On January 11, the Office of Technology, Policy and Strategy (OTPS) of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced that Space-based Solar. A new report, ``Space-Based Solar Power'' has been released. was released to test whether space-based solar power (SBSP) is a competitive option.
NASA's "Solar Energy in Space" report shows that solar energy in space is relatively expensive
(Source: NASA)
The SBSP system collects solar energy in space, converts it into microwave or light energy, transmits it to Earth, and converts the energy into electricity on the ground. The report estimates the life cycle costs, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of two SBSP system concepts and uses data from the Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) ) for comparative estimates with alternative energy sources.
Estimated power generation costs, etc. assuming two systems
(source: NASA)
The first concept (RD1), ``Innovative Helicopter Pod,'' uses a reflector array and concentrator to focus sunlight. It is based on the "SPS-ALPHA Mark III" proposed by former NASA engineer John Mankins. By continuously adjusting the reflector array's orientation toward the sun, it is thought that a high capacity utilization rate of 99.7% can be achieved year-round, but a low technology maturity level (TRL).
The second concept (RD2), Mature Planar Array, includes large solar panels and power systems. It originated from a design presented by Susumu Sasaki of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and added elements from the California Institute of Technology's SSPP design. Although technology has advanced, the ability to change panel locations is limited and the annual capacity utilization rate of a system remains at 60%.
The study results show that the total estimated cost for each system, assuming both systems have a maximum capacity of 2 GW, is $276 billion for RD1 and $434 billion for RD2. The total in-orbit mass of the satellites required to provide 2 GW of power is 585 MT (metric tons) for one satellite for RD1 and 1000 MT for five satellites for RD2, increasing the overall cost. In addition, five ground rectifiers are required to receive power, which increases the cost of the ground system.
Total greenhouse gas emissions are 14 billion kg-CO2 for RD1 and 21 billion kg-CO2 for RD2. For both systems, the biggest influencing factor is the need for thousands of rocket launches, which accounts for 71% of the cost and 64% of the GHG emissions for RD1 and 77% of the cost and GHG emissions. glasses for RD2, accounting for 72%. Furthermore, it is estimated that it will take 7.4 years for RD1 and 12.6 years for RD2 to build a fully developed SBSP system.
The estimated LCOE is 610.07 USD/MWh for RD1 and 1,590.13 USD/MWh for RD2. Compared to the 2050 forecast for other renewable energy generation, there is a big difference: onshore wind is 17.43 USD/MWh, offshore wind is 39.81 USD/MWh, solar is 17 .53 USD/MWh and solar + battery is 23.83 USD/MWh. Even with the RD1, which is the cheaper of the two systems, it is about 35 times more powerful than solar and wind power, about 25 times more powerful than solar + battery storage, and about 15 times more powerful compared to offshore wind.
Consulting companies Frazer Nash Consultancy (UK) and Roland Berger (Germany) are also conducting experimental calculations of the SBSP system and have calculated an LCOE of 50 to 70 USD/MWh, lower than NASA.
The impact of greenhouse gas emissions (g-CO2/kWh) is estimated to be 26.58g-CO2/kWh for RD1 and 40.38g-CO2/kWh for RD2. This is roughly the same as 43g-CO2/kWh for solar power generation, which is land-based renewable energy generation, and 13g-CO2/kWh for onshore/offshore wind power generation, 480g-CO2/kWh natural gas, and 1001g-CO2/kWh of coal, are expected to be significantly lower than kWh.
