Editing 76-13-A2 (section)

=== Transcript ===
Nuclear energy continues to be shunted aside in the proposals being made by
government as to how we're going to meet our energy needs in the years to come.

We are told that industry and power generating plants must switch from natural
gas and oil to coal. We're also told the clean air regulations will not be compromised
to allow for the additional pollution burning coal will bring. And, there will be
stricter regulations imposed on the mining of coal. We are not told that it will
cost about 50 billion dollars to convert American industry back from oil and gas
to coal.

A C.I.A. report is quoted to prove we only have a few years supply of oil and gas
left in all the world. A United Nations report saying we have enough oil for 100
years (in which time we surely can come up with alternate sources) is not quoted.
Nor is a report that with more freedom to make the price of natural gas compatible
with costs, we have a 1,000 year's supply by conservative estimate.

The cleanest, most economical and efficient energy source -- nuclear power is
nearly dismissed out of hand. The issue of possible proliferation of nuclear bombs
is raised if we increase the number of nuclear power plants in the world. But,
we can't stop other countries from having them, so, if there is such a danger
we can't prevent it by ourselves. The Naderites raise environmental objections
citing radioactive pollution, risk of nuclear disaster and, finally, that uranium
to fuel the plants is in as short supply as oil.

That last point brings us to the underlying fact in all of the energy debate; we
are talking about finite fuels. Coal, oil, gas, uranium are all energy sources
which conceivably will be used up.

Right at hand, however, still in an experimental stage, but far enough along for
us to know it is practical in the immediate future if we continue our developmental
effort, is a renewable fuel that is, literally, perpetual motion realized. It
is the breeder reactor which generates nuclear power and produces plutonium at the
same time which, in turn, produces more nuclear power.

The President has ordered a halt to further development, citing environmental
and other danger as the reason. But Washington is sitting on an environmental
report prepared for the Energy Research and Development Administration that says
just the opposite. This E.R.D.A. document, 500 pages, known as 1554-D was prepared
by the Savannah River Laboratory and has been in the administration's hands since
February. In short, the report says, -- QUOTE -- "there is no safeguard
related reason to delay the development of fuel cycle facilities to demonstrate
reprocessing, including plutonium conversion -- and storage." - UNQUOTE.

Capitol Hill researchers were led a merry chase in trying to track down this
document. Finally, invoking the Freedom of Information Act, a copy was obtained.
It is an extensive, obviously costly and thorough report. Not only does it make
plain there are no insuperable safety problems with plutonium, it states that 
recycling plutonium is safer than not recycling it.

Why are we not supposed to know that a practical source of energy is at hand which
regenerates its own fuel, meaning the supply is inexhaustible?

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening. 

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">