Major stakes hang on how the issue of nuclear energy is ultimately resolved. As this study points out, "the outcome is consequential in terms of this generation, but also will affect the lives and life styles of generations to come. The wrong decisions could be costly and difficult to reverse. Clearly, Americans are now facing one of the most profound choices in their history."Specialists in energy analysis, policymakers, and readers who are seriously involved in the nuclear energy debate will find this book provides an objective and analytical discussion of an emotionally charged subject. It focuses on the question, What would happen to the economy and environment of the United States if there was a moratorium on construction of new nuclear plants beginning in 1985?Based on a projection of economic growth and energy production during the next thirty years, the book examines five possible economic implications of a nuclear moratorium—future costs of electricity, regional dislocations, impact on the nuclear industry, effect on the coal industry, and impact abroad. It also discusses four levels of environmental tradeoffs as a result of shifting the additional fuel requirements from nuclear to coal after 1985—proliferation of nuclear weapons and greatly increased carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel on a global scale, probability of reactor and coal-mining accidents, impact on public health of reactor radiation emissions and coal-fired emissions, and the impact of uranium and coal mining on land use.An entire section of the book speculates on the distant nonfossil future when nuclear or solar energy may be the only major long-term energy options. One of the book's major findings is that the rate of growth in energy demand is likely to be significantly lower than the projected estimates in most published studies.Economic and Environmental Impacts of a U.S. Nuclear Moratorium is the work of a study team coordinated by Charles E. Whittle at the Institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Sensitive to the necessity for an impartial study, both pro and antinuclear consultants were asked to review the work as it progressed. Read Less