Cochran T.B., ,The liquid metal fast breeder reactor 271 pages, $6.95 (1974) Published by Resources for the Future, Inc. Distributed by the Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Book reviews/Publications received THE LIQUID METAL FAST BREEDER REACTOR by T.B. Cochran 271 pages, $6.95, Published by Re- sources for the Future, Inc. Distri- buted by the Johns Hopkins Univers- ity Press, Baltimore and London, 1974 Sub-titled 'An environmental and economic critique', the monograph, in the words of the pre face-and these words are important - 'takes a critical look at the economic and environmental arguments which have been made in favour of the early introduction of the LMFBR as a central component of the United States electrical energy system. . . ' . As one of such arguments, Cochran takes the 1970 Cost-Benefit analysis of the US Breeder Reactor Program, particularly the updated edition pub- lished as WASH 1184 in January 1972. The book is thus largely - but by no means wholly - an analysis of analyses, and is an example of the outcome of the blend/mating/clash (words according to taste) of scien- tific/economic appraisal with the ad- versary process. In fact, the author distinguishes analysis from argument better than most, and he also earns good marks in that other testing feature of books of this type - the need to cover a wide range of econ- omic, scientific and technological as- pects. Naturally, his treatment is open to criticism - in the chapter on discount rates he does not go far into difficult territory; not all reactor safety experts will agree with his handling of the importance of neu- tron lifetime; no-one disputes that there are problems and dangers in plutonium handling, but how many readers of this monograph will recog- nise that there is a quarter of a century of experience in the handling of radioactive fuel and the processing of plutonium. For non-US readers, the value of the chapter on uranium resources is reduced because the analysis and arguments are largely concentrated on the US scene. Furthermore, the references to foreign uranium avail- ability read strangely in the light of the events of the last 15 months (Cochran's work in the field in fact pre-dates publication of the OECD/ IAEA Survey in August 1973). Un- certainty is the dominant feature of the situation; in a time of steeply rising demand, the world needs to discover large new reserves at a rate that is high in relation to anything achieved in the past. Cochran's an- xiety to dissect the US fast reactor case leads him to a highly optimistic view of future US uranium avail- ability and to say, inter alia, that 'during the next 50 years it appears unlikely that uranium prices in to- day's dollars (by implication early 1973) would go above $20 per pound. . .w i thout introduction of LMFBR'. These are brave words in- deed and they are an important prop to the author's argument for delaying the US fast reactor programme. Indeed, the section of this mono- graph which is most open to question is where he draws the conclusions from his 'counter-analysis'. Some readers would deduce from his text that a steady introduction of LMFRR via a number of carefully planned demonstration p lants - giving hard operating experience- was preferable to the alternative scenario (which he favours) of delay 'by one or more decades', followed by the massive ordering of commer- cial fast reactor stations when their economics are demonstrably so much more favourable. The author strengthens his case by arguing the advantage of exploring other research options. Some of these will find wide agreement -and the events of the last 18 months have led to a stepping up of R&D on a number of them - but, in this work, the author has not brought his critical talents to the uncertainties applying to the altern- atives to fast reactors. While not emphatic that the grass is greener on the side of the hedge hidden from view, he suggests it could be so, given that more fertilising federal funds are cast in the right directions. His critic- ism of the USAEC for inadequate attention to the options must, how- ever, apply to the 'critique' itself. Perhaps this is inevitable; it re- mains that this monograph is a com- mendable piece of counter-analysis, and it is no lightweight. Its value outside the USA must be reduced somewhat because of the scant atten- tion paid to progress in other coun- tries, and readers must beware of assuming that non-US engineers and planners work to all the targets and parameters set out, for example, in WASH 1184- they don't. But such critical monographs are to be seen as part of a process; by concentrating on the weaknesses of the analyses under study to the exclusion of their strengths, the critiques themselves invite critical review. And so the iterative adversary process of ap- praisal will apparently continue. Let us hope it is an optimising one. R. L.R. Nicholson UK Atomic Energy A uthority, London Publications received GENERA L An assessment of US energy options for project independence, Lawrence Liver- more Laboratory (Available as UCRL- 51638 from National Technical Inform- ation Service, US Department of Com- merce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151, USA; $5.45, 84 pp, micro- fiche $1.45, 1974). A report prepared by a multi-disciplinary team of senior scientists at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory at the request of the FEA. It develops and evaluates various scenarios for the USA's energy future. The Energy Directory (Environment In- formation Center Inc., att. Christopher P. Kimball, Sales Manager, 133 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, USA, $50, 1974). Heralded as the only comprehen- sive guide to (US) energy organisations decision-makers and information sources, this volume describes more than 3000 establishments and gives names, addresses and telephone numbers. The listings are divided into Federal agencies, state agencies, associations, corporations, in- formation sources. 12 000 energy officials and executives are named and their func- tions described. 80 ENERGY POLICY March 1975