Dr. Heiss. Let me take this up. Economists would be happy if certainty existed. I think engineers would be happy, economists would be happy—everybody would be. I do think that, if you look at the economic question—is the SSPS or is satellite solar power economical or not?—I believe that one has to disaggregate the answer. And, of course, the best situation would be, yes, the satellite solar power system is economic, based even on today's prices of fuel, today's capital costs, today's situation. In that case, one would recommend trying it and maybe the only thing needed would be some Government assistance to have private industry do it. That is today not the situation with the space-based solar power case. I think the same situation also holds for ground-based solar power. This does not, however, exclude, for economic reasons, to pursue whether the idea or the concept of gathering solar power in space may at some future time be reasonable. So an economist—or at least my position on these issues is, if I can determine some future reasonable condition where I would see a competitive advantage to space-based solar, ground-based solar to fusion energy, then this potential alone is justification for pursuing research—not prototype and certainly not an operational deployment. Now, what would be the conditions for, say, a prototype program? What I am trying to do is to distinguish between deploying something for operational use—and I believe, before doing that, one has to be very, very sure that the costs and the payoffs are really there. And that is what I mean by an assessment in today's prices, today's costs— and this test I say today the SSPS concept fails. But for a prototype development—I think a prototype development should be undertaken when the research effort has given enough range to what viable concepts are. There are really in each case, even within the SSPS—-there are problems of scale, there are problems of technology. And the prototype program is—okay I determine there is enough economic potential here, and I now want to find out what in fact the operations costs of such systems are before committing to deployment. Now, our own judgment is that this situation has not yet been reached in the SSPS area, this satellite solar power station. I think it is premature today to advocate two or three different prototypes for deployment in the early eighties. However, given this analysis—and if you look at it timewise, what we are saying is, by 1995 there is the potential that it makes sense. It says we have really 20 years time to find out. And, therefore, a considered judgment from us is—-therefore, over the next 4 ot 5 years, do everything to explore further ideas on solar power station alternative configurations, preliminary paper studies, but don't cut any iron or aluminum or don't commit to large expenditures in the range of $1 billion, $2 billion, to pursue it. Now, I think that is an extremely good and positive economic insight. And I think the debate gets confused by hanging on the solar power station concept the $40 billion figures, which I think are not warranted today to engage in. But that is very different, however, than to say—a very considered, systematic effort is now warranted to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==