One of the most disturbing aspects of the project so far is the duplicity of the approach. For example, Stephen Gorove's paper on "International Agreements" pretends to try to accommodate the spirit of the 1967 treaty while actually aiming to subvert the intent of the treaty. Claude Bain's paper on "Military Implications" carefully avoids addressing the real military issues and minimizes the impact of the issues it does address. So far, much of the effort seems to avoid coming to grips with the real problems or to even truly consider the possibility that SPS might be a technically, environmentally, socially or morally unsound project. Much of the analysis to date has been disingenuous at best. Whysong and Done- lek's conclusion that California might like the first SPS installation because of their "interest in environmental matters" is comic. Does Elder really expect other "energy-hungry" nations to join us? Vajk's list of "social criteria" is woefully inadequate. Some aspects of the project (Van Allen precipitation, ionospheric heating) could prove disastrous and yet the conclusion is often reached that "there is no way to predict the impact of the full-scale project." The question arises: Who is promoting the SSPS and why? Most of the promotion has come from NASA, large aerospace corporations (Boeing, Rockwell), and major nuclear/boiler suppliers (Westinghouse, General Electric). All of these are industries whose support base is eroding. NASA cannot justify continued manned exploration of near-space unless there are much more massive direct human benefits than resulted from Apollo/Skylab kinds of programs. The large American aerospace corporations are finding their sales slipping as European manufacturers are beginning to build more efficient aerospace vehicles. Orders for nuclear plants and other conventional plants are being cancelled as conservation and economics are beginning to take effect. All of this means that these industries and the congressmen who represent them (such as Ronnie Flippo, D-AL) are the major influences in the SSPS movement. Most energy-related consumer organizations who support solar programs have taken strong stands against SSPS. Such organizations include Solar Lobby, Environmental Action, Center for Renewable Resources, and the Citizens Energy Project. The Sierra Club, Audubon Society, and other environmental groups have published critiques of what has been called "Pork Barrel in the Sky: a Solar Boondoggle to rival Nuclear and Synfuels."
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==