[en] The voter referendums on nuclear power planned in some states can affect the energy supply and economic health of the public at large more than it affects the industry that provides nuclear power, the author states. He makes the point that those responsible for energy supplies in the U. S.--the President and all relevant Federal agencies, the majority of Congress, the national utility industry, major laboratories, universities and consulting firms, and other energy industries--all favor nuclear power. The complex U.S. energy situation is reviewed, and the hope of alternative energy sources, practice of energy conservation, and benefits of nuclear power are summarized. Specifically, the California Initiative and its three conditions which it says should dictate the future of nuclear power are reviewed. The author does not believe that the reasons that are usually given in opposing nuclear power are the real reasons. He states that ''it seems clear that the principal philosophy behind the initiatives is one of halting economic growth by striking at the energy source that would make that growth possible.'' Attention is called to the morality of nuclear power by asking where is the morality: in leaving future generations an insufficient amount of energy, limiting their abilities to solve the economic and employment problems; in squandering our finite supply of fossil fuels while ignoring nuclear fuels; in forcing the nation into further dependence on unpredictable foreign nations for its energy supply; in expecting other states to provide California with the energy that it does not want to generate itself; and in allowing an arbitrary limit on growth to be set by groups of political activists