Each organization subsequently distributed their summaries to 3000 of their members or organizational contacts. FASST prepared individual summaries of each of the SPS “white papers” and then mailed them in a single mailing to their list. The L-5 Society issued their summaries as a single, condensed report. And CEP, like FASST, prepared individual summaries corresponding to the individual white papers; however, CEP mailed its 22 summaries out in five separate packets distributed over a five-month period. All three organizations sent cover letters with their respective mailings informing constituents of the outreach effort and requesting their participation. Each organization also sent along questionnaires and other response forms to encourage comment. Feedback requested by the L-5 Society addressed critical issues involved in the implementation of the SPS whereas CEP addressed critical issues involved in the concept of the SPS; FASST requested no structured feedback on the SPS concept and solicited only general comments or questions. The L-5 Society asked such questions as who should research, construct, and own the SPS; what areas of research needed more emphasis; what reference design alternatives should be given more emphasis; and what government agencies should play a role in SPS development. The Citizens’ Energy Project asked opinions about the economics, the environmental issues, the social concerns, the impact of centralization, health and safety issues, and preferable alternatives; CEP also solicited comments on the objectivity of the white paper summaries. FASST asked its constituents to rate the summaries as a means of both informing and involving students in the SPS concept development process. In response to these mailings, CEP eventually received 382 written comments; CEP also conducted 30 telephone interviews with key constituent group members to elicit more detailed comments. Of these CEP respondents, 6% expressed support for the SPS concept. About 9% were effectively neutral on the issue; generally they indicated that further study of the option was warranted. Finally, about 85% of CEP’s respondents expressed varying degrees of opposition to the SPS concept. While the outreach program could not be considered a scientific survey or a statistically accurate poll, the results are valuable as indicators of issues felt to be important by the environment/solar energy citizen groups community. The issues most frequently cited as the basis for opposition were [1] high economic costs, [2] environ- mental/health threats posed by the use of microwaves; [3] miscellaneous environmental issues such as land use, air pollution, and materials use; [4] the adverse military consequences of an SPS program; and [5] a preference for small-scale, decentralized solar technologies. Amost 70% of CEP’s respondents felt that the SPS was too expensive and would result in excessive capital concentration in the hands of a few large businesses. Fully half of the respondents cited the opportunity costs of the SPS — notably that it threatened to take funds away from other energy options especially decentralized solar energy technologies and energy conservation. Nearly 35% of the respondents considered SPS economics to be the most significant obstacle confronting SPS development while one-third of the comments questions who would control the SPS and reap the financial benefits of its development. One person quoted from former U.S. Senator James Abourezk’s statement on the SPS; when being lobbied for his support on the original $15.6 million feasibility assessment for the SPS, Abourezk reportedly stated: “These types of energy projects seem to have two stages—too early to tell and too late to do anything about it.” About 92% of the respondents cited microwaves as being a major source of con-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==