4 ms·

There used to be a popular graphic that charted gas vs battery costs and showed what price for each made Hybrids and then full BEV sensible financially. In a w

There used to be a popular graphic that charted gas vs battery costs and showed what price for each made Hybrids and then full BEV sensible financially. In a well organised world, we'd have raised gas prices steadily to force a changeover. We only did that in patches, but luckily the cost of batteries dropped much faster than anyone expected, so we're firmly in the BEV wins quadrant. You could do similar for space launch costs vs battery cost to map when space solar makes sense. Launch costs have plummeted unexpectedly, but the reduction in battery costs have I think even further tipped the balance so this is less economically sensible than it was before.

ianburrell 3y ago
Space solar also has an availability problem. The closer the orbit means more time in shadow. The farther out orbits have more availability but then have larger antennas. I haven't seen analysis on what orbits are practical, geosynchronous is probably too far. The result is that you need multiple satellites to provide reliable power to any place on Earth. If they are high enough, they can provide power to other places on Earth. It may mean that still need batteries to store power during the night or when satellites aren't available. The question is if better to have space solar with batteries or ground solar with batteries. Or multiple space solar or multiple ground solar. My guess is that ground solar will always be cheaper and has the advantage of being more reliable. Also, building long-distance transmission lines might be cheaper than launching solar into space.