5 ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS 5.1 INTRODUCTION The objective of this assessment is to provide a traceable and consistent comparison of the SPS and selected energy technologies operating after 2000. The approach in this comparative assessment was to analyze each of the technologies issue by issue (side-by-side analysis), on the basis of a preselected set of issues, and then to do an analysis that evaluated the technologies, given different post-2000 economic climates and the economic trajectories that would lead to those climates (alternative futures analysis). The alternative futures analysis was also performed issue by issue, although some issue analyses were qualitative and therefore relatively insensitive to quantitatively defined economic futures. It is the goal of this section to formulate some conclusions on the basis of the analyses described in earlier sections of this report and the supporting documents. Because the analysis was performed in two ways, two different types of conclusions will be reported. The first type will focus on the issue-by-issue analysis (side by side) and incorporate the key issues for each technology. Conclusions will be made in each major issue category (e.g., health and safety) by looking across the technologies. The second type of conclusion will be concerned with the parameters (e.g., energy demand and fuel prices) of various futures and will include statements about the comparative viability of different supply paths. Conclusions will be formulated in this case for mixes of technologies in different demand scenarios. These two types of concluding analyses will form the basis of this section. No statements regarding the overall viability of the SPS concept will be made. Such a statement is the objective of the overall CDEP program, of which this assessment is only one part. 5.2 SIDE-BY-SIDE CONCLUSIONS Tables 5.1 through 5.6 summarize the comparison, issue by issue, among the seven technologies. The comparisons in these tables are described in terms of key issues, uncertainties about the understanding of those issues, and a concluding comparative statement that cuts across all technologies for that issue area. Only one or two key issues were identified for each technology unless several were equally important. Cost and Performance. The SPS is economically competitive with coal and nuclear energy prices if high coal and nuclear fuel prices continue and if further environmental regulations continue to raise the capital costs of these technologies at a rate substantially above inflation. However, if the capital costs of coal and nuclear technology rise because of the increasing regulatory restrictions, the regulatory climate will be such that it may also affect the cost of SPS. If coal prices increase at a rate only moderately above inflation, the probability that the SPS will be competitive with coal energy is relatively small until after the year 2000, although this result is dependent on the amount of coal use.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==