308
PARTISAN REVIEW
and social evolution. Energy-efficient technology is still in its
infancy, and the evolution of adaptive residential patterns and trans–
portation systems - delosangelization - has barely begun .
Increasing the efficiency of energy use is now and, according to
recent studies, will for some years continue to be our most important
new energy "source." For at least the next several decades,
a dollar invested in nuclear power will yield far less energy than a
dollar invested in improved efficiency.
At the same time , techniques for collecting and using sunlight
are becoming steadily more productive. Advocates of nuclear power
argue that increased energy efficiency and solar power cannot
compensate for the shrinking supply of oil and natural gas, and that,
at least in the short run, we will need to rely on nuclear power. But
this may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The two evolutionary strate–
gies - conservation/solar and nuclear- may not be mutually
exclusive, but they are certainly not mutually reinforcing.
It
is at
least arguable that no nation has enough capital and human
resources to pursue both effectively. If we make a long-term commit–
ment to sunlight rather than to breeder reactors, shouldn't we invest
all the capital, skill, and imagination we can muster in enterprises
that directly support that commitment? Is nuclear power part of a
balanced program? Or is it an uneconomic and dangerous diversion
from a sound long-term program?
Nuclear power, strip mining on a vast scale, and the develop–
ment of synthetic fuels epitomize the kinds of projects we have come
to feel most comfortable with . They are energy-intensive, capital–
intensive, highly centralized, and enormously profitable to small
groups of wealthy investors (after the costs of research and develop–
ment have been paid by taxpayers) . They are also dirty, dangerous,
and grossly uneconomic. The alternative strategy would, it is true ,
require positive initiatives by federal, state, and local govern–
ments - but initiatives of a kind traditionally favored (at least in
principle) by economic conservatives: deregulation, lifting of
building and industrial codes that stifle innovation, loans to
individuals and small businesses for small, economically sound
enterprises.
Nuclear power is not the wrong answer. But it may be the right
answer to the wrong question: What must we do to feed our present
energy habits? Perhaps we should be asking, how can we best
acquire the habits and the technology we need to live well on our
solar income?
DAVID LAYZER
