COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00013 00003	.skip 1
C00014 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source;
.turn off "{"
.CB PROPOSAL FOR A STUDY OF A NATIONAL CRASH PROGRAM IN ENERGY


	This is a proposal that a group of Stanford faculty initiate a
study of a national crash program in response to a sudden energy crisis.
A crisis may occur that will require a crash national program, because
delays in developing sources of energy to replace oil and natural gas
leave the United States increasingly vulnerable to a sudden cutoff or
gradual restriction of our energy supplies.  Not everyone agrees that such
a crisis is likely or that a crash national program of the kind we propose
to study is the appropriate response.  We do not propose to convince such
people that a crash national program is the most likely eventuality.  We
need only convince some people that it has sufficient probability to
justify study and that the crash program will be better carried out if
there has been some preliminary study.

	Presumably, people who think that a crisis is unlikely or that
conservation and change of life-style are the only feasible and
appropriate responses will not be motivated to take part in the study.
This may also be the response of people who believe that such a program
may become necessary but that the ideological and political obstacles will
remain insuperable no matter what suffering the present drift causes.  The
study will most likely attract people willing to entertain the possibility
that a crisis will occur, that building new energy capacity in a hurry
will be the appropriate response, and that there is a substantial
probability that the resulting suffering will bring forth the political
will to overcome the institutional obstacles.
This is to be tolerated just as the Engineering 235 study of "Soft
Energy Paths" attracted mainly students who were enthusiastic about
such paths.

	The initial request for support of the study should be addressed
to the Department of Energy.  Although energy planning in the United
States is overwhelmingly dominated by the acceptance of and even
approval of the political and procedural obstacles to rapid energy
development, the Department of Energy should recognize that the
path they regard as most probable and desirable is not the only
possible path.  They should therefore be willing to support some
exploration of alternate paths, especially since a crisis might
leave the country in a very difficult position.

	There is a substantial possibility thatDDoE will not support
the study.  When politicians, bureaucrats or industrial executives
face a hard fight to get a policy adopted and implemented, they often
look with hostility at studies of contingencies other than those
for which they plan to provide.  However, mature policy makers
will face the fact that their main plan may be mistaken, and
it a decision to support this study would be a sign of maturity
in DoE, and making such a decision would be educational for them.

	The second possibility is EPRI.  Many of their people
believe that a bad crisis is likely, but if they support the
study, they will probably get some political flack.  Some
people may regard any study of a crash program as a plot against
the environment, and EPRI's sponsors may feel they have enough
accusations as it is.  As with the government, facing this flack
would be good for them.

	The third possibility is private foundation.  Most likely
there are several whose management would consider a crisis calling
for a crash program as likely.  Again it would be best if the
Ford Foundation, which has sponsored other views of the energy
probelem would sponsor the exploration of the crisis-crash program
possibility.  Probably they too will not want to support
studies of contingencies their previous studies ignore.

	One can imagine crises of different degrees of urgency
and different levels of response to the crisis.  However, the
most useful data point is probably a prolonged embargo with
a political response supporting programs with priorities and
resource mobilizations like those of World War II.  This is
the best that we know American society is capable of.

QUESTIONS TO STUDY

1. Crash program to build nuclear plants sufficient to eliminate
oil and gas as sources of electricity.  There are substantial differences
of opinion in how fast they could be built.  Some people can't seem
to free themselves from presuming the present procedural obstacles.
Others (including one Bechtel officieal)
 say that if the obstacles were removed and if manpower and
material priorities were made available, plants could be built in
one or two years.  One can cite the fact that the Hanford plutonium
production plant was working two years after the first nuclear
chain reaction, while it is simpler than a power plant, it handles
about the same amount of energy.  The study should try to estimate
what are the manpower requirements for a large increase in production
rate, whether Westinghouse, G.E, etc. can do the job in their existing
works or whether new organizations and factories are required, what
the bottlenecks are, whether new enrichement and mining facilities
are required, and whether breeders could be included in such a program.
Can French or other foreign designs be copied?  Are there any long
Are there inexpensive long lead time items that could be provided in
advance?  Should the companies involved have crash program contingency
plans?

Is the best plan to build many new plants at the sites of existing
nuclear plants?  Are there areas of the country that require new
sites?

2. Can existing natural gas facilities be supplemented by nuclear
electric hydrogen or nuclear thermal hydrogen?  Should such plants
be co-located with existing sources of natural gas in order to
use the pipelines.

3. What is required for a crash program in oil shale?  In fuels
from shale?  Is biomass a significant possibility if agricultural
exports are not to be reduced?  What if they may be reduced?

4. Can the required institutional changes be produced by a single
Energy Emergency Act of Congress?  The study might prepare a draft
of such an act.


PLAN OF STUDY

	It might be a version of EE235, but most likely it should not
attempt to take over an existing form, because the opposition will
be too great.  However, it should include students working for both
credit and money.  Discussions with nuclear, coal, oil utilities
and engineering companies should be included.  Questionnaires and
traveling interviewers could be used.  Students should perhaps start
by reading the Smythe Report, and professors should reread it to get
an ideas of what was done in a past emergency.
There may be a more engineering oriented study of the Manhattan Project
or parts of it that could be used.
.skip 1
.begin verbatim
John McCarthy
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Computer Science Department
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305

ARPANET: MCCARTHY@SU-AI
.end

.turn on "{"
%7This draft of
CRASH[S78,JMC]
PUBbed at {time} on {date}.%1