magnitude, national in scope and comprising a threat to the economy and consequently to the national position in world affairs. In a letter to Henry Poor, dated December 21, 1868, William B. Ogden wrote the following: In the present financial situation of the country, the matter of chiefest importance to be considered is the amount, the rapidity of growth, and the probable increase for the future of its internal commerce . . . Ogden went on to write that some resolution of that matter must be made in order to “assure not only your own people, but the world, of the entire solvency of the nation” (3). His letter was a request that Poor evaluate the potential of the railroad to resolve the problem then confronting the country. Replace the words “internal commerce” in the passage above with “energy consumption” and it suddenly sounds painfully modem. In the next fifty years, the chief problem which the U.S. economy must deal with is that of energy. The world’s opinion of our country as a leader among nations will be affected by the success or failure of our efforts to deal with that problem. The SPS is a spectacular way of coming to grips with our energy woes. It utilizes what the United States has the most of — good technology. In S.C. Gilfillan’s pioneering work, The Sociology of Invention, Mazlish finds two ponderable generalizations. He apparently believes they are worthy of consideration, for he reproduces them in full: 1) Equivalent invention: perceived needs are met by various unlike, as well as duplicate solutions, so that any great invention is simultaneously paralleled by other, often utterly dissimilar means for reaching the same end at the same time, e.g., reaching California by clipper, steamer, pony express, railroad, and telegraph. Inventions may be seen as arriving in functional groups. 2) Hence no single invention ever revolutionizes civilization, nor brings, simply thru having been invented, any important changes in the life of the mass of men (6). The modem parallels of the equivalent inventions, when one is talking about meeting energy demands, are numerous: nuclear reactors, geothermal, on-site solar, boiler towers, synfuels, coal, etc. Gilfillan’s second generalization is certainly incontestable; unless the SPS is implemented, its invention will only be of technological significance. We can logically expect economic feasibility to be the prime criterion for implementing the SPS. At present, the SPS is estimated to be two to three times the cost of nuclear-fired or coal-fired plants. However, this may not be the case ten years from now. To illustrate how the SPS may overcome this cost disadvantage, we can return to our analogy. As late as 1890, rail rates were three times higher than water rates (4). An explanation of how railroads overcame this disadvantage can be given in terms of new and unexpected costs for water transport: cargo losses were higher on water routes, trans-shipment costs and costs for wagon haulage were not reflected in rates, nor was the fact that the goods spent more time in transport. Also, northern water routes were closed by ice for five months of the year (4). Similarly, there are additional costs associated with nuclear energy which might reduce its advantage over satellite power. Among these are public opposition causing delays in construction which drive up material costs and interest on money borrowed; temporary shutdowns and high insurance costs; costly lawsuits and other litigations; and govern-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==