SPS concept is not equally included in the European energy research programmes, considering that it could become a potential indigenous energy source for Europe. Forty solar power satellites, each with an output of 5 GW at the utility interface, could meet today’s electricity consumption in Western Europe, as illustrated in Fig. 3 (6). Even in the event of a continuing increase in the demand for electrical power, they could still cover a major part of any shortfall in Europe early in the next century. Because of the long time that elapses between the proof of technical and economic feasibility of a new energy concept and its penetration of the energy-supply market, and because of the importance of a continuous energy supply for Europe, it would seem advisable to investigate all these three possible options in sufficient depth to learn more about their technical, economic, environmental, and health impacts. Experience in the development of nuclear fission reactors has shown that it is not really possible to assess the technical and political impacts of large-scale introduction of a new energy system on the basis of theoretical investigations or small-scale experiments. Thermonuclear fusion has now been studied with relatively high funding for more than twenty years, but so far it has not reached the status yet that nuclear fission achieved thirty-five years ago with the first controlled, self-sustained chain reaction. 3. THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF SATELLITE POWER SYSTEMS The cost estimates for the development and installation of the SPS look extremely high in relation to the present funding level of space activities in Europe of approximately $1.1 billion per year. The estimates recently presented by R. Piland (8) — $102 billion for development, infrastructure, and demonstration of the first 5 GW satellite, and $11.5 billion for each following 5 GW satellite — look more acceptable, however, in relation to the financial scale of the energy market. At present price levels, Western Europe spends approximately 6% of its gross domestic product for oil imports, corresponding to the transfer of approximately $150 billion per year to the OPEC countries. At present prices, Western Europe would have to pay more than $3500 billion for oil imports during the next twenty years in order to meet predicted demand. An annual increase of the oil price by only 10% would increase this amount to more than $10,000 billion in twenty years. Investment in the first fourteen oil fields in the British sector of the North Sea now exceeds $50 billion. The estimated useful oil content of these fields, when converted into electrical power, would correspond to the output of five 5 GW power satellites over a thirty-year period. Alternative energy sources to oil are presently considerably cheaper. Coal is only one-third of the price of oil per unit heat content. Uranium prices are also quite low, and the fuel cost for nuclear reactors is still a minor element in operating costs. However, there is no reason why the price of coal and uranium should not rise in the same way as oil prices. The tremendous increase in the price of oil by a factor of more than 15 during the last eight years, has given much greater importance to the availability/application of indigenous energy sources. Only two years ago, it was being argued that Europe should not aim to reduce its energy imports to maintain a balanced trading account with Third World countries (8). At present, most European countries find it very difficult to finance their balance-of-payments deficits. The SPS could make a contribution towards helping Europe to reduce the increas-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==