Value chain · CLM-0123
In plain terms
NASA's own 2024 study puts space solar power at 12 to 80 times the cost it expects in 2050 from power stations on the ground, a set it calls renewable but which includes nuclear, with launch the dominant cost.
The claim as recorded
A NASA Office of Technology, Policy and Strategy lifecycle assessment of two representative 2 GW space solar power designs finds a baseline levelised cost of electricity of 0.61 dollars per kilowatt hour for the first design and 1.59 for the second, which are 12 to 31 and 32 to 80 times higher respectively than 2050 projections for terrestrial renewable alternatives at 0.02 to 0.05 dollars per kilowatt hour, with launch the largest cost driver at 71 and 77 per cent, and it concludes that the baseline analysis does not return cost competitive results.
Scope and limits
A first-order model of two representative designs, not of any specific proposed system, and the study labels its own assumption set as partly "beyond", partly "comparable to" and partly "below" the current state of the practice. This claim states the BASELINE only and must never be quoted without CLM-0124, which records the study's own sensitivity finding that cost competitiveness IS achievable. Quoting the 12 to 80 figure alone misrepresents the source. "Renewable" is NASA's own label for its comparator set (PDF p.8), and the set includes nuclear fission: PDF p.22 (printed 5) lists "nuclear fission, geothermal, hydroelectric, utility-scale solar photovoltaics with storage, and land wind without storage" and says "The study includes nuclear power even though it is not usually grouped with renewables". So the comparator is power from the ground, not renewables alone (CLM-0696 gives the table).
What it assumes
Starship-class launch, with costs assumed lower in 2050 than today; solar cell efficiency at current state of practice; hardware lifetime BELOW current state of practice because these are first-of-a-kind systems
Where it comes from
page 8 (PDF p.8, printed vii; read at a zoom-4 crop 2026-10-17) verbatim: "Figure 2 shows the comparison of the lifecycle baseline assessment to terrestrial renewable electricity production technologies, whose costs range from 0.02-0.05 $/kWh. The RD1 LCOE and RD2 LCOE are 12-31 and 32-80 times higher, respectively, than the 2050 projections for terrestrial alternatives. Therefore, our baseline analysis of SBSP designs does not return cost competitive results relative to terrestrial alternatives." Launch requires 2,321 launches for 5.9 Mkg (RD1) and 3,960 for 10 Mkg (RD2), and 12 of every 13 launches serve only to refuel payloads in low Earth orbit for transfer to geostationary orbit.
Basis: 2050 projection, USD, lifecycle
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-004 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0123
CLM-0123, Energy Aperture, as of 2024-01.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-012
- CLM-0006None of the five main studies mentions the international radio-frequency exposure limits, or any safety standard, or a restricted area...CLM-0124NASA also found that if several things improve at once, rather than just one, space solar power does become cost competitive.CLM-0125On carbon, NASA found space solar power within the range of five renewable ways of making power on the ground (wind, solar, solar thermal...CLM-0144A NASA study found that launching everything into space is by far the biggest cost of a space solar power system, and that most of those...CLM-0192The full list of assumptions behind the headline result of NASA's 2024 study, that space solar power would cost far more than ground...CLM-0193To get to a competitive cost, NASA's own 2024 analysis needs launch costs to halve, solar cells to get much more efficient, satellites to...CLM-0240A from-scratch cost model of the "Innovative Heliostat Swarm" design gets almost the same electricity cost as NASA's own study: about 62...CLM-0241For the "Mature Planar Array" design, an independent cost model built the same way as for the other design gets a materially lower...More on the source page.
- Cited in articles