TABLE 5 LAND USE IMPACT COMPARISONS the rights of its use based on existing space law (25). A basic consideration will be the ownership of the SPS, the responsibility of the owners in case of accidents, from whatever causes, the vulnerability of the SPS to actions of adversaries, and the degree to which institutions created to construct and operate large centralized energy production technologies will be controlled by the society they are designed to serve (26). 8.2. Environmental impacts The social costs of environmental impacts of this alternative large-scale powergeneration system, including the land used for launch sites, and receiving antennas, and the aesthetic effects of such use, have to be established so that the benefits of each specific system approach can be weighed against potential dangers to human health, resource commitments, destruction of valued natural resources, and the intangible effects which may influence the quality of life. 8.2.1. Land use. The receiving antennas could be located on a wide variety of terrain, ranging from desert to farm land and in off-shore locations. In the United States, potential sites for a typical receiving antenna with dimensions of about 10 km East-West and 12 km North-South — the exact dimensions will depend upon the latitude of the site — have been identified (27). The micro wave beam flux density at the edges of a site of this size would be 0.1 mW/cm2. Table 5 compares the land use impacts of the SPS with other power generation methods (28). 8.2.2. Water resources (28). On the assumption that the 100 receiving antennas would be constructed using conventional approaches, about 1.7X106 t of concrete would be used in the foundations. The concrete would require 2.3 x 1051 of water; the water would have to be available or brought to the site during the construction phase.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==