3 ms·
That's probably an exaggeration by this time. Lift costs are decreasing geometrically. Solar efficiency is going up constantly. Land and eminent domain groundsi
by JoeAltmaier 3y ago
That's probably an exaggeration by this time. Lift costs are decreasing geometrically. Solar efficiency is going up constantly. Land and eminent domain groundside continue to go up.
All the variables are moving in the direction to benefit orbital solar, and will continue to go that way. It's not so much a matter of whether it's cheaper in space, than when it is cheaper in space. And it won't be long now.
- jvanderbot 3y agoEvery reduction in solar cost makes it more efficient to buy panels on earth. The installation cost for space is so much more than the installation cost for earth. Even at 10x the cost, which is orders of magnitude off, what do we have? We have a system in space at 10 the cost that needs a solar array sized receiving plant (double the cost) and has transmission losses (increase size of space and ground installations to offset). It would have to be nearly the same cost or cheaper to install in space than on a field in, say, Kansas. Its a ludicrous proposition. Anyway, this guy said it better: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/space-based-solar-power-is-not-a-thing/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/space-based-so...
- JoeAltmaier 3y agoThose are the numbers that are changing. Transmission losses have become fairly tiny. The 'ludicrous proposition' is similar to the turn-of-the-century folk who yelled 'get a horse!'
- jvanderbot 3y agoWell, I'm open to new numbers. I'll have to re-read TFA and dive deeper at some point. But last time I checked, and last time I asked smarter people than me what they thought, it was quite a ways off.
- cykros 3y ago[flagged]