Oil is one major source of tension. It is a sobering fact that much of the world's oil supply is controlled by Middle Eastern countries like Iraq. What these countries choose to do with the price and availability of oil has a radical impact on America's economy-and our national security. For example, what if supplies of Mideast oil were cut off completely? Where would we find the energy needed for our own survival?

This threat was underscored by the President, when, following the Soviet inva on of Afghanistan, he bluntly warned a Joint Session of the Congress: "Any attempt by an outside force to gain control f the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America and... it will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Replacing Foreign Oil with Nuclear Power

Most Americans agree that continued dependence on foreign oil is unacceptable.

The fact is that two-thirds of the oil used to generate our electricity is imported. We can reduce our reliance on that foreign oil-and the threat to our national security-by turning to other domestic sources of energy, like coal and nuclear power.

Right now, nuclear power is already providing 11% of the nation's electricity. In some parts of the country, that contribution is much higher. It has been estimated that the 75 nuclear power plants currently licensed and the 106 under construction or on order could provide America with the energy equivalent of approximately 42 million barrels of oil per day, or half our current imports.

By using more nuclear power-and less oil-to generate electricity, America can reduce its reliance on foreign oil.

Energy Independence And World Peace

Virtually every industrialized nation is turning to nuclear power as a way to reduce dependence on Mideast oil. The Soviet Union, Japan, Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and others are all moving forward with the construction of more nuclear plants. Moreover, considering the rave international consequences of continued dependence on Mideast oil, the United States joined other Western nations at the Venice Summit in declaring: "The role of nuclear energy must be increased if world energy needs are to be met."

One thing is certain: We cannot afford ever again to be dependent on foreign sources of energy. America must produce its own energy. Our own security and that of the free world may depend on it.

Nuclear Power. Because America Needs Energy.

America's Electric Energy Companies, Dept. S. 1111 19th Street, NW Wangton, DC. 20036

TESTIMONY TO THE OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS BY EDWARD TELLER

Even before the oil embargo in 1973, it was clear that there would have to be a change in the nation's energy policy. President Reagan's action on energy, however, is the first significant step in dealing with the energy shortage. This is a remarkable record since more than a dozen years and four Presidents have been involved.

Between 1950 and 1975, the consumption of oil in the free industrialized world rose by 70 percent. Oil is easily transported, easily distributed and easily used in simple or complex machines. Its abundance and reasonable cost encouraged increased dependence upon it throughout the world. The third world during that same quarter century increased its consumption by 200 percent.

We in the developed nations are feeling the economic effects of increased oil costs--worldwide inflation appears to be closely connected, and the effects are most unpleasant. However, the developing nations are confronted with potential economic repercussions of an entirely different dimension.

There is no pollution more offensive than pollution by poverty.

Without

oil, the developing countries cannot develop. What is worse and more pertinent, without oil, many of these peoples will not be able to survive. The Green Revolution has produced strains of rice and grain that will produce two to four times as great a yield on the same acreage.

However, these new crops require

irrigation and nitrogen-based fertilizers. The simple irrigation pumps and the production of this type of fertilizer both require energy. If it is not available,

uncounted millions are apt to die of starvation. This is why the energy crisis is most critical among the poorest of the poor nations.

The present difficult economic situation may, at almost anytime, turn into a truly desperate catastrophe. The Soviet Union has succeeded in surrounding the Persian Gulf by occupying Afghanistan and placing great numbers of tanks in South Yemen. In the disturbed Middle East, they have ample opportunities to intervene in the "interests of peace." Through the recent alliance of South Yemen, Ethiopia and Libya, the Soviets have increased their control of Libyan oil and gas which is piped to western Europe. Furthermore, financing is being developed between the Soviet government and Mannesmann in West Germany so that with western dollars and skills, a gas line will lead directly from the Soviet Union into the heart of the NATO alliance. Thus western Europe will become critically dependent on energy controlled by the Soviet Union.

There can be little doubt that this dependence will ultimately be used to disrupt the NATO alliance. This disruption could occur in less than two years, and it will be a most serious threat to peace. Only careful planning and preparation can keep us from the most serious difficulties.

Impractical energy

We must assess our

We must develop secure sources of energy. Our major resources at the present--now, when they are desperately needed--are coal and nuclear power as has been clearly pointed out in President Reagan's message. sources, those which greatly increase costs, will not suffice. current real abilities and their real costs. We must find substitutes for oil, and do so with all possible speed. Not only will we assist the developing nations by so doing and avoid playing a role in perpetuating pollution by poverty, but more

important, we will work in the interests of maintaining peace.

No one questions that coal can produce electricity economically, nor that electricity is an effective replacement for oil energy. However, many people believe that nuclear energy is too expensive. It is important to note that more than three-fourths of the cost of nuclear-generated electricity arises from the cost of constructing a nuclear reactor. The cost of fuel for a reactor is only five to ten percent of the expense of electricity so generated. Today, interest

rates are at about 20 percent. The money for construction must be borrowed during construction. The time required in the United States between beginning reactor construction and the first useable energy production is now averaging twelve to fourteen years. In Taiwan, the same period amounts to sixty-three months; in France, six years. The reactors in these countries suffer no lack of safety features or quality of construction.

What

The difference in construction time (and costs) occurs because of unnecessary, repetitive, unpredictable delays due to licensing procedures and the challenges presented by a small number of misinformed "environmentalists." they see as protecting national interests, as humanitarian concern, has wasted billions of dollars and accomplished nothing except to enable them to claim that nuclear-generated electricity is too expensive.

What could nuclear-generated electricity do to relieve our energy dilemma and how fast could it be effective? Within one year, without any loss of safety, nuclear reactors could produce the equivalent of one million barrels of oil per day. That amounts to about twenty percent of our imports. This could be accomplished by the licensing of completed reactors, rapid completion and

88-213 0-82--21