On the one hand SPS promised to provide sufficient renewable solar energy to noticeably reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources and aid lesser developed countries that were energy deficient. On the other hand, it was a large scale, advanced technology project that required substantial capitalization and centralization. In addition it had a somewhat unique environmental impact that became the proverbial half-a-glass of water. The electrical energy was transmitted to Earth from the satellite via low density microwaves. Practical experience with microwaves had been limited to radar and the microwave communication network that the U.S. had established in the 1950s. However, this did not provide sufficient information to understand precisely the long-term effects of large scale energy transmission via microwaves. Proponents argued that with normal safety precautions there were no foreseeable adverse effects to humans nor unacceptable impacts on the Earth's atmosphere, flora and fauna. They said the impact was certainly preferable to that of nuclear waste and coal's carbon dioxide emissions. Opponents asserted that the paucity of data on microwave impact left society vulnerable to environmental damage of an unforeseen secondary or tertiary variety that could be catastrophic in view of the scale of SPS microwave transmissions. They also said that given the high cost of SPS and the dynamics of large scale technology the government should not fund a verification program to prove or disprove the various assertions. Proponents would convert a verification program into the first stage of actual development of SPS and create a snowball effect that would be difficult, if not impossible, to stop no matter what the results of the program. At this point SPS proponents, many of whom were from the engineering and physical sciences, felt a sense of dislocation. A natural step in the process of deciding upon a technological option was being questioned for reasons well outside the technology. It appeared that SPS had taken on symbolic value that transcended the hardware and pragmatic questions involved and much of the script of the SPS drama was being written elsewhere. A search for broader and deeper understanding was called for that required examining the values at play in the latter 70s. What were the underlying issues? What economic, social, technological, environmental, and political attitudes were SPS and energy technology in general eliciting? What forums could be developed to more clearly articulate and rationalize the debate, separating out and clarifying the engineering facts from other considerations? This search was important; if the final strategy adopted toward energy was misguided it could have catastrophic results in actual deprivation, social dislocation, gross inequities, and/or weakening the nation's security. Given the multiplicity of forces at play any initial effort to gain broad understanding would need to have modest goals. It would seek perspectives, insights, data, and innovative ideas as opposed to comprehensive syntheses of the overall situation. To this end a symposium was arranged for the 1980 Annual Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Science, framed around “Soft and Hard Technology'' and asking the question whether there could be coexistence between the two. The success of the symposium stimulated the preparation of this volume which, as intended, is a collage of perspective, insight, data and, in one case, an innovative idea. Nandi Jasentuliyana and Robin A. Ludwig of the United Nations Secretariat present a case for SPS from the perspective of the developing countries. They note that for the developing world solar energy in general offers versatility, low environmental impact and a variety of socioeconomic advantages. While recognizing the cost and microwave effects issues the authors contend that SPS has the potential to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==