
in the l<lst quarter of the twentieth 'cen–
tury.
We'd better agree oo a :course of ac–
tion oow - for there will be no time for
developing new energy sources when the
oil runs out.
o
WEEK ENDlNG DECEMBER 6, 1975
ALTEINATIVEI
••••••••
PIIIEIIEIIII!
As
supplies of oil and natural gas
dwmdle, a mimber of alternative energy
sources are being seriously considered
for providing future p<>wer.
Coa! is a prime candidate for meeting
America's future energy needs. Truly
staggering amounts of energy are locked
up in North American coa! deposits.
The U.S. has 1.3 to 2.0 trillion toos of
coa!, of which 390 bilfion tons are con–
sidered readily recoverable. At curren!
levels of consumption, the U.S. has a
1,600:year supply of coa
l.
But coa! is bulky and expensive to
ship.
lt
requires large storáge facilities,
and much of it is higb in sulfur and
other impurities.
~oreover,
despite .ex–
tensive research, scientists have not yet
found a truly'reliable way to cleanse the
stackgases of coal-burning electric gen–
erators.
Yet
if
the technologies for coa! gasifi–
ca tion and liquefactioo can be devel–
oped on a commercial scale, the one–
time king of American energy m!ght re–
tu roto the throne.
Nuclear fission also holds P!Omise.
Already,
56
nuclear plants generate over
8% of the electrical power in the U.S:
One pouod of uranium, with present
technology, will. supply as mucb heat as
50,000 pounds of coa! going into a coal–
buming plant. Proponents of nuclear
p·ower claim that nuclear-generated
·etectricity is also less expensive tban
electricity generated by fossil fuels.
Opponents maintain that the dangers
from reactor accidents, radioactive .
wastes, and nucléar terrorism preclude
the widespread reliance on nuclear
power.
lf the dangers and risks of nuclear
power can be overcoroe, bowever. it may
provade much needed electrical power in
'the future. But
so.
far, the controversy
over the risks of nuclear power has not
been resolved.
·
Solar power is ano¡her potentia! alter–
native energy source. Solar energy is
free, it's
a~ailable
in every country, its
technology is understood, and it is clean
and safe.
lt
has no political overtones,
and there are no ways to steal it, roonop-
olize it, or deplete it.
·
The. power of the sun 's rays is
enormous, averaging about one kilowatt
per square meter of surface. At high
noon on a clear day in June, the sun–
sbine falling on New York City
is
tbe
equivalen! of the energy ¡5roduced by all
the power plants in the entire wbrld at
peak performance. It is estimated that
3,600 billion billion BTU's reach the sur–
face of the earth eacb year, while only 1 .
bjllion billion BTU's are projected to be
needed for world consumption by the
year
.2QOO.
·
·
If
only two tenths of ooe percent of
the land in the U.S. were equipped with
conversioo devices capable of a ten per-
Please send me the booklet.
What's Behind the Energy
Crisis? No charge or obligatfon:
NAME
AOOFIESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP
1 1 1 1 1 1 1-1
1
1 '1
,_, - ,
·1
lf
you are a Plain Truth subscri!Íér. pléase enter subscription .
1
number from your Plain Truth mailing label.
~--------------------------~~~
11