Data on alternative technologies were sought from previous research and from other comparisons, and data on the SPS developed by other parts of the program were evaluated and used for the comparative assessment. Traceable data were gathered on alternative technologies, evaluated, and normalized to some consistent power or energy level and then synthesized into a format convenient for comparison. A comparative assessment such as this cannot proceed without a large number of initial assumptions. Furthermore, a group of technologies that is representative, for which data exist, and of a size reasonable for study must be selected from a larger set. These assumptions and technologies were selected on the basis of an objective selection procedure and the subjective judgments of the assessors and their program staff. The documentation of this assessment was prepared to provide the reader who strongly objects to some assumptions or data with ample information for reanalysis of the comparison with other data or assumptions. However, the many assumptions and data selections supporting this report were made carefully and thoughtfully. This final comparative assessment is a revision and expansion of a preliminary assessment and represents a culmination of the CDEP program in this area. Some of the information from the preliminary assessment has not changed either because it represented the best comparative information available on a particular issue or because the issue was not considered as important as others and was therefore de-emphasized. The goal of the preliminary assessment was to gather some initial comparative information on a limited set of technologies. The objective of the present assessment is to finalize these comparisons on all key issues on the basis of state-of-the-art knowledge and to point out data deficiencies that affect the conclusions, as well as to add comparisons based on alternative future scenarios. The preliminary assessment^ evaluated six centralized baseload technologies: conventional coal; light water reactor (LWR); coal gasification/ combined cycle (CG/CC); liquid-metal, fast-breeder reactor (LMFBR); centralstation, terrestrial photovoltaic (TPV); the satellite power system (SPS); and fusion. For the final comparative assessment, some minor modifications were introduced into this group of technologies; most notably, an improved emission control system for the conventional coal technology and an improved fuel utilization cycle for the LWR were assumed. The technologies compared with the SPS in this assessment vary in their stages of development and, therefore, in their degree of definition. This variability was handled by qualifying the data wherever possible: for example, a technological uncertainty factor was applied to data used in the cost and performance comparisons. The assessment framework or methodology is described briefly in this report and in more detail in a companion report.3 This assessment follows the structure of the first five steps of the methodology, but the sixth (integration/aggregation techniques) was not carried out. Instead of a formalized procedure for reducing the comparative information to a specific, condensed format for decision-making, the information is presented in its entirety; it was assumed that decision makers would use their own procedures for summarizing and evaluating the information.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==