211 
In the comparison of a number of alternative offshore schemes 
to a land-based plant, the major differential cost components were 
identified as follows: 
(1) Costs of alleviating thermal pollution. 
(2) Interest costs and savings due to shipyard construction. 
(3) Cost of real estate for plantsite. 
(4) Cost of transmission to shore. 
(5) Shipyard construction costs. 
(6) Cost of site preparation. 
(7) Transportation costs. 
(8) Insurance costs. 
(9) Cost of operations. 
(10) Additional labor costs. 
The results of this analysis have indicated that at least one offshore 
design can be shown to be economically competitive with a land-based 
facility, while the realization of offshore siting would meet no severe 
legal obstacles and could be regulated within the present institutional 
framework. This is an encouraging result since the analysis was 
deliberately conservative in nature. There seems little doubt that as 
land prices continue to spiral upward, this component alone will make 
the offshore station the most economical choice for the utilities. Other 
factors which were not included are potential savings due to closer 
location to load centers and savings associated with the development 
of a learning curve in the mass production of large-scale installations. 
Both of these considerations could make sizable contributions to 
savings over land-based plants in the near future. 
1V. CONCLUSIONS 
What now are the implications of this analysis of the offshore 
concept? It is clear that this concept provides a viable alternative to 
land-based power stations and can eliminate some of the most serious 
problems faced by the power industry today in meeting our Nation’s 
increasing demands for electric power. All indications are that the 
concept is feasible from a wide range of technological, political, legal, 
and economic standpoints. What then can be done to set the machinery 
in motion to give the feasibility of this concept a long hard look? 
To answer this we must first decide what machinery we are talking 
about. In our country today, there is no centralized governmental 
body at the Federal level that is charged with the formulation of 
national goals and priorities and the long-range planning that is 
necessary if we are to meet our future needs for electric energy. Yet, 
it would be difficult to imagine a more pervasive issue in relation to the 
maintenance of our society as it exists today. The aspirations of every 
American citizen for a greater level of well-being are based in part 
upon the confidence that this Nation can maintain the capability to 
provide adequate supplies of electric power on a continuing basis. 
Yet, today, we live under the recurring threat of brownouts and 
blackouts in our major cities each summer, while evidence of any 
substantive effort at the Federal level to attack the root causes of these 
problems remains conspicuously lacking. This is not. to say that there 
is a lack of concern—certainly the Atomic Energy Commission has 
been instrumental in developing the technology that we need to meet 
