nearly two-thirds of this cost is due to the solar blankets. Total space transportation cost (fleet and operations) is the second most important contributor at 13. 8 mill/kWh or 22 percent. It is interesting to compare these results with Table 14-1 and Figure 14-3, which listed the life cycle cost of the SPS by major contributor. Such a comparison reveals a shifting perspective of the major cost drivers of the program. For instance, Figure 14-3 shows that in terms of life cycle cost, the cost of the satellite and the cost of taxes and insurance each contribute 26 percent of the total. However, in terms of generation cost, Figure 14-9 shows that the satellite accounts for 35 percent of the total while taxes and insurance are down to 11 percent. This is because the generation cost takes into account the time value of money and gives a more realistic comparison of the relative importance between cost elements. The satellite is primarily an initial capital cost item and therefore incurs high financial charges. The taxes and insurance, on the other hand, are costs which are incurred at a later point in time and are therefore affected less by the time value of money. As stated previously, the generation cost of 62 mill/kWh is a realistic estimate for the MSFC baseline concept including a number of contingencies and based on factors discussed throughout this report. In subsection 14. 5, economic sensitivities to certain of these factors were discussed (launch costs, for example). In Figure 14-10 the 62 mill/kWh baseline generation cost has been expanded to a range of values or error bars, which correspond to a range of reasonable assumptions. This figure compares the expected range of the SPS generation costs to the range of expected costs taken from various sources for other types of power plants for the 1990's. The conclusion is that, while costs are uncertain for all of those power plants, the SPS is in the competitive range of generation costs predictions.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==