excess energy emission from the rectenna site is released as heat into the atmosphere potentially causing changes in the ecological system. The inner part of the Antarctic continent is said to be the most sterilized land on the Earth though there are various biota and an eccentric biome on the shore line around it. Therefore, we have two subjects to be considered on the usage of the Antarctic Continent for the rectenna site. One is the preservation of the ecological system on the shore line, the other is the preservation of the sterility of the inner continent. The biome on the shore line of the Antarctic continent is composed of many peculiar living organisms which have evolved to adapt to the low temperature of the region. For them, even a slight additional energy such as excess heat flow from the rectenna site may be destructive because of the constant poverty of energy there. Therefore, large scale rectenna facility should not be constructed near to the shore line of the Antarctic Continent. There may not be any biological problem in the inner part of the Antarctic continent if we consider only the existing biome. But the possibility exists that the energy spill from the rectenna site may make and grow a new biome there. Even one short period of high temperature (as warm as the shore line region) per year would be enough for an ecological system composed of the blue algae and molds to destroy the sterility of the inner region. Because of this sterility, the Antarctic is now a treasure house of envrionmentally clean scientific specimens such as meteorites, ancient rock samples, and ancient air trapped in the ice. In some research, the organic pollution caused by the biological activity is very serious. Therefore, large scale rectenna facility which can make the partial climate as warm as the shore area should not be made in the inner part of the Antarctic Continent. Regulatory Considerations Normal obstacles for a project of this caliber such as air, construction, and town permits or community outreach and health and safety issues will be minimal. Environmental monitoring requirements and national or international permits will still have an impact on the project, but again should be minimal. The primary regulatory factor in Antarctica is the Antarctic Treaty of December 1, 1959 which declared the area south of 60° latitude an international preserve for science. Thirteen countries participated, prohibiting mining and resource exploitation; these include Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, the French Republic, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Union of South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. Plans regarding scientific programs in Antarctica working toward the preservation and conservation of living resources need to be exchanged amongst the participants. Each country involved has the right to designate observers to carry out an inspection of all areas of Antarctica to ensure compliance with this treaty. Representatives meet at suitable intervals to exchange information, consult together on matters of common interest to Antarctica, and formulate recommendations to their Governments to further the principles and objectives of the treaty. Cooperative working relationships between specialized agencies of the United National and other international organizations having scientific or technical interest in Antarctica is encouraged. Disputes between countries with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction in Antarctica shall immediately consult together with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable solution. This can be done through negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement or other peaceful means of choice. If these methods prove unsuccessful, the dispute will be referred to the International Court of Justice for settlement. Market Value The section on remote locations in Chapter 3.1.1 contains a preliminary market analysis of solar power in Antarctica versus other locations such as the Arizona desert. Of course, a demonstration is not expected to be of market value and the primary motivation of providing Antarctica with an alternative energy source is an environmental one, but it is still useful to compare costs. The cost of providing electricity to Antarctica works out to approximately 0.60$/kWh. [Wills, 1988] The cost of using a portable generator to convert diesel to electricity is 0.10$/kWh for a 250k W generator size. [Leonard, 1991, in Ch. 3] For comparison photovoltaics are thought to produce electricity at 0.22$/kWh. [Wills, 1988]
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==