COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00004 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00006 00003
C00015 00004	Mention CONAES and the two APS studies.
C00016 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source;
.double space
.cb Proposal for an SE2 Energy Statement for California Engineers and Scientists

(At the meeting of the Stanford Chapter of SE2, held on Wednesday
October 15, 1980, it was decided to draft a statement on California's
energy situation, with particular reference to California's
vulnerability to an oil cutoff and the fact (if it is a fact)
that the main thing California can do all by itself to reduce
vulnerability is to replace our use of oil for electricity
generation by the use of nuclear energy.

	The proposal is that a suitable statement, accompanied
by supporting material be sent for signature
to prominent California scientists and engineers.  The statement
would then be well publicized.  The statement would contain
the essential points, and a signatory would not thereby be
committed to everything in the supporting material.

	The rationale for this is that we can't beat something
with nothing.  The State Energy Commission has a totally
inadequate energy plan based on wishful thinking about the
possibilities of conservation, new renewable sources of energy,
the continued availability of imported oil, and the willingness
of other states to accept air pollution and build nuclear and
coal burning plants in order to ship
electricity to California.  The Brown Administration is battling
Diablo canyon on the basis of Brown's belief that nuclear energy
is the Vietnam issue of the 1980s, and he can ride it to the
White House.  While this seems increasingly unlikely, he has
no reason to reverse his position without heavy pressure.  Given
heavy pressure, he has exhibited considerable talent for
reversing his position.

	The following draft has been written without checking that the
assertions are correct.  The assertions need to be checked and
corrected where needed.  Additional quantitative information
about California's energy use in relation to the country and
our increasing dependence is needed.  The present version avoids
assigning blame.  Perhaps that is a mistake.  Also, the present
document includes some information that perhaps needn't be
in the statement but could be included with it in the solicitation of
signatures.)



Mention CONAES and the two APS studies.

Separate and emphasize our scientific and engineering opinions.

More rather than less electricity.

Phoniness about cogeneration.

France

.80 per kilowatt hour