Value chain · CLM-0814
In plain terms
A 2020 conference paper's own cost model put the whole 60-satellite programme of the 1978 US reference design at about 3.86 trillion US dollars in present-value terms for either version, and the cost of launching each kilogram of hardware at about 407 dollars for the silicon version and 375 for the gallium-arsenide version. The paper never says which year's dollars these are, although it gives its cost per kilowatt-hour for the same system in 2015 dollars.
The claim as recorded
The paper's own life cycle costing of the DOE/NASA SPS Reference System gives a total programme cost of roughly $3.86 trillion USD for each of the silicon and gallium arsenide options, including rectenna-site land acquisition and worker salaries, with launch cost per unit mass of $407.00 USD/kg for silicon and $375.46 USD/kg for gallium arsenide, stated as "at NPV due to vehicle reusability"; the source prints no base year against these USD figures, although it states that its levelised cost of electricity for the same system is "calculated in USD (CY:2015)".
Scope and limits
No base year is printed against these figures; a 2015 basis is likely from the paper's LCOE but is not stated for them, so this may NOT be compared with any other cost figure, converted, or inflation-adjusted until the basis year is established. It is a total-programme 60-unit 300 GW NPV figure, NOT a per-satellite cost. Do not compare with the paper's separately cited 1981 CDEP-derived estimate, which is a different source in 1977 USD, without stating both bases. It is a 2020 estimate for a 1978 design: a record of what was estimated, not a current cost.
What it assumes
Parametric-analogous hybrid activity-based costing using exchange and discount rates to convert to net present value (p9). The comparator cost data are LCOE "to the value of the dollar in 2015" (p6), and the paper's own LCOE for the Reference System is "calculated in USD (CY:2015)" (p13), formed by dividing the sum of costs by the energy output over the lifetime (Eq. 4). No base year is printed against the total-cost or launch-cost figures. Inferred, not stated in the source: these costs are probably on the same 2015 basis.
Where it comes from
p11: "The total cost was roughly $3.86 trillion USD for each system. This includes considerable land acquisition costs for each rectenna site and worker salaries. Launch costs were around $407.00 USD per kg for the silicon option and $375.46 USD per kg for the gallium arsenide option at NPV due to vehicle reusability." p13: "the LCOE has been determined for the DOE/NASA SPS Reference System and compared to terrestrial energy systems, calculated in USD (CY:2015) and adjusted for inflation/exchange rates."
Basis: BASIS-YEAR-NOT-STATED
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-008 not published in this releaseQST-037 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0814
CLM-0814, Energy Aperture, as of 2020.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-212
- CLM-0316In 2009 three researchers guessed that, once the energy to deliver and use it is counted, an oil-based fuel must return at least about 3...CLM-0810A 2020 modelling study estimated that, across its whole operating life from 2040 to 2100, the 1978 NASA/DOE space solar power design would...CLM-0811In a 2020 modelling study of the 1978 NASA/DOE space solar power design, the carbon per kilowatt-hour fell the longer the satellites were...CLM-0812A 2020 modelling study of the 1978 NASA/DOE design estimated that its ozone-depleting emissions, almost all from burning rocket fuel at...CLM-0813The paper's detailed component-by-component calculation gives a carbon figure five to six times higher than an older top-down calculation...CLM-0815The 2020 study of the 1978 NASA/DOE design did not count any warming from the microwave beams themselves, saying that is too hard to...CLM-0816In their 2020 study of the 1978 NASA/DOE design, the authors list their own weak points: only whole-system detail rather than part-by-part...CLM-0817The authors state openly that a space-solar-power advocacy non-profit paid for this study, that part of the reason was to test or support...More on the source page.