Publication Laka-library:
The Fissile Society
| Author | W.Patterson |
 | - |
| Date | 1977 |
| Classification | 2.05.0.00/06 (UNITED KINGDOM - GENERAL) |
| Remarks | Available for download at www.waltpatterson.org |
| Front | 
|
From the publication:
1 Introduction: conventional wisdom The future is electric. So, at least, say energy planners everywhere. The arguments advanced by official planners in Britain are much like those advanced in other countries: Fossil fuels are going to run out; in any case they should be reserved for use as chemical feedstocks. Dependence on imported petroleum makes a country dangerously vulnerable. Energy demand will continue to rise, and must be met. The only way to prevent the opening of an "energy gap" between demand and supply is to proceed with the development of nuclear energy. An increasing proportion of energy will be delivered as electricity; an increasing proportion of this electricity will be produced from nuclear energy; and an increasing proportion of nuclear energy will be produced by plutonium-fueled fast breeder reactors. The rate at which these various developments will occur is still a matter for discussion; but they are widely regarded as inevitable. If for any reason they fail to take place, or are prevented from doing so, the consequence - say the planners - will be drastic changes in lifestyle, possibly leading to social breakdown. Official acceptance of such counsel is of very recent vintage. It dates essentially from late 1973. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), with selective interruption of international petroleum commerce and quadrupling of prices, caught energy planners utterly unprepared. Suddenly the industrialized countries realized that their ever-increasing imports of low-priced oil had placed their economies in jeopardy. Until this time planners had regarded price as the dominant criterion, and emphasized energy sources of lowest cost. Abruptly, after the shocks of late 1973, "security of supply" took precedence. "Energy independence" became a catchphrase. Energy conservation became respectable. Countries looked with renewed favour on their indigenous energy supplies, even when these had hitherto seemed unduly costly compared to oil. "Energy policy" became an everyday concept, although in practice it remained elusive. Above all, there burst forth a surge of enthusiasm for nuclear energy. It was the province of the leading industrialized countries. It had been waiting in the wings for two decades, its economics in question, while oil sold at $3 a barrel. Suddenly oil at $12 a barrel made nuclear energy look much more appetizing. Nuclear energy, according to its proponents, was cleaner, safer and cheaper than coal, more dependable than imported oil, and more abundant than natural gas. In their view its advent could not have come at a more propitious time. Nuclear energy would save the world from the energy gap, and help everyone everywhere to live better electrically.
This publication is digitally available in the Laka library, but it's not on-line.
E-mail us (info@laka.org) if you would like the pdf sent to you (with the subject, number and title). Of course you can also come by.