because of this geometric growth, one gets a big impact in a relatively short time. Second: We have assumed that if this thing makes sense it can only do so if it has a really major impact on the energy needs of the country. And that is to say, we assume that if it makes sense, it must within a relatively short time dominate the market for new energy facilities. And for this reason we have assumed, in 1975 dollars, the initial power cost should be no more than about 15 mills. This is contrasted with the figures of 27 and 30 mills which we heard from the previous speakers. And also to ensure the market penetration and the dominance of this solution to the energy problem, we have assumed that after an initial rate of 15 mills, with time the rate would have to drop to 12 mills, 10 mills, 8 mills, and so on. Because of the rapid growth due to the bootstrap process, in already the 13th year of the program of this kind, its capability to produce new powerplants would meet the annual need for new generating capacity in the United States. And for comparison we should give two numbers. One is that in about the 11th year of a program of that kind—11 years from the start of construction of the first facility—one would have energy coming into the bus bars, to the grid on Earth, in an amount which would exceed the peak capacity of the Alaska pipeline. That is the equivalent of roughly 2 million bbl/d of oil. And by about the year 16 or 17, in that same graph, the total amount of energy which had been brought in from space and applied usefully to the power grid would exceed what is now believed to be the total reserve capacity of the Alaska north slope. I should say also that when one calculates, as economists like to do, so-called benefit-to-cost ratio for a program of that kind, it appears that that ratio is much larger than one. That is shown in that graph by the fact that the initial investment then turns over and becomes a profit after a period of time. It appears that those profits could be very high. I should point out another possibility, with these very low electric rates—not a certainty, but a possibility. It appears that it may be possible to lower those rates sufficiently far as to allow the synthesis of artificial fuels here on Earth economically to replace gasoline and achieve what would be a true energy independence for the country. As we know, the amount of energy which is applied for electricity is only about 40 percent of the total which the country uses. The other 60 percent is in the form of combustion fuels for transportation and also just direct industrial and home heating. If we can get the electric rates low enough, we can take care of that market as well. In closing, three points. First: This concept seems to excite ordinary people, like assemblyline workers and hard hat construction men, who in my opinion constitute the greatest strength of this country. The copy of the New York Times Magazine which you were kind enough to show to me is some illustration of that interest. These people see the possibility of their own direct personal participation and they are excited by it.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==