Value chain · CLM-1055
In plain terms
The programme's 1980 look at nuisance and property effects gave space solar its worst marks on six counts, mostly because nobody knew enough about it, and said so.
The claim as recorded
The programme's environmental-welfare comparison of coal, light water reactors and a GaAlAs-cell SPS, over the whole fuel cycle but "not scaled to a common metric, such as cost or impact per 1000 MW of electrical capacity" and excluding health, safety, ecology, resource depletion and accidents, rates the SPS "very significant" (1) on six of twelve impact areas - air pollution, water pollution, land-use disturbance, electromagnetic disturbance, microwave radiation and noise - against coal's three and nuclear's two (water pollution and land-use disturbances), with the state of knowledge "very little" (C) or B-C on five of the six; it names "microwave coupling with electronic systems as far as 100 km from an SPS rectenna site", HLLV noise elevating community levels "as far away as 31 km", GaAlAs cell manufacture whose effluents are unknown "because of the proprietary nature" of the processes, and rectenna, launch and mining land; and it says of its own ranking that "understanding of these impacts is limited" and "better understanding may reduce the severity of these rankings".
Evidence behind this: T3-the programme's qualitative severity and knowledge ranks for three systems, with the authors' own caveat that the ranks may soften with understanding.
Scope and limits
QUALITATIVE RANKS, NOT MEASURED EFFECTS; THREE SYSTEMS ONLY (no terrestrial PV, so no like-for-like solar comparison); the GaAlAs option of the reference design; the EMI and 100 km figures cite a reference ("C.7") not held under that name. Table C.8's "Worst case atmospheric scattering would disperse 38% of transmitted power" is carried as printed with no basis shown.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
PDF p.15 normalised: "The welfare effects are not scaled to a common metric, such as cost or impact per 1000 MW of electrical capacity". PDF p.6 normalised: the exclusions sentence. PDF p.56 Table 9 read at the render (held under extract/derived/SRC-527). PDF p.9 normalised: "Microwave coupling with electronic systems as far as 100 km from an SPS rectenna site could have a significant welfare effect"; "elevate noise levels in communities as far away as 31 km". PDF p.52 normalised: "there are several impact areas for which SPS activities might produce severe environmental welfare effects; however, understanding of these impacts is limited". PDF p.57 raw: "better understanding may reduce the severity of these rankings". PDF p.58 normalised: "Military systems are located in the same type of sparsely-populated areas being considered for rectenna siting".
Basis: three systems, GaAlAs SPS option
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-008 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1055
CLM-1055, Energy Aperture, as of 1980-04.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-527
- CLM-1052In 1980 the programme's own numbers had a receiving site of about 200 square kilometres per satellite once a safety margin was included...CLM-1054The programme reckoned a receiving site would give off about as much heat per square metre as a suburb, a tenth of what the sun puts into...