exerted by the sale of fissile bred plutonium. In this instance, there is an assumption of increasing plutonium prices. The analysis suggests that this has only a minor impact on the total delivered energy cost. The capacity growth assumption is explicitly taken from the ECON analysis for the SSPS and represents a substantial understatement of even the most conservative projection of LMFBR capacity growth provided in the various AEC and ERDA studies reviewed. In general, these assumptions correspond to those used in the ECON study (Ref. All). (2) Summary of Findings For two of the three technologies under consideration, SSPS and LMFBR, it was necessary to consider alternative scenarios with respect to either initial date of operation (IOC) or program (DDT&E) costs. In the case of the LMFBR, the draft EIR (WASH-1535) prepared in December of 1974 referenced a 1987 introduction date, a program cost (excluding parallel breeder development) of $8.1 billion, and a substantial learning curve benefit associated with continued production of the LMFBR. This constitutes one of three scenarios for LMFBR development. Another scenario for LMFBR development is identical in all respects except that it eliminates the impact of learning curve savings on capital costs of new plans. The final EIR issued by ERDA in December of 1975 contains somewhat higher capital costs and a sharply expanded program cost of $14.38 billion, including development of a parallel breeder reactor. This constitutes the third scenario examined for the LMFBR. In the case of terrestrial solar energy, a variety of systems were examined by JPL (Refs. A7, A8, A15 and source documents), including various types of thermal receivers, thermal engine systems, and photovoltaic. For purposes of this limited comparison, the stationary central receiver system has been used. It represents the apparent lowest cost of delivered busbar energy and presents someofthe lesser technological problems. Unfortunately, the available data on terrestrial solar systems does not permit any informed judgement as to feasibility other than on the basis of the apparent lowest cost.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==