A surprisingly large number of persons submitting comments noted the potential military implications of the SPS. Some questioned whether the SPS was not just a thinly-disguised military program that would signal another escalation in the arms race; they suggested further that regardless of the intentions of the SPS program, it would be seen as a military threat by some nations and consequently prompt a new round of military weapons development. On the other side of the coin, some commenters suggested that the SPS would make a prime target for terrorists or saboteurs since it consistuted such a large source of power. The issue of centralization vs. decentralization emerged in several forms in the comments received. Some persons objected to an energy program that would necessitate the heavy involvement of the federal government and big businesses and the utility industry; this involvement was seen occuring at the expense of small businesses and individual communities. Others noted the problems of large energy development projects including those of cost over-runs, population disruptions, boom town effects, corruption, inefficiency, etc. Some of the respondants raised other concerns as well. Among these points was the question of international cooperation; while many felt that such cooperation would be necessary, there was a noticeable split among the respondants as to whether this cooperation was desirable or even feasible. Other persons questioned whether it would be politically feasible to finance the SPS through increases in utility rates to current utility customers when the pontential beneficiaries would be the customers of a future generation. And finally, some commenters noted that the SPS was an inefficient use of resources given that when fully operatai, the satellites would only provide about 10% of the U.S.'s energy needs. While strongly critical of the SPS technology in general, the overwhelming majority of the respondants expressed strong support for the outreach effort undertaken by the DOE to solicit public input on the issue. Interestingly, many respondants noted that they felt that the Citizens' Energy Project expressed a pro-SPS bias in its summaries of the DOE white papers; about an equal number stated that they felt that the Citizens' Energy Project exhibited an anti-SPS bias. In either event, there was a strong call for continued involvement by the general public in the process of evaluating the SPS program and its social environmental ramifications.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==