dynamic framework of possible future energy conditions. Four steps are involved: First, a mix of energy technologies is specified. Second, the scenarios are used to project each technology's share of future energy demand Next, the overall impacts of each energy technology are extrapolated for the respective danand level. Finally, the results of the impact projections are analyzed and threshhold levels are specified for the six issue areas. The six issue areas include health and safety, resource requirements, macroeconomics, socioeconomics, welfare effects, and costs. For the health and safety area, the scenarios and quantification (wherever possible) of the total potential public and occupational health and safety effects associated with each fuel cycle for a given level of energy demand. Similarity, the alternative futures analysis looks at the demand for resources (e. g., land, water, and materials) over times and the impact of each fuel cycle on the GNP, the rate of inflation and unemployment, interest rates and investment. In the socioeconomic area, the alternative futures analysis employs the scenarios to "qualitatively" examine the regional efforts of each technology under the three danand scenarios. The scenarios are also employed to wuantitatively and qualitatively assess the respective welfare effects of each fuel cycle. Finally, the alternative futures analysis uses the scenarios to specify the costs of producing the electricity donanded given the danand and the technology mix. FINAL COMMENTS It was not the objective of this comparative assessment to make direct comparisons between the technologies alternative to the SPS (e.g., between coal and central-station photovoltaics or between fission and fusion). The assumptions of the assessment were designed to allow comparison of the SPS to the alternatives, and cross-comparisons among the alternatives would be valid under sane, but not all, of these assumptions. In all comparative assessments it is vital that the assumptions, uncertainties, and inconsistencies that exist between the systems being compared are clearly and objectively presented. Otherwise the comparison may provide limited, if any, information on which to make meaningful decisions. It is intended that the data supplied in this comparison will aid in increasing knowledge and thereby decreasing uncertainty for the decision maker as he or she evaluates the initial SPS concept.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==