# Space Solar Power for The Electric Power Market- Tapping The Source
By Dare] Preble Executive Director, Space SolarPower Institute http://www.solarsat.org Wljl_: ''-\\_\\

**.smnl.a&v.ill~,(;OI]]'stoQJlllD"?nunJhcs~c** I0-1

**U~07!Jj_** The general public and the electric power utility industry are unfamiliarwith Space Solar Power and advanced aerospace capabilities. The aerospace industry is, likewise, unfamiliar with electric power's operational demands, regulatory restraints and critical issues. Our global and U.S. economy is dependent on stable and reasonable energy prices, especially oil, which directly affect commodities costs. James Hamilton has shown that 10 out 11 post-World War II recessions were associated with oil price spikes. He has also shown that oil price changes in the 2005-2008 period were sufficient to lead to the Great Recession (Brookings). 

### (Ref I, 2) A key measure ofthe economic value ofenergy is Energy Return On Investment (EROI), meaning how many BTU's ofenergy are brought to market per BTU invested. Some fields in the Mid-East have had EROis ofI00. But different oil fields have markedly different EROI, which can and is dramatically impacting the market outlook for those countries and fields and the market's response to consumer's ability to meet market price points. As this "hurdle" is slowly being raised, countries and consumer markets are and will be excluded. The fact that SSP has essentially zero fuel cost for power generation, is a prime advantage for SSP. Like nuclear and other massive electric power plants, SSP is not quick, cheap or easy to build. However, SSP, by tapping the sun directly, is expected to be lower in cost (EROI) than anything else on the energy horizon, as well many other advantages. As we see the cost ofoil edge up, 

### Figure 1 on the next page illustrates EROI for various power generation plants. As 

### Figure 1 shows, coal, gas (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine) and nuclear canbe dispatched, or turned on, when desired. This means there is no need for energy storage or buffering, such as may be needed for roof-top solar orwindmills. This is why these units compose the bulk ofthe generation plants in the U.S. and globally. Hydro is excellent power when available, but it has manyhigher priority goals; drought and flood control, recreation, environmental and reservoir demands, to name a few. The developed countries have few unused hydro sites. Wind, for example, may be economic only ifit does not need buffering or storage. This is a major issue with these energy alternatives-ground solar and wind--especially as the amount on the grid approaches the spinning reserve level, which can adversely affect reliability, as they are pseudo-random intermittent, and cost, since they have lower (poorer) EROI than competing energy sources. 

# . 

# .

### Space SolarPower is estimated to have an EROI ofabout 300 and eventually much greater, using thin-film photovoltaics and assuming reusable commercial launch vehicles. Achieving that EROI-and SSP's economic viability-depends on cutting launch to orbit prices down to about $150 per lb. to orbit. Accomplishing that requires much higher launch volume than currently exists. SSP alone has such a massive launch demand to require these. Elon Musk's company SpaceX, is among those ontrack to develop RLVs. (Ref

### 4):

Integrated Symmetric Concentrator (a 2001 NASA design) "The payload penalty for full and fast reusability versus an expendable version is roughly 40 percent," Musk says. "[But] propellant cost is less than 0.4 percent ofthe total flight cost. Even taking into account the payload reduction for reusability, the improvement is therefore theoretically over a hundred times." A hundred times is an incredible gain. It 

### would drop the cost for Musk's Falcon Heavy rocket-a scaled-up version ofthe Falcon 9 that's currently rated at $1000 per pound to orbit-tojust $10. "That, however, requires a very high flight rate,just like aircraft," Musk says. (Ref 

### 5) Another common question is, "Why should we tap the sun's energy in space rather than with rooftop solar units or solar farms?" A photovoltaic panel at GEO provides about 9.6 times more energy per day than the same efficiency and size panel would on your roofin the continental U.S. (Ref 6). 

### Even betterthan that, the SSPpanel is in constant sunlight 24/7-actuallya potential capacity factor of99.3 percent-shortoutages would occur at local midnight during the fall and springequinoxes, but eventhese are optimal times for outage, when even your refrigerator wouldn't notice ifSSP were your only power, which is unlikely. By comparison, a typical roof-top panel has a pseudo-random intermittent capacity factor ofabout 29 percent. Ifyou buffer, or use the lowest cost available energy storage--CompressedAirEnergy Storage (CAES)---to improve the roof-top panel's dispatchability, or availability on demand, SSP's advantage increases to 71 times more energy per day-and that assumes only storing the energy for 24 hours, which is typically inadequate 

### (Ref 7), as cloudy days can often extend for a week or more. 

### Otheradvantages forSSPinclude very low water use: Water Use Approximately 85 percent ofthe current U.S. electric generation is produced by thermal generation facilities, such as coal, nuclear and natural gas, requiring massive amounts of freshwater supplies for cooling and steam production. Water supply has been the second highestranked environmental concern for the electric industry for the past seven years second only to carbon legislation. For the water industry, water supply is the top sustainability concern. 

### (Ref 8) Southern California has started building huge desalination plants: "Waterin California historically has been cheap andplentiful," he said. "Neitherofthose facts is true anymore." said Peter McLaggan, who heads development ofPoseidon's Carlsbad, California, plant. When it comes online in 2016, the plant willjoin 8,200 reverse osmosis desalination plants worldwide, producing 9.8 billion gallons ofwater a day, McLaggan said. A twinplant will be built at Huntington Beach, California, in 2018. Desalinated water is expectedto cost about $2,000 per acre-foot, about twice what the authority pays for imported water from the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District. 

### (Rev. 9)
10
1'0 • U"'O.

### "'* 

# ... ••

-Pa. ........ 00



# ... i 

# ..
.. 1'0



# ... 0 Figure 1. EROI ofPower Plants with Economic Threshold (Ref. 3) Cost oftransporation not included. Forthe first time in history, the Bureau ofReclamation will reduce Colorado River water deliveries from Lake Powell downstream to Lake Mead, the largest water reservoir in the U.S. "This is the worst 14-yeardrought period in the last hundred years," said Upper Colorado

### Regional Director Larry Walkoviak. MattNiemerski, director ofWestern waterpolicy for nonprofit American Rivers, said, "Nobody really thought we'd have to deal with this as quickly as we are. It's the first definitive domino to fall that could lead to a host ofother troubles ifwe don't begin to act. That, in tum, 

### could affect food prices." (Rev. 10) 

### And C02 Intensity As our atmospheric C02 level continues to increase, plant photorespiration decreases and nitrate assimilation in most plant species is severely inhibited. Declines in forest health and food quality that are associated with climate change derive in part from C02 inhibition ofnitrate assimilation that diminishes plant organic N levels. (Nitrogen, and therefore, protein concentration.) This exacerbates damage from insects and otherpests as they consume more plant material to meet their nutritional needs. (Ref 11) 

### Nutrition from wheat and rice decline. Wheat grown at doubled C02 declines inprotein content by 9-13 percent. It

### produces poorerdough oflowerextensibility and decreased loafvolume. The quality offlour for bread making degrades. Theprotein content ofrice declines under doubled C02 corresponding temperature increase. Iron and zinc concentrations in rice, important for human nutrition, would be lower. (Ref 12) 

### Summary The electric power system generation and grid is the most equity intensive business on the planet. Itrequires more dollars ofconcrete and steel in the ground to make a dollar ofrevenue than any other business. That is whypower generation has been a regulated monopoly for most ofthe industry's existence. Lenders are not eagerto loan to build a massive project which has a poor likelihood ofgenerating revenue. Many energy alternatives have been explored and subsidized, yet our dependency has grown; while prices escalate, ourper capita incomes, our energy, economic and environmental security continues to decline. To sustain a reasonable standard ofliving, while protecting our environment, we must rebuild our energy supply.

# 1 ,. ,. .. 1-


# ... t· 8 • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••.............................1·····-1 

# I '

**~** 

# J 

# I j 

# I ! Figure 2. C02 Emission Intensity Source: JAXA Existing U.S. energypolices continue to ignore SSP. SSP is commercially feasible using key legislation we call the SunsatAct. The fact that we are technically able to build a Space Solar Power System must be tempered by the fact that there are no existing U.S. corporations, including electric power companies, withthe patient financial resources, technology and charter to initiate SSP today. Just as the Comsat Act ofI962 created ourrobust commercial satellite communications industry, a Sunsat Act would create a commercial power satellite industry. Japanhas already embarked on this SSP development path and are expected to bring it to the global electric powermarket I0 to 20 years from now, China is expected to soon embark on this path also. Space Solar Power holds out 

### the promise ofdirectly tapping the sun's bountiful energy supply and plugging it directly into our global electric power grids. A careful examination ofthe pros and cons ofprimary energy sources now available, shows Space SolarPower(SSP), to be a clean, dispatchable, and virtually unlimited energy source with many crucial advantages. 

### References "OilPricesLeadto HardFinancial Limits", OurFinite World, Gail Tverberg, I

**1_~_1p:**__ tl_tlrli_llj

**~-"-** \_(_l_

**tJ_~J .<;_~~u1_**  **-~if_'--~-~ /Q_~~---~-~~-\_)_u_~_p_l_·_~(·~-'~:L~n~l:-_tl_~-h;tl~ti::_Li** **!llUl~_il!L:JjJ.ll**its··

**~Jll_llr~-~2~}-~_l** 

### "Historical OilShocks", James D. Hamilton, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, Revised: February I, 20Jl http:/•dss.ucsd.equ/-jhamilto/oil historv.pdfand bttp: **--"''-~'!l"c>b_i~yllJ'_:cJl!cdia'**l·ilcsiProuraJJls'ESiHPI·:\/]009 spnng hpca papers/')009a h pca_lwn1iltQ!l_jl_d_L 

### "Energy intensities, ERO!s, andenergypayback times of generatingpowerplants", Energy, Volume 52, I Apri/2013, Pages 2I0-22I, D. WeifJbach, G. 

### Ruprecht, A. Huke, K. 

### Czerski, S 

### Gottlieb, A. HusseinElanMusk interviewAug. 2, 20i1 attheAiAAIAMSE/SAE/ASEEJointPropulsion Conference, ht_lj1:

**--~at**cIIitc.t_1ncnet.Cl1 m't(l]1i cs.'salt:llit c!

**art~·lc si~** ( J 3.f5V::!iW!CCX:SCO-eI on-musk-drops,more**him~~',:kcts.htm** "Elan Musk on SpaceX's ReusableRocket", Feb. 7, 20i2, l1t

### lJL.

**~~~** 1

**IJltlJl~**I atTtl<.:_Chanics.<:

**()fll/~c**i

**'-''~'·** '21J1\'_<ir()<:.kl'ls.<cl'-"l:lllus

### k_-on·spacexs-r.:usah

### 1;,:·roc_h.ct11

**tml'i-(:0_~l (_~_.;l**  "Photovoltaics", Space SolarPower Workshop, hlijl; I 1\1_1\.S:-ll_i_.

**gat.:~IJ** c•Jll_lliL<llCl\_(l_ll_cli

**cs~l)(l_(_>.j1lij'** "Space Solar PowerA Strategic Overview", Dare!Preble, slides 33-36, presentedatAlAA AtlantaMay 2012, http: 111111 .aiaa-atl_<mtacorLucLollnl_,,ads andothers. "Blackand Veatch's annual electric andwater industry report for 2013", l_ll_tjl_: • b1

**~co_t_llJC[>t1**rts

**·~()I** :;_,,·l,:ctric:11_1iIit1-rep()@'!11cr-ecncrati,>n and l1ttp ,__b_\_,co_!U..I"l"' rls. 20

**j)~1alc** [::_ll_liIit\ ,rcpo[l'_,il_tstainahi_lit_l "Desalination comes of age withPoseidonPlant",

**~!i**fj_)
- -I

**t_:_~l_J!** ·, J_t_L\'!J_}

**}_(Lit·:;_~!_-**__(_!
_ **_!_(!l__}_]_(~!...:~_;jj_!**.j__j_lt.!

**J"_~il _C!!.:~--~:.i_d!_!_~]-·_(0_h./)~{~L~.fs_~'JJ!i!.il!!_LU.!l-:Jij!_f_r.(_[_** __ "Drought forces first-ever cutbacks in Lake Meadwater deliveries", byAnnieSnider, E&E reporter, August 16, 2013, !_1llp; _II 1\11 **.Cc'IICIIS,D,Ct'stPri,~o;__l 05'!'1,~6ill**  "ElevatedCarbon Dioxide", ArnoldJ. Bloom, Ph D, Professor andchair, Dept. of Plant Sciences, Univ. ofCalifornia, Davis

**b_ttp~__11_11_J1**l_c_lllls_c_i<]lccs_,_ll_c<,l_cl_ 1i

**~d**u.· I··acul_l_l'hI'H\111/bI' 10m_j1t111 "Chapter One Climate Change- Nutritional impacts",page 5, 

### b

lt[l;_\1

**11_1_1_,~spi.**i!'lLcc

**h.'-"cL~chaptcrj.Jlj.lf** Aboutthe author Dare!Preble is Executive Director, Space Solar Power institute, Atlanta, Georgia. Amonghis previouspositions are advancedsystems development andstrategicplanning for a major electric power company. The Space Solar Power institute is a non-profit educational corporation charteredin 1997, workingto bridge the educationalgap between the aerospace industryand critical energy issues impinging upon our economyandenvironment.

# EPA HearingNo Effective Carbon Control without SSP The l\:Yiinlc' article 

### about this ruling implies that control (BACT) very well includes effective way ofcontrolling C02, including process technologies such as carbon capture and storage: "Facilities seeking to qualifY for a PSD permit must, inter alia, comply with emissions limitations that reflect the "Best available control technology" (BACT) for "each pollutant subject to regulation under" the Act §7475(a)(4)."- page I "A review ofthe relevant statutory provisions leaves no doubt that the PSD program and Title V are designed to apply to, and cannot rationally be extended beyond, a relative handful oflarge sources capable ofshouldering heavy substantive and procedural burdens. EPA's interpretation would also bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA's regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.

- page 2- 3 

### What this discussion should say is that Effective control ofC02 on a global scale has been shownto be not financially available to even large electric power generators, within the currently available technical process technologies. These companies are not "capable ofshouldering heavy substantive and procedural burdens." as their visceral connection to global economies through their electric product and stockholders prohibits grossly non-economic andreliability reducing (utility-scale) power generation technologies. [We claim that SSP can be shown to be the only process technology capable ofaddressing C02 control both economically and reliably, but lacks Congressional support for the financial underpinning necessary to complete its being offered to the large electric powercompanies' generation portfolios. Without this financial underpinning, I submit that effective control ofC02 will continue to fail even more grosslythan it has failed for the last twenty or even fifty years, since even major nations such as the US, Germany, and Japan are all plunging into debt with little hope ofreversing this the rising cost of energy facing all these and other major nations: As twenty years and $2 Trillion dollars invested in carbon reducing "renewable energy" regulatory vehicles, such as RPSs, have powerfully shown, global C02 levels have accelerated greatly since 1990 and carbon-dioxide emissions from each unit ofenergy consumed have fallen by less than 1% since 1990.- "!-i.,:_a!lLG_;lins_I:-J<Kie 

### on C02 

### L

**'!-~i~~~i._t)_n~~--1 :E~:r~** **'-~\g~D~__i__Sg;~~**

### '' 

# The Typical Household, Now Worth a Third 

# Less By Anna BERNASEKJULY 26,2014 http:1/www 

### .nytimes.com/2014/07/27/business/the-typical-household-now-worth-a-thirdIess.html? r=1 The inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household was $87,992 in 2003. Ten years later, it was only $56,335, or a 36 percent decline, according to ct.o-tud.>: 

### financed by the Russell 

### Sat!c L<•undati21}. 

### Those are the figures for a household at the medianpoint inthe wealth distribution -thelevel at which there are an equal number ofhouseholds whose worth is higher and lower. But during the same period, the net worth ofwealthy households increased substantially.

### Changes in Wealth Inequality Table 1 provides a snapshot ofAmencan families for the decade that began a few years before and ended a few years after the Great Recessioo. Because the PSID collected data on wealth I"K>Idings sir<c 1984, we can put the reccr1t dlangcs in historical oerspect:Jve. Figure 1 (next page) reports net "wVOrth values for households at the 25th, 5001 (mecflan), 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles relative to 1984. The value on they-axis reprt.'sents the per<:ent cf1ar9e in wealth rclative to 1984. The ftgune demonstrates that wealth grew substantially throughout most ofthe weatth distribution in the two decades leading up to the Great Recession. However, the growth 111te was 111<1ch greater at the top ofthe

**-~h** distribution than elsewhere. For exarnple, net worth for the 95th per<:enb;e more than doubled between 1984 and 2007 while tnat for tile median/SOtl\ per<:enble group grew by about 40 percent. Wealth attile 25th perceotlk.' was basically unchanged through about 2005 and then began to faU even prior to the Great Recession. In sum, wealtt11nequahty was mcreastng prior to the Great Recession.

:\IHD Pffcrot'iln



# , 

# ..

**l~lh** Tabk- t. Wt>altb ofAmf'l"'na bo•wholds bf'fon .ad afttor tbt" Gl'Ht Rtn"S,.,D (
.. 2013 doUan) 1003 2001 2009 337.233 423,592 411,1i8

**·9.~.t9** ·13A8.::

**-;~.689** 10.129 6.966 .:: ....::3 SO*(IIIallao) 17,992 98,172 70,101

..

**~lh** 302.221

**36~.9~9** 302All 90"'

..**J6.8~J 93·L~2J**  819.8:!4

**9~lh** 1.19.:!.639 1.6.:!9.13J 1.4.:!030..S 2013 308.276

..:: ....416

3

..::00 1!<1,335

**260.-W~**

**~63,099** 1.36..!.834 Source: Panel StudyofIncome Dynam1cs (based on 2013 cariy release data); calculatiOns by the authorsThe Great Recession caused an unprecedented decline in wealth holdings among American households. Between 2007 and 2009, average housing prices in the largest metropolitan areas fell by nearly one-third, as measured by the case-Shiller home price index. Stock prices also collapsed, with the Dow Jones Index losing nearly half of il5 value between mid-2007 and early 2009. These developments were exacerbated by a doubling in the unemployment rate from 5to 10 percent between December 2007 and October 200g and a large reduction in eamings due to increased unemployment, wage and hour cuts, and furloughs. The housing, stock, and job markets have all improved since 2009, but at very different rates. The stock market rebounded relatively quickly and returned to prerecession levels by the middle of 2013. The July 2013 unemployment rate of 7.4 percent was below the recession peak of 10.0 percent, but was still substantially higher than the 4.7 percent rate of mid-2007. However, the most important source ofwealth for most Americans is their home, and by mid-2013 home prices were still 20 percent below their mid-2007 values. This research brief assesses two questions about the extent to which the Great Recession altered the level and distribution ofwealth through 2013-the most recent year of data available on wealth held by American families.

1. By how much did wealth levels decline during the Great Recession,

and by how much did they recover through 2013? 2. o·id wealth inequality increase, decrease, or remain steady during the

Great Recession? The data used to answer these questions come from the Panel Study ofIncome Dynamics (PSID), a nationally representative survey of U.S. families that has been collected since 19681 • Here, we report on changes in net worth, i.e., the total value ofall finandal and real assets minus any debts. More extended results on the issues discussed here can also be found in an article by the authors published in the November 2013 issue of the Annals oftheAmericanAcademy ofPolitical andSocial Science. 

### Changes in Wealth Levels Leading up to the Great Recession, median family wealth (50th percentile) increased from $87,992 in 2003 to $98,872 in 2007 (seeTable 1?. While the absolute increase at the mecian from 2003 to 2007 was about $11,000 (+12.4%), increases above the median were substantially greater. Net worth at the 75th percentile increased by more than $65,000 from 2003 to 2007 (+21.8%); at the 95th, net worth rose by more than $436,00D-an increased 36.3% in only four years. Meanwhile, net worth at the 25th percentile, at only $10,129 in 2003, decinec by about $3,000 to $6,966 {-31.2%). For those at the 5th percentile, net worth was already negative in 2003 and fell even furtl-erto -$13,482 in 2007. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, net worth declined for everyone. The 95th percentile declinec by over $200,000 in just two years between 2007 and 2009 (-12.8%), while the mecian fell by $28,000 (-28.4%). The net worth of the 25th percentile was only $2,723 in 2009 (-60.9%). At the 5th percentile, indebtecness more than doublec, to $27,689 ( +105.4%). By 2013, despite the Great Recession, wealth at the 90th and 95th percentiles were higher than in 2003. At all lower points in the wealth distribution, net worth decreased between 2003 and 2013. For example, net worth at the median was about $32,000 lower in 2013 than 10 years earlier ($56,335 vs. $87,992; -36.0%). These trends also apply to mean net worth, which rose by more than $86,000 between 2003 and 2007 (+25.6%), and then declinec by $115,000 between 2007 and 2013 (-27.2%), reflecting the broad destruction of private wealth. While stock prices rebounded relatively quickly afterthe collapse in 2007, housing prices did not As a result, the median ofwealth not held in real estate (not shown in tat>es) decinec by about only $6,900 between 2007 and 2013 (-29.8%), compared to adecline in mecian total net worth of about $42,500 (-43.0%). Affluent households are more likely than other households to hold stocks and have large portfolios, which allowed them to benefit from the gains in the stock market. As a result, net worth not held in real estate actually increased at the 95th percentile between 2003 and 2013 from $740,700 to $834,100 {+12.6%). The same was not the case at the 75th percentile, the median, or at the bottom ofthe distribution. That is, even exduding real estate, net worth fell at all points ofthe distribution except the top quintile between 2003 and 2013. 

### Changes in Wealth Inequality Table 1 provides asnapshot ofAmerican families for the decade that began a few years before and ended afew years after the Great Recession. Because the PSID collected data on wealth holdings since 1984, we can putthe rECent changes in historical perspective. Figure 1 (next page) reports net worth values for households at the 25th, 50th (mecian), 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles relative to 1984. The value on they-axis represarts the percent change in wealth relative to 1984. The figure demonstrates that wealth grew substantiallythroughout most ofthe wealth distribution in the two decades leading up to the Great Recession. However, the growth rate was much greater at the top ofthe wealth distribution than elsewhere. For example, net worth for the 95th percentile more than dout>ec between 1984 and 2007 while that for the mecian/50th percentile group grew by about 40 percent. Wealth atthe 25th percentile was basically unchangec through about 2005 and then began to fall even prior to the Great Recession. In sum, wealth inequality was increasing prior to the Great Recession.

Mtan Perc::entiles

5"' 25th Table 1. Wealth ofAmerican households before and after tbe Great Recession (In 2013 doU..n) 2003 2007 2009 337,.233

**423,~92** 411,178

-9,749 -13,482 -27,689 10.129 6,966 2.723 SO*(mtdlan) 87,!192 98,872 70,801 75"' 302.221 367.959 302.412 oo"' 736,853 934,223 819,824 95"' 1.192.639 1.629.133 1.420.304 2013 308,276 ·27,416

3.200 56,335 260.405 763,099 1.364.834 Source: PanelStudy ofIncome Dynamics (based on 2013 early release data); calculations by the authors.

, 1\L\IlH lf\'riS \VIAllli

**INlQ~JAIIll** AND I I kUSSIIl \A<..l I 0\JND"IION Tllf GIU"T IUCI

**~I** lOt' I Rl )fARCII

**llJ~1** 'dAr,'t