usefulness to give them a place in a research program for 1973-1985. In the case of fusion, we have made good progress in understanding some of the underlying phenomena but many problems still remain to be solved to bring fusion development into the equivalent of the Stagg field experiment of 1942. To visualize atomic fusion as being an established part 28 years from now is certainly a very optimistic appraisal. Nor do we need to invent programs of research in transmission and distribution in the 14-year interval to the extent of the $1.62 billion indicated in the report of the R&D Goals Task Force. Could we settle for one-quarter of that amount? I want to make one more important observation about fuels projected for our economy for the year 2000. It is obvious from an examination of Table 1 that present primary energy trends end up with oil carrying a too large percentage of our total energy needs, coal carrying a too small, and nuclear carrying a perhaps too optimistic percentage. Even so the need exists to increase the burden carried by nuclear. And we need to press vigorously the rate of electrification of our total energy so as to translate more and more energy (with the help of nuclear energy) into an endemic primary form. All this presupposes that natural gas will be allowed to slowly decline from its 1970 position of 33.2% of the total to 14.3% in 2000. Should the natural gas suppliers make vigorous and almost superhuman efforts to maintain the position of natural gas via the cryogenic, LNG route, and should they actually implement such a program, the result would certainly be an impairment of our economy. We need to keep in mind that, although we are now trying to throttle its growth, electric energy is going to grow at the rate of 7% in the year 1972. With clear indications that nuclear energy gives us the one big hope for an endemic energy supply, we are putting almost every obstacle in the path of nuclear power. With coal and nuclear fuel being almost unanimously agreed upon as the two endemic primary energy fuels for our electric energy in the balance of this century, we are again putting obstacles in mining and in its application to the production of electric energy. Thus, according to the latest Bureau of Mines report, 1972 bituminous coal production shown at the end of November 18 was 522 million tons. This is an apparent increase of 39.5 million tons over 1971 or 8.2%. But since the 1971 figures include a nine-week strike period with a deficiency as against normal production of 52.5 million tons, it is obvious that growth so far is 13 million tons down or less than 1971 by 2.7%. Coal is not picking up very rapidly the energy burden that it is capable of carrying. The reasons for that are numerous: the decline in stripping, the new rigid safety standards, the reduction in productivity, and, above all, the specter of the ecological problem of sulphur. Natural gas, oil, and nuclear fuel-the three other primary fuels for electric energy generation—are all under pressure. It is almost obvious that the pressure that natural gas. is under can be relieved by converting its heating load to the electric form and this can eventually become nuclear. It is equally obvious that the way to take off the pressure on oil is to convert the transportation load to the electric form, and this, too, can become nuclear. But nuclear will for a long time continue to be an item of fear and concern to many people and the way to take off pressure from nuclear is to moderate nuclear expansion and upgrade the expansion and utilization of coal. With all the above axioms, principles, and caveats established, here is an outline of 15 basic subjects for a research and development program for the electric power industry for 1973–1985. 1. Energy and electric energy needs for the period, how to minimize them, and how to progressively convert more to the electric form. 2. Our environments, the dangers they are being subjected to, and the effect of energy and electric energy on them. (a) A national assessment of our unique and/or fragile environments— the air, the land, and the water-and everything living they contain in the way of plant, animal, and human life. 3. Development of knowledge is needed in the whole range to be used in setting standards and in making decisions to minimize the impact on the environment. We do not know enough about: (a) the effect on humans of SO2 combined with particulate matter from fossil fuel electric generating stations. (b) the modification in SO, density of pollution caused by the absorption of SO by vegetation, forests, and agricultural crops, or as a result of dissociation. (c) the water temperature tolerance of various forms of marine life; the effect of the introduction of large quantities of heated water into our rivers, lakes, or oceans. (d) the long-term effects on all forms of life of radioactive emissions permitted by present AEC standards. 4. We must reach a balance in standards between quality of life and hard economic burdens, since great damage can result to the quality of life by having standards too slack or huge economic burdens can be created by having standards too tight. 5. the economics of the use of the primary energies and their availability for conversion into electricity and the effect on NEP. 6. intensification of work on the gasification of coals and lignites into a low Btu relatively sulphur-free form, suitable for electric power generation and development of the cycle and the equipment to use this fuel. 7. development of more economic thermodynamic cycles of energy conversion, particularly the K topping, the compressed air peaking, and the closed MHD cycles. 8. the development of the breeder reactor into a commercial entity. 9. reduction of SO2 and NOx and particulate matter in the ambient atmosphere by fluidized bed combustion and the MHD cycle. 10. possibilities of a fuel cycle based on coal in which the sulphur content is reduced by washing to a level of approximately 2% and the balance is handled by diffusion through a tall stack, 11. Reduction in unnecessary use of electric energy due to full lighting in unattended areas, underloaded motors, improperly designed electrical space heating, improperly designed electric appliances of all kinds, such as ranges, refrigerators, television sets, heat pumps, air conditioners, pumps, fans, motors— all due to a failure to properly evaluate the social importance of not wasting energy. 12. Stepped up work on the thermodynamic, ecologic, and economic phases of the dry cooling tower. 13. stepped up work on a high energy storage battery to make the electric automobile a commercial reality. 14. continuation of relatively lower priority programs in fusion, superconducting underground transmission, alternators, motors, and transformers. 15. an educational program at all levels of our society on the esthetics of modern man's machines, structures, and works and their potential and inherent beauty. The acceptance of the idea that such works are by their very nature ugly and should be consigned underground will not only impose an unnecessary heavy economic burden on our society, but will cater to an unhealthy prissiness and deny the vast majority of our population visual contact with the beauty of what modern science and technology has been able to create so far and will increasingly produce in the future. I believe this program will protect the energy supply for 1973-1985 from crises and will also furnish a base on which to build the energy establishment to give the nation an electric power supply through 2000 with the combined characteristics of availability, reliability, compatibility, and frugality. I leave the longer term program to the year 2000 in your hands—the participants in this symposium. I congratulate you on the interesting and absorbing time you have ahead of you and I wish you success in bringing your efforts to a fruitful conclusion. TABLE 1.—TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED STATES FOR SELECTED YEARS |