a020   0022   28  Jun 80  PM-Scientists-Energy,440  Persian  Gulf Oil
Cutoff Would Mean Harsh  Measures, Scientists Say By  PAULINE JELINEK
Associated Press Writer     CHICAGO  (AP) - A cutoff of  oil supplies
in the  Persian Gulf  could force  energy conservation  measures more
extreme  than  those during  World  War II,  according  to scientists
pressing for an emergency energy plan.      And  international events
could lead to such a cutoff within a few years, they  said.      Both
predictions were made Friday during the second National Conference on
Energy Advocacy, which  continues through Sunday. The  group released
an  outline it  is  recommending to  the federal  government  for the
development of a national  emergency energy plan.      ''We are  in a
far worse position with regard to planning (for energy) than  we were
in 1940 with  regard to mobilization plans  for World War  II,'' said
John McCarthy, professor of computer sciences at Stanford University.
Edward Teller, the Nobel Prize-winning atomic scientist  often called
the father of the hydrogen bomb, said the free world has  ''no plan''
to deal with a cutoff of oil supplies from the troubled  Persian Gulf
area.      ''It is a possibility - and I assert more than possibility
- that in the near future, possibly in five years hence,  the Kremlin
will find a way to take hold of the oil spigot'' in the Persian Gulf,
Teller said.      The cutoff  would result in a 35  percent reduction
in  U.S. oil  supplies, according  to Miro  Todorovich,  professor of
physics at the City University of New York.      McCarthy said such a
cutoff would mean Americans would  be unable to heat their  homes and
would have  to close  off some  rooms, families  would have  to share
houses and  young people would  have to turn  to dormitory  living to
save on heating and  transportation costs.      The group's  plan for
the  government to  ''minimize the  consequences'' of  an  oil cutoff
included:     - Government support of development of  domestic energy
sources  such  as coal,  gas,  nuclear power  and  shale  oil.      -
Decontrol of oil and gas prices and abolition of entitlements.      -
Reconsideration of environmental laws.      - A speedup  of licensing
for nuclear power plants.       - Prompt replacement of  liquid fuels
in non-transportation uses.      - Development of a conservation plan
that  could  include  rationing.       -  Tripling  of  the  rate  of
additions to  the Strategic  Petroleum Reserve  to more  than 300,000
barrels  a  day.       - Providing  assistance  and  encouragement to
Japanese and  European allies to  shift from use  of oil to  coal and
nuclear  power for  generating electricity.       ap-ny-06-28 0321EDT
***************

n031  1204  28 Jun 80  BC-ENERGY-U.S. 2takes (Review of The  Week) By
RICHARD D. LYONS c. 1980 N.Y. Times News Service     WASHINGTON - One
of the last pieces of the energy program proposed by President Carter
a  year ago  fell into  place last  week when  Congress  approved his
Synthetic Fuels Corp. bill. But another piece fell out of  place when
the House rejected the proposed Energy Mobilization Board,  a crucial



element in  the president's  program to make  the United  States less
dependent on foreign energy sources.      Even as the  energy package
was  being  wrapped  up,  however,  a  committee  of  scientists that
includes  seven  Nobel  Prize  winners  issued  a  dire  warning: The
multibillion dollar program isn't nearly enough. If the United States
doesn't mount a crash program for energy production  immediately, the
scientists said, the national  economy - indeed, the American  way of
life -  will be  in deep trouble  between now  and the  21st century.
''Our  security  requires  a  crash  program  in  energy  production,
including nuclear energy, oil shale, synthetic oil and gas from coal,
and  enhanced  oil  and gas  recovery,''  the  group  said.      Such
warnings were high in  Carter's considerations when he met  in Venice
last  week with  leaders  of the  other leading  Western  nations and
joined in a commitment to  restrain oil imports and increase  the use
of other energy forms, principally coal. The views of  the scientific
group, Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, reflect  a growing
body of opinion that the United States is already in  serious trouble
because it  has not achieved  self-sufficiency in energy.  On Capitol
Hill, these are known as ''doomsday scenarios'' of what  would happen
to the American economy should the flow of Persian Gulf oil be either
sharply  cut  or  stopped altogether.  The  more  draconian estimates
foresee  10   million  more  Americans   joining  those   already  on
unemployment  lines  and  losses to  the  gross  national  product of
hundreds  of billions  of  dollars a  year.      For  years  now, the
rhetoric from the White House has been about projects that  would end
the  nation's  energy  jitters,  like  Project   Independence,  which
President Nixon launched almost  a decade ago. The result:  Since his
announcement, the United States is importing twice as much  OPEC oil.
Carter's energy program, even without the Energy  Mobilization Board,
is broad, innovative and multifaceted. But defeat of the mobilization
board,  which  was  to  cut through  the  thicket  of  red  tape that
confronts major energy projects, means such things as  synthetic fuel
plants  could face  delays  of years.  An assortment  of  opponents -
Republicans out to  embarrass the president,  conservatives concerned
over states' rights, liberals concerned with threats to environmental
laws, representatives from Rocky Mountain states concerned with water
supplies - combined to defeat it by a vote of 232 to 131.      Still,
the basic question remains whether the substantive answers  that have
been proposed are sufficient to resolve the nation's  energy problems
over  the next  20  years. Those  answers include  mining  more coal;
distilling synthetic crude oil from tar sands, oil shale and  coal; a
trans-Alaska pipeline to bring  North Slope natural gas  to consumers
in  the  lower 48  states;  greatly expanded  production  of gasohol;
conversion of oil-fired electric utilities to coal; a  limited number
of  new nuclear  plants; production-line  payoffs from  research into
solar energy; electric engines  for cars, and fusion  power.      The
United States  truly does  have enormous  coal resources,  enough, at



current rates of production, to last several centuries.  Even without
new  technology,  a  great  deal more  could  be  produced.  The main
obstacle  to  greater use  of  coal  is its  possible  effect  on the
environment. Will the phenomenon known as acid rain kill  forests and
ruin farmland? Will more air pollution have a serious effect on human
health?  Are  the savings  from  conversion of  oil-fired  boilers at
electrical generating  plants to coal-burning  worth the  costs? With
such questions in mind, the Senate last week cut Carter's request for
$10 billion for 107 such conversions to $3.6 billion for 80  units at
38  plants,  and  thus  quickly undermined  his  call  at  the Venice
economic  summit for  a doubling  of coal  consumption to  offset oil
imports.      ''Synfuels'' is  another case in which  realism tempers
optimism.  There  is no  doubt that  the use  of blank  check tactics
would  create  a  synthetic fuels  industry  that  could,  in theory,
produce 2 million barrels a day by 1992, the target contained  in the
bill passed by Congress last week. But the costs would be staggering.
A  congressional  report  released  last week  set  the  cost  at $70
billion; several  corporate estimates are  even higher.  A reasonable
production estimate would be 400,000 barrels a day by the end  of the
decade, much less than Carter's goal.      (MORE)     ny-0628 1503edt
***************

n032  1208   28 Jun 80   BC-ENERGY-U.S. 1stadd NYT  WASHINGTON: goal.
The natural gas pipeline from Alaska also would be  highly expensive,
perhaps $25 billion,  and at the snail's  pace at which  planning for
the project  has gone in  the last several  years, it might  never be
built.  Gasohol production,  another Carter  energy goal  about which
there has been  much talk, also has  been proceeding very  slowly. By
one  administration estimate,  the nation  was going  to  produce 500
million gallons of  gasohol this year, mainly  from corn not  sold to
the  Soviet  Union.  Yet  this   is  now  realized  to  be   a  gross
exaggeration, and  it is unlikely  that alcohol from  vegetation will
meet even  one percent  of national gasoline  demand for  many years.
Solar power, which many experts  believe is the energy source  of the
future, got a  boost last week when  the House added $107  million in
research funds. But in most  areas it still costs several  times what
conventional fuels do,  and the General Accounting  Office, Congress'
investigative arm, complained  last month that the  government wastes
money by  installing solar power  plants in federal  buildings. Other
projects, such as hydrogen-powered cars and fusion power, also appear
to be a long way  from meeting significant shares of  national energy
demand.      The administration was able to get the energy program it
did only after enormous  struggles that brought into  play political,
economic, sectional and  environmental opposition, all of  which were
in evidence when the  House shelved the Energy Mobilization  Board on
Friday. With the  decontrol of oil  prices, the windfall  profits tax
and  the Synthetic  Fuels Corp.,  Carter may  feel entitled,  when he



signs the synfuels bill Monday, to cast modesty aside in his remarks.
In the minds of those taking the longer view, however,  the potential
gravity of failure in the struggle for energy  self-sufficiency means
the  Carter  program  still falls  short  of  the  need.      ny-0628
1508edt ***************