Space Solar Power for The Electric Power 

Market- Tapping The Source 

By Dare] Preble 

Executive Director, Space Solar Power Institute http://www.solarsat.org 

Wljl_: ''-\\_\\ .smnl.a&v.ill~,(;OI]]'stoQJlllD"?nunJhcs~c I 0-1 U~07!Jj_ 

The general public and the electric power utility industry are unfamiliar with 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 of the economic value of energy is Energy Return On Investment (EROI), meaning 

how many BTU's of energy are brought to market per BTU invested. Some fields in the Mid-East 

have had EROis of I 00. 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 of oil 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 can be 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 or wind mills. 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 many higher 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 if it 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 Solar Power is estimated to have an EROI of about 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 

Space X, is among those on track to develop RL V s. (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 of the 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 of the Falcon 9 that's currently rated at $1000 per pound to orbit-to just $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 roof in the continental U.S. 

(Ref 6). 

Even better than that, the SSP panel is in constant sunlight 24/7-actually a potential capacity 

factor of 99.3 percent-short outages would occur at local midnight during the fall and spring 
equinoxes, but even these are optimal times for outage, when even your refrigerator wouldn't 

notice if SSP were your only power, which is unlikely. 

By comparison, a typical roof-top panel has a pseudo-random intermittent capacity factor of about 

29 percent. If you buffer, or use the lowest cost available energy storage--Compressed Air Energy 

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. 

Other advantages for SSP include very low water use: 

Water Use 

Approximately 85 percent of the 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: 

"Water in California historically has been cheap and plentiful," he said. "Neither of those facts is 

true anymore." said Peter McLaggan, who heads development of Poseidon's Carlsbad, California, 

plant. When it comes online in 2016, the plant will join 8,200 reverse osmosis desalination plants 

worldwide, producing 9.8 billion gallons of water a day, McLaggan said. A twin plant will be built 

at Huntington Beach, California, in 2018. Desalinated water is expected to 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 of Power Plants with Economic Threshold (Ref. 3) Cost oftransporation not 

included. 

For the first time in history, the Bureau of Reclamation 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-year drought period in the last hundred years," said Upper Colorado 
Regional Director Larry Walkoviak. Matt Niemerski, director of Western water policy 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 of other troubles if we don't 

begin to act. That, in tum, could affect food prices." (Rev. 1 0) 

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 of nitrate assimilation 

that diminishes plant organic N levels. (Nitrogen, and therefore, protein concentration.) This 

exacerbates damage from insects and other pests 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 in protein content 

by 9-13 percent. It produces poorer dough of lower extensibility and decreased loaf volume. The 

quality of flour for bread making degrades. The protein content of rice 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. 

It requires more dollars of concrete and steel in the ground to make a dollar of revenue than any 

other business. That is why power generation has been a regulated monopoly for most of the 

industry's existence. Lenders are not eager to loan to build a massive project which has a poor 

likelihood of generating revenue. 

Many energy alternatives have been explored and subsidized, yet our dependency has grown; 

while prices escalate, our per 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. energy polices continue to ignore SSP. SSP is commercially feasible using key 

legislation we call the Sunsat Act. 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, with the patient financial resources, technology and charter to initiate 

SSP today. 

Just as the Comsat Act of I 962 created our robust commercial satellite communications industry, a 

Sunsat Act would create a commercial power satellite industry. Japan has already embarked on 

this SSP development path and are expected to bring it to the global electric power market I 0 to 

20 years from now, China is expected to soon embark on this path also. 

Space Solar Power holds out the promise of directly tapping the sun's bountiful energy supply and 

plugging it directly into our global electric power grids. A careful examination of the pros and 

cons of primary energy sources now available, shows Space Solar Power( SSP), to be a clean, 

dispatchable, and virtually unlimited energy source with many crucial advantages. 

References 

"Oil Prices Lead to Hard Financial Limits", Our Finite World, Gail Tverberg, 

I 1_~_1p: __ tl_tl rli_ll j ~-"-\_(_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 Oil Shocks", 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·i lcsiProuraJJls'ESiHPI ·:\/]009 spnng hpca papers/')009a h 

pca_lw n1iltQ!l_jl_d_L 

"Energy intensities, ERO!s, and energy payback times of generating power plants", Energy, 

Volume 52, I Apri/2013, Pages 2I0-22I, D. WeifJbach, G. Ruprecht, A. Huke, K. Czerski, S 

Gottlieb, A. Hussein 
Elan Musk interview Aug. 2, 20i1 at the AiAAIAMSE/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, 

ht_lj1: --~at c II i tc .t_1 n c net. Cl 1 m't(l]1 i c s.' salt:lli t c! art~·lc si~ ( J 3 .f 5 V::!iW!CC X:SCO -e I on-musk -d ro ps,mo rehim~~',:kcts.htm 

"Elan Musk on SpaceX's Reusable Rocket", Feb. 7, 20i2, 

l1 t lJL. ~~~ 1 IJltlJl~ I a tTtl<.:_C han i c s. <: ()fll/~c i '-''~'· '21J1\'_<ir()<:.k l'l s. <cl'-"l:lll us k_ -on· s pacex s-r.: usa h 1;,: · roc_h.ct11 tml'i-(:0_~l (_~_.;l 

"Photovoltaics", Space Solar Power Workshop, 

hli jl; I 1\1_1\. S:-ll_i_. gat.:~IJ c•J ll_lliL<llCl\_(l_ll_cli cs~l)(l_(_>.j1lij' 

"Space Solar Power A Strategic Overview", Dare! Preble, slides 33-36, presented at AlAA 

Atlanta May 2012, http: 111111 .aiaa-atl_<mtacorLucLollnl_,,ads and others. 

"Black and Veatch's annual electric and water industry report for 2013", 

l_ll_tjl_: • b1 ~co_t_llJC[>t1 rts ·~()I :;_,,·l,:ct ric:11_1 iIi t 1-rep()@'! 11 cr-ecncrat i, >n and 

l1tt p ,__b_\_,co_!U..I"l"' rl s. 20 j)~1alc [::_ll_l iIi t \ ,rcpo [l'_,il_tstai nahi_lit_l 

"Desalination comes of age with Poseidon Plant", 

~!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 Mead water deliveries", by Annie Snider, E&E 

reporter, August 16, 2013, !_1llp; _II 1\11 .Cc'IICIIS,D,Ct'stPri,~o;__l 05'!'1,~6ill 

"Elevated Carbon Dioxide", Arnold J. Bloom, Ph D, Professor and chair, Dept. of Plant 

Sciences, Univ. ofCalifornia, Davis 

b_ttp~__11_11_J1 l_c_llll s_c_i<]lccs_,_ll_c<,l_cl_ 1 i ~d u .· I·· ac ul_l_l' hI' H\111 / b I' 10 m_j1 t 111 

"Chapter One Climate Change- Nutritional impacts", page 5, 

b lt[l;_\1 11_1_1_,~spi. i!'lLcc h.'-"cL~chaptcrj.Jlj.lf 

About the author 

Dare! Preble is Executive Director, Space Solar Power institute, Atlanta, Georgia. Among his 

previous positions are advanced systems development and strategic planning for a major electric 

power company. The Space Solar Power institute is a non-profit educational corporation 

chartered in 1997, working to bridge the educational gap between the aerospace industry and 

critical energy issues impinging upon our economy and environment. 
EPA Hearing No Effective Carbon Control without SSP 

The l\:Yiinlc' article about this ruling implies that control (BACT) very well includes effective 

way of controlling 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 of the 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 of large sources capable 

of shouldering 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 of C02 on a global scale has been 

shown to be not financially available to even large electric power generators, within the currently 

available technical process technologies. These companies are not "capable of shouldering 

heavy substantive and procedural burdens." as their visceral connection to global economies 

through their electric product and stockholders prohibits grossly non-economic and reliability 

reducing (utility-scale) power generation technologies. [We claim that SSP can be shown to be 

the only process technology capable of addressing C02 control both economically and reliably, 

but lacks Congressional support for the financial underpinning necessary to complete its being 

offered to the large electric power companies' generation portfolios. Without this financial 

underpinning, I submit that effective control of C02 will continue to fail even more grossly than 

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 of reversing 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 of energy 

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/20 14/07/2 7/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 median point in the wealth distribution 

-the level at which there are an equal number of households whose worth is higher and lower. 

But during the same period, the net worth of wealthy households increased substantially. 
Changes in Wealth Inequality 

Table 1 provides a snapshot of Amencan 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 

of the weatth distribution in the two decades leading up to the Great Recession. 

However, the growth 111te was 111<1ch greater at the top of the -~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 at tile 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 of Amf'l"'na bo•wholds bf'fon .ad 

afttor tbt" Gl'Ht Rtn"S,.,D ( .. 2013 doUan) 

1003 2001 2009 

337.233 423,592 411,1 i8 

·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 Study of Income Dynam1cs (based on 2013 cariy release data); 

calculatiOns by the authors 
The 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 5 to 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 of wealth 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 of wealth 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 of Income 

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 of all 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 of the American Academy 

of Political and Social 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 (see Table 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-er to -$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 after the collapse in 2007, housing 

prices did not As a result, the median of wealth not held in real estate (not 

shown in tat>es) decinec by about only $6,900 between 2007 and 2013 (-29.8%), 

compared to a decline 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 

of the distribution. That is, even exduding real estate, net worth fell at all points 

of the distribution except the top quintile between 2003 and 2013. 

Changes in Wealth Inequality 

Table 1 provides a snapshot of American families for the decade that began a 

few years before and ended a few years after the Great Recession. Because the 

PSID collected data on wealth holdings since 1984, we can put the 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 substantially throughout most 

of the wealth distribution in the two decades leading up to the Great Recession. 

However, the growth rate was much greater at the top of the 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 at the 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 of American 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: Panel Study of Income 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