\\M0BASL30;\M1BASI30;\M2BASB30;\M3NGR40;\F0

\C\F3STATEMENT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE ON PROJECT INDEPENDENCE\F0

\C(This is a statement of the undersigned and not of organizations with which they are affiliated.)



\J	As we understand it, \F2Project Independence\F0 is aimed at making
the United States substantially independent of foreign sources of energy or
at least to acquire the capability to do so.  \F2We support this goal\F0, and we
are concerned that there has not yet been developed a national policy that
correctly identifies short term and long term problems and correctly
assigns roles to the public and private sectors in solving them.


\F2The U.S. Energy Position\F0

	In the long term, the U.S. and  the world have good prospects
for  energy.  Either  nuclear or solar  energy by  itself can provide
enough energy so that  the population the  earth can support will  be
limited by something else. 

	The U.S. is in a particularly good long term position, because of
its resource base, its established light and heavy industry, and its
technological manpower.  There is no moral imperative to reduce our per capita
energy consumption, \F1provided we contrive to obtain our energy
from within our own borders\F0.
Moreover, we probably can give other countries some help in solving
their energy problems.

	The U.S. has serious short term problems stemming from the decreasing
availability of domestic petroleum and profiteering by the petroleum
exporting countries.  Other countries, especially the underdeveloped
countries, have even more serious and more immediate problems.


\F2Environment and the Demand for Energy\F0

	Energy use and clean air and water are both essential components of
the standard of living in this country.  The large \F1per capita\F0 use
of energy has made possible a substantial part of our individual freedom
and prosperity, but our health and our enjoyment of our freedom and
prosperity are reduced by environmental neglect some of which comes
from the ways energy has been obtained.  Fortunately, presently known
technology permits both further increases in our use of energy and
further improvement of the environment.  In the short run, the rate at
which we improve the environment and the rate at which we increase the
standard of living of the various groups in our population compete.
The political process must mediate this competition as it mediates all
competitions for public resources.

	Prediction of future energy demand by extrapolating exponential
growth curves is unrealistic.  The growth in American cattle production
between 1860 and 1880 would have led to predictions that each American
would have to eat a cow a day long before now.
Our ability to use energy \F1for its present applications\F0 will
saturate in the near future, probably before the year 2000.
Thus registered automobiles have grown from
30 million to 100 million since World War II; they cannot grow by
that ratio again in the next thirty years without there being more
cars than people.  On the other hand, home air-conditioning has just
started its fast growth phase in many parts of the country.  

	In the long run, there is no need to distinguish energy from other
commodities or from human labor by a special conservation ethic.
Energy is a commodity like any other, and if its price expresses all
the costs that go into its production, people will regulate their own use
of it in accordance with their own interests better than the government
or preaching can do.
In the short run, emergencies calling for special
conservation measures can occur, and a special effort to call peoples's
attention to ways in which energy is wasted are worthwhile.  However,
there is some tendency to use the energy crisis to scare people into
making changes in life style that some intellectuals consider desirable
for other reasons.  Officials should resist any temptation to do this,
because it is dishonest, and when the dishonesty is discovered, public
distrust will be increased.


\F2Goals for Project Independence\F0

	Since petroleum and natural gas are the high priced commodities in
short supply, since U.S. production of them has probably hit its peak, and
since they will be all gone in the forseeable future, many of the goals
of \F2Project Independence\F0 can be put in terms of reducing our dependence on
them.

	1. In the short run, we can increase the domestic supply
by finding more oil fields especially in the offshore areas
that have not been explored yet.  We can also further employ secondary
recovery methods.

	2. We can also reduce demand by eliminating waste.  If necessary,
we can make people use smaller cars and use public transportation.  However,
these measures are not necessary in the long run, and the resulting
infringement on individual freedom should be avoided if possible and
limited in time if not.

	3. It should be an early goal of \F2Project Independence\F0 to eliminate
the use of natural gas and petroleum for the central station generation
of electric power.  Already coal and nuclear energy are cheaper and the
price differential will grow with time.
Some of the vagueness of \F2Project Independence\F0 will vanish once we can
set a target date for this conversion.

	4. Next we should provide substitutes for natural gas and
natural petroleum for space heating.  It can be done by a combination
of solar heating, heat pumps, synthetic
gas made from coal and central station hot water.  This step
will take longer than elimination of petroleum use to produce electricity
and makes sense only after the former has been accomplished, since
it is more efficient to use petroleum directly for space heating than
to use electricity generated by petroleum for that purpose.

	5. It will take still longer to provide substitutes for petroleum
for use in vehicles.  Synthetic gasoline from coal is the most immediate
possibility with hydrogen a longer term bet.  Electric vehicles seem
attractive, but it is not yet clear that a suitable battery is possible.


\F2Research and Development\F0

	All potentially cost-effective sources of energy or ways of
conserving it should be explored.  This includes funding parallel
approaches to important problems.  It is important to avoid the kind
of wishful thinking that eliminates one source of energy because another
would be better when it is
not yet clear that the latter can be developed in a reasonable time
to provide energy at a reasonable cost.  People who want to develop
one approach often have a tendency to knock potential rivals.

	We think the following approaches are important:

	1. We can find new methods of exploring for oil and gas and
new secondary recovery techniques.  It should be clearly understood that
this only buys us time.  We should try to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil faster than we are forced to, because other countries
cannot reduce their dependence as fast as we can.  In other words, we
should stop outbidding the underdeveloped countries for oil as soon as
possible.

	2. Synthetic petroleum from oil shale and from
coal all should be developed.  Which will win depends on economic and
environmental considerations.

	3. The present breeder reactor projects should be completed and
alternate breeder approaches investigated.  The improvement of non-breeder
reactors should be continued.

	4. We should expand the research on fusion power, but until
scientific feasibility is demonstrated, we cannot count on it for
a specific date.

	5. Solar energy should be pushed for those applications for which
it may be cost-effective like space heating.    Central station solar
power should be explored, but again we can't count on it for a specific
date until a potentially cost-effective way of producing it is developed.

	6. Some of the potential ways of using energy more economically
such as better automobile engines and transmissions deserve extensive
research as does building insulation.

	7. Research in exotic sources of energy, e.g. geothermal, wind
tide, and oceanic temperature difference should be supported whenever
an objective investigation shows a reasonable chance of cost-effectiveness.
There is a tendency to believe that unexplored methods won't have
the unpleasant side-effects of known methods, and there is a tendency
to continue wishful thinking by making "demonstration projects" that
don't lead to any plausible path to cost-effectiveness.


\F2Nuclear Energy\F0

	Nuclear energy plays a special role in public thinking because of
the controversy about its safety.

	There are questions about the safety of reactors, emissions from reactors,
the storage and handling of radioactive wastes and about the possibility
of theft of nuclear materials by terrorists.
New dangers and new ways of meeting them continue being discovered, and
we will never attain absolute safety or even absolute knowledge about
the degree of danger that currently exists.  As scientists and engineers,
we would especially like to have more information.

	However, decisions have to be made now, and our considered judgment
is that the nuclear energy program should proceed without additional
general delays or moratoriums, and should even be speeded up if this
is needed to meet the goals of \F2Project Independence\F0.  This judgment
applies in particular to the current procedures for approving the
construction of reactors, to the demonstration fast breeder, and to
the recycling of plutonium.

	We believe that present American procedures are adequate though
subject to further improvement.

	Some of the techniques of safety analysis developed in connection
with nuclear energy should be extended to other energy systems and to
other industrial activities.

	In the meantime, independent of the nuclear controversy although
exacerbated by it, is the fact that the nuclear industry is faltering badly
and cannot meet the commitments it has already made without a concerted
effort of government and industry.  The capacity of several components of
the fuel cycle is likely to prove less than required by the projected
power plants.  These clearly include uranium enrichment and spent fuel
reprocessing and probably also include spent fuel storage and waste
disposal.


\F2The International Energy Picture\F0

	Never in history has the price of such an important
commodity of international commerce been
raised so far above costs of production by a cartel.  Never have the
effects on so many countries been so serious.  The United States, of course,
is one of the lesser sufferers, because we still produce most of our own
energy and because we can probably afford the exorbitant prices.

	The other industrial countries and the underdeveloped countries have
even more immediate energy problems than we do.  Therefore, they are more
likely to have to undertake crash programs than we are.  Unless we want
to suffer the ill consequences of their failure, we should help insure
their success by helping develop technology.  In particular, the pace of
development of nuclear energy, automation of coal mining, coal gasification,
and oil shale should be partly determined by the needs of others.

	In addition, we can probably get in a position to export energy.
We should continue exporting coal, nuclear power plants, and nuclear fuel.


\F2Crash Programs\F0

	If the international price of oil can be talked down,
if there is substantial increased investment in present energy sources, and
if there is a prompt start on developing replacements for petroleum, then
crash programs are probably unnecessary - at least in the U.S.

	However, the experience of World War II tells us that when necessary
we can greatly increase our progress if we are willing to sacrifice some
domestic consumption temporarily and also to make decisions promptly.  For
example, the Hanford plutonium production reactors handle about the
same power as a modern nuclear power plant.  It was in operation two
years after the first chain reaction, but now a nuclear power plant takes
ten years.  It is said that we can't expand our nuclear program because of
a shortage of nuclear engineers, but when the Hanford plant was started,
there were no nuclear engineers at all.
The same considerations apply to possible crash programs in other
energy areas, but in the nuclear field, we can directly compare
performance under routine and emergency conditions.

	Once specific goals are established, FEA should promptly determine
whether a crash program is needed to meet them.  Alternatively, in
determining the options to put before the President and Congress, crash
programs should definitely be included.


\F2Roles of the Private and Public Sectors\F0

	The production of energy has traditionally been a matter for the
private sector, and the role of the government has been to control the
rates set by natural monopolies.  In addition the government has traditionally
made rules to protect the environment and workers.  In general, this division
of function will continue, but the government has some new roles:

	1. In the international sphere, the government has to bargain
for the country as a whole.  Private companies, especially when restrained
by anti-trust from co-ordinating their policies are too weak for this.

	2. Some investments may have to be made whose payoff will depend
on future government policy.  This includes investment in technologies
that may later be unprofitable because of new environmental restrictions
or because the country has done better in foreign buying than the worst
case provided for.  In these cases, the government has to take the risks
if they are to be taken at all.

	3. The government needs to co-ordinate research and development
and support the energy research done in universities and non-profit
institutes.

	4. Finally, the government needs to stabilize the
set of energy-related regulations as far as is politically possible.\.



					Holt Ashley, Aeronautics and Astronautics,
					Stanford University

					Thomas Connolly, Mechanical Engineering,
					Stanford University

					John McCarthy, Computer Science,
					Stanford University

					William Reynolds, Mechanical Engineering,
					Stanford University

					Frank G. Miller, Petroleum Engineering,
					Stanford University

					Wiilliam E. Brigham, Petroleum Engineering,
					Stanford University

					Sullivan S. Marsden, Petroleum Engineering,
					Stanford University

					Henry J. Ramey, Jr., Petroleum Engineering,
					Stanford University

					Channing R. Robertson, Chemical Engineering
					Stanford University
					
					Howard Seifert, Aeronautics and Astronautics,
					Stanford University

					Arthur E. Bryson, Jr., Aeronautics and Astronautics,
					Stanford University

					Donald Baganoff, Aeronautics and Astronautics,
					Stanford University
					
					K. Karamcheti, Aeronautics and Astronautics,
					Stanford University

					Milton D. Van Dyke, Aeronautics and Astronautics,
					Stanford University

					Charles R. Steele, Aeronautics and Astronautics,
					Stanford University

					Daniel Bershader
					Stanford University

					B. Oliver
					Hewlett-Packard