Value chain · CLM-1268
In plain terms
In 2003 ESA's own rough internal sums suggested space solar and comparable ground solar would cost about the same, to within a factor of ten, and that a space solar plant would return more energy than it took to build. ESA treated both as unproven and planned studies to check them.
The claim as recorded
ESA's 2003 SPS programme plan reports that ESA internal assessments found space based and Earth based solar systems of comparable power delivery to be of the same order of magnitude in overall cost, and found a positive net energy balance for proposed systems over their lifetimes, with both findings held as provisional pending phase I. The plan states that "space based and Earth based systems with comparable power delivery capabilities range in the same order of magnitude in terms of overall cost" (p.13). It adds that these findings "still have to be either confirmed or confuted" in the phase I assessment (p.13). Separately, preliminary ESA internal assessments "taking into account only orders of magnitude" (p.10, paraphrase outside the quoted span below) show a "positive net energy balance" over the projected lifetimes of currently proposed systems (p.10). Phase I task 4 was to replace this with reliable values (p.10, paraphrase).
Evidence behind this: The agency's report of its own unpublished internal assessments, stated as provisional; the assessments themselves are not cited or held.
Scope and limits
ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE, UNCITED AND PROVISIONAL. No cost figure, currency, year basis, power level or method is given, and the internal assessments are not referenced, so the statement cannot be checked against any held calculation. "same order of magnitude" allows up to a tenfold difference. No held record reports the phase I result.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
p.10 (task 4): preliminary ESA internal assessments, orders of magnitude only, show a "positive net energy balance" over projected lifetimes; an in-depth assessment is to give reliable values, including maintenance, operations, processing and servicing energy, for some NASA Fresh Look and ESA SE&U designs, compared with terrestrial plants (paraphrase except the quoted span). p.13 (section 2.2.1): the cost finding as quoted, and that the phase II description rests on findings that "still have to be either confirmed or confuted".
Basis: overall cost order of magnitude, space against Earth systems of comparable power delivery; net energy balance over projected lifetime; no figures, currency or year basis given
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1268
CLM-1268, Energy Aperture, as of 2003-07-08.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-638
- CLM-1263In 2003 ESA planned a two-year set of paper studies to help its member countries decide whether space solar power was worth pursuing. The...CLM-1264The plan had three steps. First, check whether space solar makes sense against ground solar, what the law allows, and whether it could...CLM-1265ESA planned to finish the whole set of studies in under two years, roughly 2003 to 2005, with the three steps taking about six, six and...CLM-1266ESA set up a small expert advisory group and its in-house futures team to steer the studies. It also linked the work to a wider European...CLM-1267ESA also wanted to know whether beaming solar power from a satellite could power Mars and Moon bases or distant probes, because Europe had...