SPACE SOLAR POWER A FRESH LOOK AT THE FEASIBILITY OF GENERATING SOLAR POWER IN SPACE FOR USE ON EARTH prepared by Science Applications International Corporation Harvey Feingold Michael Stancati Alan Friedlander Mark Jacobs Futron Corporation Doug Comstock Carissa Christensen Gregg Maryniak Scott Rix National Aeronautics and Space Administration John C. Mankins April 4, 1997 Report Number SAIC-97/1005 Contract NAS3-26565 Task Order 9
digitized by the Space Studies institute - ssi.org
SPACE SOLAR POWER /I FRESH LOOK AT THE FEASIBILITY OF GENERATING SOLAR POWER IN SPACE FOR USE ON EARTH prepared by Science Applications International Corporation Harvey Feingold Michael Stancati Alan Friedlander Mark Jacobs Futron Corporation Doug Comstock Carissa Christensen Gregg Maryniak Scott Rix National Aeronautics and Space Administration John C Mankins April 4, 1997 Report Number SAIC-97/1005 Contract NAS3-26565 Task Order 9
Foreword This is the final report of the “fresh look” feasibility assessment of the prospects for collecting solar power in space and transmitting it by wireless means for use on Earth. The work was performed principally by staff members of SAIC and Futron Corporation, as Task Order 9 of NASA/LeRC Contract NAS3-26565. Staff members who contributed to this effort include, for SAIC: Harvey Feingold (Study Manager), Alan Friedlander, Mark Jacobs, and Mike Stancati. Contributing staff members of Futron are: Carissa Christensen, Doug Comstock, Gregg Maryniak, and Scott Rix. The authors gratefully acknowledge the active participation and guidance of the study leader at NASA Headquarters, John C. Mankins, who also created the Sun Tower concept, and of the NASA/LeRC Task Manager, Carlos David Rodriguez. Dick Dickinson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory made several important contributions to the end-to-end RF systems analysis throughout the study, and was also a writer of one of the white papers included in an appendix to this report. Others who participated in various aspects of the assessment include Jeff George, Barbara McKissock, and Joe Nainiger of NASA/LeRC. We are also pleased to acknowledge the contributions of many people who participated in one or more of the technical interchange meetings held to review system concepts and related issues: complete lists of attendees can be found in an appendix to this report. Of particular note are the white papers, included here as appendices, submitted by Dr. William Brown, Dr. Gay Canough, and Mary Woodell of Bivings-WoodelL
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.1. Study Objectives.................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Background...........................................................................................................................................................................2 1.3. Brief Synopsis of Phase I Work..........................................................................................................................................4 1.4. Study Approach................................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4.1. Models......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.4.2. TIMs.................................................................................... 7 1.4.3. White Papers...............................................................................................................................................................................& 2. MARKET ANALYSIS & EXTERNAL FACTORS______________________________________________________9 2.1. Overview................................................................................................................................................................................9 2.1.1. Economic Viability of Space Solar Power..............................................................................................................................9 2.1.2. Costs............................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 2.1.3. Revenues and Externalities....................................................................................................................................................10 2.1.4. Section Contents...................................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Energy Forecast...........................................................................................................................................................................11 2.2.1. Assumptions And Sources...................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.3. Outlook for Competing Sources of Energy.........................................................................................................................14 2.3.1. Sources Of Electricity.............................................................................................................................................................17 2.3.2. Findings.....................................................................................................................................................................................17 2.4. Market Segment Definition................................................................................................ 17 2.4.1. Define Segments....................................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.4.2. Final Sites Chosen............................................................................................................................................... 18 2.5. Price Analysis............................................................................................................................................................................... 19 2.6. Financing........................................................................................................................................................................................22 2.6.1. To Get Financing.....................................................................................................................................................................22 2.6.2. Investment Factors.................................................................................................................................................................. 23 2.7. External Factors Summary......................................................................................................................................................23 2.7.1. Estimated Externalities.......................................................................................................................................................... 24 2.7.2. Estimates of.Air Pollution Costs and Regulatory Surcharges...........................................................................................25 2.7.3. Other Issues..............................................................................................................................................................................26 3. CANDIDATE SYSTEM CONCEPTS AND ARCHITECTURES_________________________________________27 3.1. Space Soiar Power Architectures - Overview....................................................................................................................27 3.2.1979 Reference Concept............................................................................................................................................................ 29 3.3. SunTower.......................................................................................................................................................................................31 3.4. LEO-MEO Relay........................................................................................................................................................................... 34 3.5. LEO-GEO Relay........................................................................................................................................................................... 39 3.6. SoiarDisc........................................................................................................................................................................................42 3.7. GEO Millimeter Wave................................................................................................................................................................45 3.8. Planetary Power Web................................................................................................................................................................49 4. SPACE SEGMENT MODEL DESCRIPTION______________________________________ 51 4.1. Model Organization................................................................................................................................................................... 51 4.2. Orbit Geometry........................................................................................................................................................................... 53 4.3. Subsystem Detail......................................................................................................................................................................... 63 4.3.1. Power Transmission................................................................................................................................................................ 63 4.3.2. Energy Storage........................................................................................................................................................................ 65 4.3.3. Solar Conversion.....................................................................................................................................................................65
4.3.4. Guidance, Navigation & Control........................................................................................................................................... 66 4.3.5. Thermal Control........................................................................................................................................................................ 67 4.3.6. Telecommunications/Command & Data Handling.............................................................................................................. 67 4.3.7. Structure & Harness................................................................................................................................................................. 68 4.4. Estimating Manufacturing Requirements.......................................................................................................................... 68 4.4.1. Approach................................................... 68 4.4.2. Issues and Limitations..............................................................................................................................................................69 4.4.3. Assessment of Results...............................................................................................................................................................71 4.4.4. Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................................................73 4.5. Model Operational Notes.......................................................................................................................................................... 74 4.6. Integration With IAAM............................................................................................................................................................ 75 5. IAAM MODEL DESCRIPTION_____________________________________________________________________77 5.1. Model Organization...................................................................................................................................................................80 5.2. Element-Level Detail................................................................................................................................................................. 81 5.3. Data Dictionary Overview & Reference...............................................................................................................................82 5.4. Model Elements Summary......................................................................................................................................................... 84 5.5. External IAAM Analysis........................................................................................................................................................... 96 5.6. Model Input Data Requirements............................................................................................................................................96 6. MODEL-BASED TRADE STUDIES AND ANALYSES________________________________________________103 6.1. Case Studies...................................................................................................................................................................... 103 6.1.1. Case Descriptions...................................................................................................................................................................103 6.1.2. Space Segment Case Study Results...................................................................................................................................... 104 6.1.3. IAAM Case Study Results......................................................................................................................................................109 6.2. Space Segment SENsmvrrY Analyses....................................................................................................................................132 6.2.1. Transmission Frequency........................................................................................................................................................ 132 6.2.2. Beam Steering Capability......................................................................................................................................................133 6.2.3. Power Conversion Efficiencies.............................................................................................................................................135 6.2.4. Hardware Cost........................................................................................................................................................................ 139 6.3. IAAM SENsrnvrrY Analyses................................................................................................................................................... 143 6.3.1. Sensitivity Trial Description................................................................................................................................................. 143 6.3.2. Sensitivity Analysis Results................................................................................................................................................. 144 7. KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS______________________________________________________197 7.1. Markets......................................................................................................................................................................................... 197 7.2. Space Solar Power System Concepts and Archttectures.............................................................................................. 198 7.3. Robustnessof“FreshLook” Study Results....................................................................................................................... 199 7 4 Achifyinct Prmi tc Accfptancf ________________________________ ___ 199 7.5. Other Space Applications of SSP Technologies................................................................................................................ 200 7 6 SSP CprncAT.TFrnNnTnCrTFS ................................... ........................................... 201 7 6 CSummarv ________________________ ____________________204 7 6 7 Prniprfino SSP kArmiifnrhrrina ............................................ ........................................................ 204 7.6.3. Summary Findings and Recommendations......................................................................................................................... 205 « APPFNBTY MATFPTAT. ____________________________________________________________.207 XI Grn«APvnF AfpnwvMS ................ .......................................... 207 X? WwiTk Pa ppp- Rttt Rpnw _______________ _____ ______________209 2 7 Wnrrn Pappp- GAvrAMnimw ........................... ............................................ .............223 WnrrTPAPH?* MAPvWnnnFTT ................................................................................................ 235 2 U/xifttPapct' nirr ................................................ . .................245 2 A CTTTnvPADTTrTDAMTQ ....................................................................................................................251 8.7. Phase 1 Candidate System Concepts.............................................................................................................................."^
8.8. Solar Cupper Presentation Reference............................................................................................................................... 257
1. Introduction This report documents the findings of an 18-month study of Space Solar Power (SSP), earned out under the direction of the NASA/HQ Advanced Concepts Office, and the Advanced Space Analysis Office of NASA/LeRC. The study is a feasibility assessment of prospects for commercial generation of power in space for use on Earth. Throughout this study, the focus is to search out those concepts that have the potential to enable affordable production of energy for Earth in space. The subject was given extensive consideration in the late 1970's - early 1980's in response to the energy shortages then of concern to U.S. policy planners. The reference concept identified from this work - a constellation of many large geostationary power satellites supplying gigawatts of electric power to the U.S. grid - was not programmatically viable then, and is not likely to be viable under any reasonable set of near-term program constraints now. The massive up-front investment, largely government funded, for the reference SSP system and the very low cost space launch capability it required is now considered a “show-stopper” for any advanced technology program The current study reexamines SSP, using new concepts, new architectures, and new technologies that have been identified or developed since the original consideration of the topic. These include modular designs, advanced materials, automated assembly and deployment of space assets, and new orbital configurations for the collection, relay, and downlink functions. Of particular interest are innovative concepts that produce incremental returns for incremental investment, rather than deploying a full system before any revenue can be generated. 1.1. Study Objectives The overall objective of the Space Solar Power (SSP) project is to identify and evaluate system-level concepts and technologies to determine whether beamed solar energy is a feasible approach to power delivery for user communities on Earth and in space. The SSP system definition and evaluation study addresses several key issues: • Can an SSP system deliver credible amounts of power to a terrestrial electric utility grid at costs that are competitive with ground-based alternatives for energy sources and distribution? • What system architecture and implementation technologies provide the best solution in terms of cost and performance? • What are the potential environmental impacts, risks, and mitigating strategies of a potential SSP system? • What is the most effective role for government-funded technology development or demonstrations to reduce risk for a privately financed commercial SSP system? The method selected to address these questions has involved a broad review of concepts, system architectures, and supporting technologies, followed by a detailed technical feasibility assessment and economic evaluation of the most promising alternatives. The tasks and activities performed under this study have enabled us to:
• identify, gather information, and evaluate potential systems for SSP applications • identify the most promising concepts for SSP • develop a set of analytical tools needed to assess a broad range of SSP concepts/architectures • evaluate the technical and economic performance of candidate SSP concepts • identify key technologies whose development is critical for viable SSP concepts • initiate partnerships with agencies and industrial stakeholders for development and use of SSP • develop a comprehensive database of our current understanding of SSP. 1.2. Background The basic ideas associated with Solar Power Satellites (SPS) were studied extensively in the mid-to-late 1970’s by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). These agencies conducted an extensive investigation which explored technical options for such systems, focusing predominantly on energy services for large cities in the domestic U.S. energy market. The major product of this combined effort was a planned space solar power architecture supporting a constellation of 60 solar power satellites in geostationary orbit, that would each supply 5 GW of electric power for use on Earth. This study associated with this concept, commonly referred to as the 1979 Reference System, included detailed design and cost estimates of the proposed satellites, ground systems, space transportation, assembly operations and even addressed the manufacturing facilities needed to undertake this large venture. The study itself was an acknowledged technical success and the technological feasibility of SPS was affirmed. However, it was less than fully successfill programmatically. Shortly after the study was completed, all U.S. funding funding for SPS came to an abrupt halt. At least a partial reason for this termination of activities was the tremendous scale of the SPS structural systems and, of course, the resultant need for extremely large up-front investment with a substantial time period before receiving first revenues from the venture. Significant changes have taken place in several areas since the completion of the 1970’s SPS study. There have been changes in the market for energy services and in international interest in SSP, including changes in attitudes among the global public with respect to environmental concerns. Also there have been important changes in the technologies and concepts for SSP. It is the latter changes which represent the context within which space solar power must be considered in the 1990’s, and it is the basis for the current SSP study reported here. This broad study was initiated in July 1995 by the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) under the Office of Space Access and Technology at NASA Headquarters, to take a “fresh look” at innovative system concepts for delivering solar power from space. The principal objective has been to determine whether a space solar power system concept can be defined that could, if developed as a privately financed and operated business, credibly deliver power into surface electrical grids at prices equal to - and preferably below - ground alternatives in a variety of markets, without major environmental drawbacks.
The SSP study has been conducted in two distinct phases as shown in Figure 1-1. Phase I consisted of teainformation, assessments of past studies, definition of top-level architectures and options, assessment of the market characteristics, and preliminary identification of promising, innovative technologies and approaches. The main product of this phase was the identification of four satellite concepts in seven architecture families for additional examination during the second phase of the study. A brief summary of the Phase I efforts and acomplishments is provided below. Phase II of the study focused on those concepts and architectures selected in Phase I to further refine the concept definitions, estimate the associated life cycle costs, perform economic analyses of various options and define preliminary technology roadmaps. The results of those efforts are documented in this final study report, along with implications and conclusions drawn from those results. Management of both study efforts has been provided by the Advanced Space Analysis Office (ASAO) at NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC), the lead center for the study. SPACE SOLAR POWER "FRESH LOOK" STUDY APPROACH Figure 1-1 SSP Study Approach
13. Brief Synopsis of Phase I Work A diverse set of activities were carried out in Phase I to support the objectives of that study phase, ie; the selection of one or more SSP concepts to carry forth into Phase II as well as the development of the analytical tools and database needed to perform the more detailed investigations of the system approaches, technologies, and performance (both technical and economic) of the selected concepts in the second study phase. These activities included: • development of an extensive system architecture trade space to capture the broad range of technical options for all elements of an SSP architecture - systems, concepts, applications, technologies, and operations - for both space and ground segments. • a preliminary market analysis to determine, to first order, the size of the energy market and the characteristics of worldwide demand patterns for electricity and other forms of energy, and to identify candidate target markets for SSP-supplied energy. • an evaluation of Actors that would contribute to the long-term economic success or failure of alternative SSP concepts, particularly “external factors” such as health and safety, environmental impact and/or benefits, and significant public policy issues - public perception of risk, spectrum availability, role of government, financing, ownership, control, and economic viability. • collecting a broad range of SSP system concepts and architectures from the interested community of technologists, engineers, solar power advocates, Wireless Power Transmission (WPT) specialists, government and power industry representatives attending the ACO sponsored SSP Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) at NASA Headquarters1, as well as information gathered at the WPT Conference in Kobe, Japan and, of course, previous studies of this subject • evaluation of the full set of submitted and collected SSP concepts and architectures using a qualitative but structured decision process based on multiattribute ultility (MAU) methods and criteria which included required investment cost, operating cost, technical risk, actual and/or perceived public risk, flexibility in providing services to terrestrial markets, potential societal benefits, NASA and commercial applications beyond terrestrial power delivery, growth potential, and investment incentives. • development of a Microsoft Excel-based model capable of fully characterizing the major elements of an SSP architecture in terms of performance and cost, and through simultaneous assessment of potential market demand and revenues, determining the economic feasibility of proposed concepts. • selection of the most promising concepts for further assessment in Phase IL The down-selection process, starting from a total of 37 system and architectural concepts for SSP, produced six concepts that clearly outranked the others in terms of the established criteria. These were, in order of preference: Sun Tower, LEO-MEO Relay, GEO Millimeter Wave, Solar Disc, LEO-GEO Relay, and Planetary Power Web. All of these concepts were brought to Phase II and are described in Section 3 of this report, although in subsequent screening of these concepts during the first TIM of Phase H, the GEO Millimeter Wave and Planetary Power Web concepts were eliminated from further 1 Proceedings for Space Solar Power: An Advanced Concepts Study Project, Technical Interchange Meeting, September 19-20, 1995, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.
consideration as candidate concepts, and consequently were not provided full quantitative assessments. A final report on the Phase I efforts2 was prepared by the SSP study team and fully documents the work described above and the results leading up to Phase IL 1.4. Study Approach The groundrules established for this study, restricted the investigation to consider only Earth- orbiting/Earth manufactured SSP systems, in order to minimize the need for excessive a priori infrastructure investments. With respect to concepts and architectures several other guidelines were also implemented in this study. The study considered both U.S. and global markets. It examined architectures involving a few large spacecraft in high Earth orbit (e.g., GEO), as well as those with a larger number of smaller systems in lower orbits (e.g., sun-synchronous orbits). Power transmission to single and multiple sites was considered, as were various power levels. The analyses included the cost of power transmission to a standard intermediate distribution level in the power grid for various markets. As indicated in the Phase I discussion above, the study did not restrict the use of power relay satellites or other long-distance power transmission for the SSP architectures. With respect to the economic aspects of the investigation, element costs were estimated consistently across the study, uncertainties identified, and relationships between concepts, technologies, costs and uncertainties determined. Broad economic analyses were conducted, focused on market goals, (e.g., maximum tolerable prices) and system choices. The study did not seek new market analyses, but rehed on existing data. While study Phase I was very preparatory and qualitative in nature, the major efforts during Phase II were extremely quantitative and focused on model development, concept and data refinement, technical and economic performance evaluation, and concept assessment. In addition, several special topics of importance were addressed through the preparation of “white papers” by expert consultants. The Phase II activities included: • refinement and expansion of the system concepts/architectures selected in Phase I to a level of definition and understanding that enabled them to be quantitatively evaluated in terms of their technical and economic viability as well as their associated risks. • a competitive market analysis to understand the true cost of energy sources competing with SSP, through examination of the implied or real cost of mitigating “hidden” external factors (e.g., pollution, environmental contamination or damage, resource depletion, health inpacts, etc.) that are often not factored into the delivered price of energy. • further development of the Microsoft Excel-based model begun in Phase I, to provide the capabilities needed to characterize SSP concepts and architectures at a subsystem level of detail to simulate the performance and economics associated with their development, manufacture, deployment and operation; and to also provide an enhanced module for the Space Segment element of the SSP architecture that enabled the model to address and evaluate the various trade space options in terms of their performance and cost implications. 2 M. L. Stancati, H. Feingold, S. V. Deal, M. K. Jacobs, J. Lauderdale (SAIC) and C. B. Christensen, D. Comstock, G. E. Maryniak (Futron) “Space Solar Power: A Fresh Look Feasibility Study - Phase 1,” Report No. SAIC-96/1038, under Contract NAS3-26565,NASA Lewis Research Center, December 1995.
• refinement of concept data and analyses through two Technical Interchange Meetings - one focused on the technical and technology aspects of SSP and one focused on the economic and market aspects. • evaluation of the different SSP concept architectures with respect to their technical performance, costs, and generated revenues, as well as an examination of the sensitivity of the results to selected system parameters and variations in the scenario elements. • preparation of “white papers” on the selected topics of WPT technology, terrestrial solar power, public perception of technological risk, beam safety and spectrum allocation. 1.4.1. Models The largest effort of Phase II was devoted to the development of the analytical tools/models needed to perform the concept evaluations. One of these tools, the Integrated Architecture Assessment Model (IAAM), simulates the performance and markets associated with the deployment and operation of SSP architectures and generates costs and revenues to assess and compare their economic feasibility. The model, described in detail in Section 5, was developed as a Microsoft Excel workbook consisting of several modules/worksheets that analytically capture the major elements of an SSP architecture as well as the economic scenario. These elements include: • SSP Space Segment • SSP Ground Segment • SSP Manufacturing • In-Space Transportation • In-Space Infrastructure • ETO Transportation • ETO Infrastructure • Commercial Power Utilities Systems • Markets • Competition • Financial Environment In addition to the above, an overarching element of the model is used for module integration and control, and an output module delivers results of the desiresd analysis. Perhaps the most important of the IAAM elements, with regard to its overall impact, is the space segment, which covers the constellation of solar power satellites, their masses, costs, deployment, and operations. Because of the complexity associated with the numerous options and trades available to the space segment, a separate analytical model was developed for this portion of the SSP architecture. Called the Space Segment Model (SSM), it incorporates the most significant aspects of the space segment’s design, including number of satellites, power delivery capability, subsystem and component technologies, ground site locations, and orbital configuration, and produces an evaluation of relevant system size, mass and cost. The SSM can be run independently to evaluate techmeal and cost issues related to specific design choices, and it can also interface easily with the IAAM model to investigate the economic and financial implications of such choices. A complete description of the SSM can be found in Section 4.
1.4.2. TIMs Three Technical Interchange Meetings or TIMs took place during the course of this study. The first TIM, which was convened during Phase I, took place at NASA Headquarters on September 19-20, 1995 for the purpose of (1) reviewing the framework of the SSP study, (2) discussing and developing a common understanding of markets and market factors that will play a role in determining SSP viability, (3) defining, in a very preliminary sense, several SSP system concepts of particular promise, (4) identifying relevant technologies and concepts that could be applied to SSP along with an assessment of their maturity, and (5) identifying critical barriers to achieving SSP viability, including technical, programmatic and economic/market-related barriers. The second TIM took place in Phase II at NASA Lewis Research Center on June 12-13, 1996, for the purpose of (1) reviewing the study and particularly the six concepts selected for detailed definition in Phase I, (2) identifying specific technical challenges and potential solutions to those challenges in both system and subsytem areas, (3) identifying relevant technologies in each susbsytem that could be applied to the six concepts, (4) providing and/or reviewing parametric data in each major subsystem technology area that would help further define the concepts and illuminate feasibility issues and/or barriers, (5) discussing, across subsystem disciplines, the technical approaches suggested for each concept with the goal of defining the “best” technical approach for each concept, and (6) generating specific data inputs, and parameter values for the SSP integrated system model to support required trade studies and sensitivity analyses. The third SSP TIM again took place at NASA Headquarters on July 25, 1996, but its focus this time was directed exclusively to market and investment issues, and attendees were asked to address several key questions associated with space solar power such as (1) What markets should SSP focus on and in what timeframe? (2) What international relationships and institutions will be needed? (3) How do environmental concerns and issues apply to a space solar power system and what are relevant competing alternatives? (4) What public concerns will need to be addressed? (5) Will spectrum allocation be a major problem and what actions can be taken now to minimize the degree to which it is a problem? (6) Can space solar power be financed and how? (7) What aspects require near-term government investment? (8) What aspects could attract near-term industry investment? and (9) What are the potential show stoppers? The Technical Interchange Meetings that took place in both phases of this study provided an opportunity for a broad set of people and institutions to participate directly in the study, and for the study team to tap their expertise in developing new concepts, providing ideas for applying cutting edge technologies, supplying current data needed to support the concept evaluations, and critically reviewing study resuhs. The TIM participants included representatives from many organizations technical disciplines and professions including: • Power industry • Aerospace (including companies, consultants and advisors) • Commercial space sector (including “industrial space park” proponents) • Special consultants (including economists, business, and safety and health consultants) • Universities and non-profit organizations • Government (including DOE)
• NASA Headquarters • NASA Field Centers; Lewis Research Center (study lead). Jet Propulsion Laboratory and others A list of participants attending each TIM is included in the appendix to this report. 1.43. WhitePapers Four “white papers” on topics of special interest to this study are presented in the appendix to this report. These papers cover topics that are somewhat peripheral to the feasibility and viability issues that are the major thrust of this study, but will eventually have to be addressed if space solar power as an alternative terrestrial energy source is to move forward. The four papers and their distinguished authors are: • “Recommended Program of Experimental Demonstration and Refinement of Wireless Power Transmission Technology in the Context of Space Solar Power” by William C. Brown - Microwave Power Transmission Systems • “Space Solar Power vs. Terrestrial Solar Power” by Dr. Gay Canough - ETM Solar Works • ‘Power from Space: Public Acceptance of Technological Risk as a Prerequisite for Commercialization” by Mary L Woodell - Bivings Woodell, Inc. • “Issues in Microwave Power Systems Engineering” by Richard M Dickinson - Jet Propulsion Laboratory It should be noted that Dickinson’s paper was also presented at the 1996 IECEC in Washington, DC.
2. Market Analysis & External Factors 2.1. Overview This section reports the results of a preliminary market analysis for energy delivered by Solar Power Satellite (SPS), concentrating primarily on electric energy for end-use. The analysis was performed by members of the study team from both Futron and SAIC and also by SAIC’s Utility Services and Engineering Division. Additional insights were collected from personal contacts with staff members of EPRI and various utility companies, and from participation by electric power industry representatives and investing in the Economic Technical Interchange Meeting, convened as part of Phase I of this study. The purpose of the market analysis is two-fold: (1) to determine to first order the size of the market and the characteristics of worldwide demand patterns for electricity and other forms of energy, and; (2) to identify candidate target markets (Le., market segments) for SSP-supplied energy. The market analysis: is global in scope: because solar power satellite systems have the potential to reach worldwide markets, and because wireless power delivery may prove economically attractive in areas now lacking an installed power grid includes all energy forms: because beamed solar energy may be readily converted to chemical or thermal form for storage or immediate use focuses on electricitv: because worldwide demand by end-users for electricity is growing faster than for any other form of energy. 2.1.1. Economic Viability of Space Solar Power The economic viability of a space solar power system is a function of the cost of the system, the revenues it can generate, and other costs and benefits (such as pollution that is avoided) not captured in the cost or revenue stream. The monetized value of these streams taken together, discounted appropriately to reflect the time value of money (that is, the principle that a dollar received today is worth more than received tomorrow), is the net present value of a space solar power system. The discount rate used to reflect the time value of money can also be used as to approximate the return on investment (ROI) of such a system. The discount rate is varied until the net present value of the system (all the costs and all the benefits) equals zero; the discount rate at which this is achieved is the internal rate of return (IRR). IRR is often used to estimate ROI for economic and long-term financial analyses. 2.1.2. Costs The technical attributes of a space solar power system determine the costs of the system. System costs are addressed at length in the discussion of technical concepts in other sections of this report. The revenues and external costs associated with a system are discussed in this Section. The IRRs achieved by different systems are discussed in the section on Results.
2.13. Revenues and Externalities This section summarizes the economic and financial analysis supporting the market assessment and provides the market and price inputs used for analysis of revenues. The analysis considered demand for energy and competing supply (including prices) in different regions of the world. The analysis considered the economics of electricity production now and likely future trends, and in particular considered externalities (economic costs not captured by market mechanisms). The analysis was global in scope and focused primarily on electricity, although it did consider all commercial forms of energy. 2.1.4. Section Contents The section first provides a long-term energy forecast, drawn from US-govemment publications and additional analysis by government, industry, and university economists. The energy forecast (2.1, Energy Forecast) covers demand for energy and electricity over the next several decades. The Section then provides a summary of the outlook for competing sources of energy — the supply side of the energy equation (2.2, Outlook for Competing Sources of Energy) — providing information on projected future levels of use of oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and renewable energy resources, by world region. The section also describes the process used to define future markets in terms of the type of demand for energy and to link those markets to specific geographical regjons(2.3, Market Segment Definition). This linkage enabled the study team to determine whether markets would be accessible by a space solar power satellite and to estimate the resulting revenues. Prices were calculated for each market for different types of energy demand (peak load, baseload, and hybrid power) (2.4, Price Analysis). Finally, factors affecting the willingness of capital markets to finance electricity production infrastructure were considered (2.5, Financing), as were external factors such as the costs of pollution associated with energy production (2.6, External Factors).
2.2. Energy Forecast The purpose of this energy forecast was to provide an understanding of long term demand for energy and to guide segmentation of the energy market by level of demand and by price. As shown in Figure 2.1, world energy consumption will grow to 542 Quadrillion Btu (1015 British Thermal Units) by 2015. This represents an increase of 60% from 1995. Sources of energy used to determine total energy consumption include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and renewables. The largest percentage increase (150%) is expected in Asia, especially China and India. This region’s GDP growth exceeds population growth, meaning higher standards of living and therefore more demand for electricity and personal auto transportation. Figure 2-1 Forecast of Global Energy Consumption Figure 2-1 also shows that in 2010 approximately 200 quadrillion BTUs of energy will be consumed to produce electricity. Currently, about 38% of world’s energy is used to produce electricity and, as shown in Figure 2-2, about 11% of world’s energy is consumed as end-use electricity. This percentage is expected to increase to about 12% in 2015. Figure 2-2 Electricity Increases as a Percentage of Total Energy Consumed
Electricity is the fastest growing end-use energy form and the primary market for space solar power. Electricity usage is expected to climb to 19 trillion kilowatt-hours in 2015 (1.9 x 1012), Figure 2-3. The highest growth rate for electricity use is in Asia. OECD nations are and will remain the largest consumers of electricity. The United States is the largest consumer, but growing at only 1.4% per year through 2015. However, while the US may be the largest consumer of electricity, Canada has the highest use per person at 13 megawatt-hours, shown in Figure 2-4. Figure 2-3 Electricity Consumption The forecast also shows that energy consumed will be near parity in 10 years between OECD nations and other nations. Another way to put this is that the world’s wealthiest nations which will have less than 20% of the global population in 2010, will consume half of the energy. Figure 2-4 Electricity Consumption per Capita Table 2-1 depicts both historical electricity consumption and projected electricity consumption by region and economic status. Figure 2-5 graphically depicts the growth in electricity consumption by region from 1990 to 2025. This figure illustrates the high growth rate of electricity consumption in non-OECD Asia. This region will reach parity with OECD Europe in 2005 and will reach near parity with OECD North America in 2015.
There are many parts of the world which are unserved or under-served by electric power. Currently, there are two billion people not yet connected to electric power grids. Many electrification programs do not produce complete infrastructure. Table 2-1 Global Electricity Consumption by Region Such countries may offer an important market for space solar power, because of their unmet demand and because of their lack of infrastructure. A space solar power system could meet that demand without requiring extensive terrestrial infrastructure for power transmission. Figure 2-5 Net Electricity Consumption by Region
2.2.1. Assumptions And Sources This report provides a brief summary of energy trends. More detailed information can be found in the principle sources used in this analysis. These were reports produced by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency (DOE/EIA) on domestic and world energy markets. These reports provide extensive data tables, trend analysis, and market growth projections. Two key reports which provide extensive projections and consistent data over time, are the “Annual Energy Outlook” (report number DOE/EIA-0383(96) January 1996) and the “International Energy Outlook” (report number DOE/EIA-0484(96) May 1996). These reports give growth projections based on extensive energy modeling systems as well as annual updates. Both of these reports can be found via the Internet at http:04/04/97/www.eia.doe.go. To augment the information in these reports, an analyst from EIA also participated in a Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) held July 24 and 25, 1996. The following assumptions were made by EIA in forecasting world energy consumption. • The world gross domestic product (GDP) will grow 3% annually through 2015. The world population will increase from $5.7 biDion to $7.5 billion in 2015. • Real energy prices win remain relatively stable over the forecast period, with a slow rise in oil prices from $ 15 to $25 dollars per barrel In addition there win be no extreme changes such as those experienced in the late 1970’s. • With regard to the type of energy being consumed, natural gas is replacing oil for many uses. Global nuclear generation capacity win decrease and decommissioned OECD reactors win not be replaced. However, some Asian countries win increase nuclear power capacity. It is also expected that energyefficient technologies win be adopted world-wide. 23. Outlook for Competing Sources of Energy A space solar power system would in many cases compete with terrestrial sources of energy. This analysis considered future trends in the availability and price of major energy sources and of patterns of use of these sources around the world. The assessment of SSP revenue took into account regional use of different fuels by considering relative prices and poUution that could be avoided. The DOE/EIA projections of world-wide consumption described above are based on projections of consumption of five "fuels," or sources of energy: oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, and renewables. The first four are fuels. Renewables include hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind, and other renewable sources of energy such as biomass. Nominal projections for fuel consumption total 471.7 quadrillion Btu in 2010. The projections include non-fiiel uses of oil and coal for which other sources of energy cannot compete effectively. Otherwise, they show the expected result of competition among existing sources of energy for shares of the total
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==