LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT

Steve Baer of Zomeworks Corp., Albuquerque, N.M., is one of the few sane heads in the solar energy business. He writes: "When you consider the thousands of vital uses of the sun (such as delivering an average of 2.5 ft of fresh water to the whole surface of the earth every year), you see that we have a largely solar powered economy being taxed to subsidize awkward in-citations of fossil fuels. The Solar Lobby does not represent the window manufacturers who allow daylight to enter buildings, but PV companies who produce less fight for more money."

Well said! But he also sends a list of energy appropriations signed by President Reagan last July showing nuclear fission plus high level waste disposal for FY 1985 at roughly $1 billion compared with $180 million for solar. Why then, he asks, do I object [Review of Free Market Energy, Oct 84] to regarding the nuclear industry as socialized and on government welfare?

About those figures: they concern the appropriations for research, not energy production, use and supply. For the production of nuclear energy and associated operations the utilities get no subsidies for nuclear (or other) plants; they pay for enrichment and other services through their noses to the government. Even Price-Anderson (to which I object on other grounds) is now as good as fully in private hands not only for premia, but also for compensation.

This is merely to clarify the issue, not to defend government- controlled research: obviously private industry could do as well or better. [Incidentally, there is a private company, Pemberthy Electromelt International, Inc. and the Foundation for Affordable Nuclear Waste Disposal, which has impressive credentials and claims to be ignored and even harassed by the DoE for its cheaper method of waste disposal. I have not yet fully investigated the case, but you may write to them at 631 S. 96^th St., Seattle, WA 98108.]

But the real issue is this: it is ludicrous to accuse the nuclear industry of being unable to make it in a free market when it is being shut down by a witch hunt which the government (the NRC), far from opposing, has often joined.

The skyrocketing construction costs of nuclear plants (do not confuse with the cost of nuclear power, which has not increased over other sources) has two basic causes. One is the never-ending retrofits and delay in licensing by the image-polishing posturers of the NRC who refuse to consider the deaths and diseases caused by the delayed replacement of fossil-fired plants, in the (vain) hope of humoring the panic-mongering media. The other, and perhaps more important cause is the delays and cancellations brought about through the obstructionist suits by the ideologically motivated "intervenors" in a national campaign vigorously supported by the media (and helped by the ineptness, if not cowardice, of the nuclear industry in standing up to them). For more details write for two articles to AIF, 7101 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD 20814: "Taking GAP's measure" by J.R. Wargo, and "Anti-nuke crowd has boosted costs" by R.J. Isaac.

So let's get this straight, for it still confuses some genuine friends of liberty (such as some in the Heritage Foundation or the journal On Principle): Government is not the only danger to freedom.