EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The SPS Concept Development and Evaluation Program (CDEP)^ was established by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to generate information by which a rational decision could be made regarding the direction of the Satellite Power System (SPS) program after fiscal 1980. The four functional areas within the joint DOE/NASA CDEP are as follows: • Systems Definition: development of the SPS reference system design. • Environmental Assessment: evaluation of potential environmental effects of SPS. • Societal Assessment: evaluation of potential societal effects of SPS. • Comparative Assessment: development of a comparative data base on the SPS and six other energy technologies. The results of the first three activities are inputs to the comparative assessment process as well as independent program assessments. This report concerns the comparative assessment portion of the CDEP. The objective of the comparative assessment is to develop an initial understanding of the SPS with respect to a limited set of energy alternatives. This is consistent with the overall CDEP objective, that is, to determine whether or not the SPS concept is sufficiently attractive (presenting no insurmountable barriers) to receive further research investment. In all comparative assessments it is vital that the assumptions, uncertainties, and significant differences between the systems being compared are clearly and objectively presented. Otherwise, the comparison may prove useless for making meaningful decisions. The key assumptions and ground rules made in this report are as follows: 1. The baseload electric generation technologies are projected to be on line in the year 2000, with an approximate availability date of 1990. Further, the R&D base and the infrastructure are assumed to be in place when required. 2. All data are traceable to publicly available information. 3. Each technology is treated as an independent variable. For example, if coal costs go up or down, the costs of the other technologies are assumed not to change for the same reasons. 4. When no historical data or basic reports were available, the analysts have specified the conditions they have chosen and presented their rationales for doing so. In cases where the chosen conditions have favored or disfavored a technology, the analysts have stated the bias.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==