1 INTRODUCTION 1 .1 BACKGROUND The SPS Concept Development and Evaluation Program (CDEP)l was established by the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to generate information from which a rational decision could be made regarding the direction of the Satellite Power System (SPS) Program after fiscal 1980. The comparative assessment program is one of four functional areas within the joint DOE/NASA CDEP. The other CDEP functional areas are: • Systems definition: reference system design, alternative and advanced concept design, and critical supporting studies. • Environmental assessment: evaluation of human health and safety, ecological, atmospheric, and electromagnetic interference issues pertaining to microwave transmission, power-line transmission, transportation activities, construction, and operation of the SPS. • Societal assessment: evaluation of international issues, institutional issues (e.g., utility interfacing), resource issues, and public outreach. The results of these three activities are inputs to the comparative assessment process as well as to program assessments. These four areas form the basis for the CDEP assessment of the technical possibility, economic viability, and environmental and social acceptability of the SPS concept. 1.2 OBJECTIVE AND APPROACH The objective of the assessment is to provide an initial, traceable and consistent comparison of the SPS and selected current, near-term, and advanced energy technologies. To achieve this objective, the comparative assessment was divided into four parts: 1. Energy alternatives characterization: terrestrial alternatives were selected, and their cost, performance, and environmental and societal attributes were specified for use in the comparison with the SPS in the post-2000 era. 2. Methods: the framework for comparisons was established. 3. Evaluation: the SPS was compared with alternative systems in terms of key issues such as life-cycle cost and environmental impacts. 4. Management and integration: the results of the assessments were assembled and integrated into a consistent comparative assessment.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==