CI(d) Constrained. Intermediate energy intensity (decentralized) UH Unconstrained, High energy intensity. Because of differing assumptions about production constraints and long-run costs, the scenarios yield significant different long-run price trajectories for all primary fuels, as well as electricity. It can be shown that the assumed rate of deployment of SPS after 2000 would make SPS the dominant source of central station electricity by 2030 for all of the scenarios except UH. One consequence of this would be to eliminate the impact of assumed production constraints for coal and nuclear power. Thus the cost of coal and non-SPS electricity in scenarios CI, CI(d) would presumably drop back to the levels of UH and UI. A lower price of coal would, in turn, reduce the cost of syngas and, consequently, the price of natural gas would also drop back toward the unconstrained level. Thus, though SPS is a more expensive means of generating electricity, it would relieve shortages of other fuels in the most probable (constrained) scenario and reduce their prices correspondingly. SPS will increase direct costs to electricity users. The impact might be concentrated on a specific area (such as New England) where other sources of electric power are scarce. Or it might be spread over all electricity users by various mechanisms —especially if a ''national grid” exists by that time. Only if the extra cost is spread over all regions is large-scale deployment of SPS likely to occur, since the major benefits are indirect, and beneficiaries (e.g. syngas consumers) might be in different regions. The second major macroeconomic problem associated with SPS arises from its large appetite for scarce capital. The ''extra” investment required to build 10 GWe of SPS per year after the year 2000 —as compared to the cheapest alternative (coal)— would be in the range of $20-$50 billion, or 10-25% of the investment increment dedicated to economic growth. It could apparently cut potential GNP growth rates below the target level of 2.3% by 0.2% p.a. to 0.5% p.a. It must be acknowledged that numerical calculation of this kind are predicated on so many uncertain factors that very limited weight should be placed upon them. It is probably enough to say that the capital demands of SPS would probably hold back real economic growth to some degree, relative to the "cheapest” alternative sources of electric power. Not much more can be said at this stage about local or regional impacts, or effects on specific social groups or classes.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==