2.0 PROGRAMMATICS 2.1 DERIVATION OF SATELLITE ENERGY SYSTEM PROGRAM DEFINITION The methodology used to select the system size guidelines is as follows: Background—Utilization of space-based power generation could conceivably occur as a legislated action, prompted by the resultant increase of national energy independency, reduced pollution, infinite source, etc. However, about three-fourths of our electric power currently is produced by private utilities, suggesting that economics may be a major factor influencing space-based power incorporation. Thus, market elasticity must be considered, i.e. sales will be influenced by the price of the product. Many factors have contributed to the increases in installed capacity (kW) and consumption (kWh). I) Population growth—from 1956 to 1973 the rate was 1.3% per year. The rate is predicted to decline to 0.8% in the 1973 to 1990 period. Resultant populations, millions (1)*: 1964 ................................... 192 1974 ................................... 212 1984 ................................... 231 1994 ................................... 249 2) Rising standard of living- disposable income per person has been increasing; the trend is expected to continue (1): 1964 ................................... 3248 1974 ................................... 4592 1984 ................................... 5677 1994 ................................... 7071 3) Relative reduction in electricity cost-as pointed out by Hannon (2), the cost of electricity energy has reduced relative to labor costs (electricity does not strike for higher wages). It thus seems appropriate that about 40% of our national electricity use is for process heat and industrial power while only 9% goes for lighting (3). In the following plot (Figure 2-1) from (2) the ratio of manufacturing workers hourly wage to industrial kWh cost of electricity is represented as 1.0 in 1951 on the ratio index scale. * References are given at the end of this session. Fig. 2-1. Electricity/Labor Cost Ratio ^ig. 2-2. Growth in U.S. Installed Capacity An explanation for the change in forecast is given in (1): at the end of 1973 an increase of 33,100 MW in the summer peak requirement was forecast. An increase of 43,607 MW in capacity was planned for 1974 to meet this peak, retire some obsolescent units and raise the national reserve margin to 21%. However, energy conservation (partly from recession-caused production decreases) cut the load growth, to only 15,530 MW, resulting in a generForecasts—Figure 2-2 shows trends in national installed generating capacity. Note the difference between the 1973 and 1974 forecasts. It is significant that the 1973 article in (5) was titled "Utilities Plan Expansion to Meet Record Demands" and that the 1974 title in (1) was "Slower Growth In Sales and Peaks Sparks Sharp Cut in Expansion Plans and Cost."
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==