Space Based Solar Power
The Wikipedia's take on the topic is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
Contents
Power Satellites Economics
In the absence of other forces such as legal requirements, power satellites compete in the energy market. Energy, particularly electrical energy, is the ultimate standard commodity. When a customer plugs in a toaster, energy is just there. At the end of the month, they pay the bill at the rate set by the state utility commission. One level up, the power companies are hemmed in by regulations that they buy (or make) the lowest cost electricity, with exceptions that they have to purchase certain amounts of renewable power.
Space based solar power is renewable. That should make it easier to sell power from space at a premium. However, governmental energy polity changes unpredictably over time. An alternative would be a "design to cost" where the target cost of power is low enough to get a large market share without government intervention. Competing on cost is the way discount suppliers of many commodities obtained a substantial market share. (Examples, Southwest Airlines, GIECO, Charles Schawb.)
Levelized cost of power
The formula for the levelized cost of electricity is here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
The below spreadsheet assumes $1,600,000 per MW as the initial cost and 10% per year of the cost for maintenance. Power satellites run supplying base load, here assumed ~91% of the time, it may be higher.
The discount rate used in the model is 6.8%, same as the government uses for other sources. The accounting period is 20 years and no salvage value is assumed.
The ratio between the $1600/kW cost and the cost that comes out of the formula (~2 cents per kWh) is close enough to 80,000 to one. Electric power cost is proportional to the cost of a power satellite (or any power source that has no fuel cost) in this ratio for this discount rate and years of service.
The UK government has determined that 3.5% discount is proper for projects of this kind. Using 3.5%, the electric cost comes out at just over 1.5 cents per kWh and ~100,000 to one. Extending the accounting period to 30 years at 3.5% brings the cost of power down to 1.24 cents per kWh and a cost of power to cost of investment ratio to ~130,000 to one. It's a live spreadsheet, try your own numbers. A ratio of 80,000 to one is conservative.
To take market share from coal will require the cost to be less than 4 cents per kWh. Three cents per kWh allows a capital cost of $2400/kW.
The current model has this split out as $200/kW for the rectanna ($1 B for 5 GW), $900/kW for the cost of parts and minor labor in space and $1300/kW 6.5 kg/kW and $200/kg) for the cost of transport to GEO.
Power Satellite Types
Photovoltaic (PV)
Most designs for power satellites since the 1970s have been PV. PV has advantages, long experience powering communication satellites being important. However, PV suffers from relatively low efficiency (20%) and degradation from radiation. There are proposals by Forward and Holt on draining van Allen belt, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiVolt, however, just the presence of a substantial number of power satellites in GEO is expected to greatly mitigate the radiation from particles trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. (There are only about 3 kg of protons trapped in the belts.) There are PV cells that range up to 40% efficient, but they require concentrated light and cooling.
Thermal
Thermal (heat engines) power satellites are expected to range up to 60% efficient, similar to combined cycle plants on earth. This means they need about 1/3 of the light interception area, which reduces station keeping from light pressure. However, they also need radiator area that is about twice the sunlight interception area, (Bejan, 1997, pg 495, ref Bejan, A. Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1997.) Counting both sides of the radiator makes the exposed area for thermal and photovoltaic power satellites about the same.
Common considerations
Mass
The original studies done in the late 1970s came up with a mass of ~10 kg/kW. More recent realistic studies have averaged around 7 kg/kW. A few studies have proposed designs under one tenth of a kg/kW. Very light designs require a lot of station keeping against light pressure where designs in excess of 5 kg/kW can average the light pressure over a year. Because a substantial fraction of the construction cost is for transport to GEO, the mass of a power satellite is an important number as is the lift cost to GEO. This analysis will use 6.5 kg/kW. The number can be adjusted in the spreadsheets.
Energy transmission loss
How efficient is the transmission of the energy with the microwave beam?
For economic analysis, 50%. The loss chain might be a little better with technical improvements, but not much. It means you generate two kW in space for one kW on the rectenna bus. That's been assumed in all the analysis here.
Transport Earth to LEO
SpaceX
SpaceX will not get the transport cost down low enough. It's got to be SSTO or possibly TSTO runway operations.
SpaceX _will_ eventually get the cost to GEO down by a full order of magnitude, a remarkable achievement. Unfortunately this won't do it for power from space, it takes _two_ orders of magnitude reduction. Musk knows this. It might be why he is so down on power satellites.
Skylon
Until Reaction Engines demonstrated their high performance precooler, there were no realistic SSTO proposals out there.
www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html
www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html
