"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
But space solar power?

Too uncertain and too long-term. If you're going to sink a lot of money
into an energy initiative, there are Earthbound approaches that look more
attractive. Personally, I agree that powersats are better in the long
run, but we're talking about what sells politically, not what's better.
Politicians and voters both have short planning horizons.

The only way I see the government funding space solar power is if:
1. The project will have guaranteed results- that is, will actually produce
significant amounts of power- within 5 years.
2. It's completely impossible for any person to ever even stub a toe in
order to build it.
3. Construction costs can be born out of existing NASA funds without cutting
any other programs.
4. A majority of the money will be spent in each of the following: Robert
Byrd's West Virginia, as well as Alaska, Texas, California, Florida, New
York and Ohio.
5. Absolute proof that not even a microbe will be harmed in the lifetime of
the project.

Private industry won't touch it because it will cost more money to prepare
the Environmental Impact Statement and undergo years of litigation from the
enviromentalist whackos than it will cost to actually build the thing. After
groundbreaking ceremonies for the receiver have occured and after the space
portion is completed, some worm will be found on the property and declared
endangered, stopping the entire project. Or, a spotted owl will be found,
even though there aren't any trees.