The Slide from Peak: A Wireless Space Solution to the Energy Crisis

by Kris Holland and Edward D. McCullough

Barycentric

315 Woodland Avenue

Lively, Ontario, Canada

P3Y 1N2

(705) 670-4688
Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the need for Space Solar Power (SSP). Space Solar Power is
an energy source involving the collection of solar energy outside of the Earth's atmosphere and a
process for wirelessly transmitting it back to Earth. In order to understand why this is necessary, one
must first understand why the current fossil fuel paradigm needs to be augmented, why the current
suite of renewable resources will not be sufficient, and, ultimately, why SSP is the only viable option to
fill the gap. This is not to suggest the use of fossil fuels should be stopped; we, as a species, will more
than likely need to use them until they are gone. As the availability and affordability of oil declines, it
will become more important to migrate to other forms of energy, instead using the remaining oil for
purposes other than energy. However, it must also be said that in order for this future to be viable, it is
imperative that profitability of companies and individuals currently invested in the status quo be
allowed to grow with these new forms of energy.

In spite of using optimistic projections with regard to energy, there is no doubt that there is a problem
when options are considered over the next few decades. The species is moving towards a point of no
return. We must start the process of building a viable and sustainable energy source that will both
improve the condition of the planet, while allowing continued growth and advancement. In the interim,
many things must be done in order to ensure continuous improvements in prosperity; from ensuring a
proper policy and legal framework, government recognition of the issues at stake, and investment by all
sectors into new technologies and ideas that will lead to the ultimate goal of an SSP system. The
purpose of this paper is not to be excessively technical, although substantiation is provided wherever
necessary. The intent is also not to specifically suggest any one SSP system over another; rather, to
show that whatever the ultimate design of the system, work must start now.

In some ways, the discussion that follows may seem dire. The reality is that it is impossible to predict
the outcome of a substantial decrease in energy for our civilization, and, for that matter, what
technologies may be developed over the next decades to offset that decrease. The outcome described
is but one possibility; however, managing our options with care, and achieving a political consensus will
greatly improve the future, and open new opportunities for humanity.
Introduction

As a modern civilization, we are utterly dependent on energy. Without it, there is no way of sustaining
our current way of life. It would not be possible to feed, clothe, or move ourselves as we are
accustomed. Similarly, the information and communications systems that global economies rely on
would become increasingly unstable. In that context, energy must be inexpensive, accessible and
reliable in order be able to sustain our current lifestyles.

Without cheap and accessible energy, current economies would likely collapse, and population levels
could easily drop to that of pre-industrialization. A global population drop to around 550 million,
originally achieved around 1600AD, is not out of the question 1. A dramatic change to the way of life of
everyone living today would be required, changing the focus to survival. Food would be the limiting
factor; currently, much of the arable land available to our ancestors has been built upon or destroyed
(by pollution, erosion, etc.), while most of what is left requires more energy intensive methods to make
it productive. 2 Without the energy required to drive tractors, irrigate, and cultivate, productivity of the
remaining agricultural land would plummet.

If the planet could only sustain 550 million people, or even twice that, the earth would have to lose over
six billion people 3. If that happens, with no easily accessible energy, civilization would not be able to
recover as it has in the past 4. There would simply not be enough energy to rebuild. While there might
be pockets of the well prepared clustered around nuclear systems, windmills and solar farms, they
would eventually disappear as those systems wore out without the modern infrastructure required to
sustain them 5.

Generally speaking, there would not be anyone with the free time to be able to excavate the ruins of
New York, Tokyo or London to marvel at those accomplishments, as is currently done for the Romans,
Mayans, etc.; those cities would be little more than heaps of rubble, surrounded by legend. Most of the
knowledge developed up until now would eventually disappear, as the infrastructure to maintain
computer networks vanishes. Whatever potential humanity currently has would evaporate with the last
drops of oil.

All of the above sounds like utter science fiction, an apocalyptic over-exaggeration, an impossibility.
One might argue that such a scenario could never take place, that "we know better", that a solution will
be found. Certainly, there are currently many efforts to try to create alternative energy options, and the
popular media is quick to suggest that great strides are being made. It would seem that many do not
appreciate the amount of power required to replace fossil fuels, nor is there an appreciation for the
scale of infrastructure that is required to generate that power. As will be outlined in this paper, the
current suite of 'green' technologies cannot be the only approach, as it simply is not enough. Current
Earth-friendly technologies cannot adequately provide for our current energy needs, post oil, and most
certainly are not sufficient to keep us going as our population continues to grow. We must look past our
front door and see what is beyond our atmosphere.
Space Solar Power has the potential to be a game-changer. It is not cheap energy in the traditional
sense, as there is a very high cost to get to first light. Once first light is achieved, however, it provides
possibilities like no other form of energy. It is an abundant and green technology that can be scaled up
to be a full planetary system that is massively redundant. It can create a new economic boom, while at
the same time creating several new frontiers for mankind.

Where we are now.

Few argue against the idea that peak oil is either close or recently passed. That said, how much oil and
other fossil fuels remain is hotly debated. Estimates range from 37 years 6 through to 98 years 7.
Generally, these estimates assume that consumption remains constant in that time frame. In reality,
global consumption is dramatically increasing, especially as the population and economies of China and
India come online. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to expect that the end of fossil fuels can and will
come much sooner 8. The Chinese and Indian economies are already starting to upset the current
market equilibrium, and it stands to get much worse 9. While there are likely more reserves of coal and
natural gas, their consumption will be dramatically increased as oil is phased out. Coal and natural gas
has the further complication that we currently do not have the infrastructure to extract or use either
resource at a substantially increased rate 10. If that infrastructure is not built in a timely fashion, those
reserves will be very difficult to tap 11.

No one can fault the people of developing nations for seeking a better life, and many see the North
American and European lifestyles as their goal. For the moment, assume a per-capita consumption goal
of approximately 41MWh/year, which is less than that of the European Union in 2006 12. If 90% of the
global population (at current levels) used an equivalent amount of power, we would need to generate
approximately 247,230 TWh 13 of electricity per year, equivalent to 28.2TW of power generation per
hour 14. In 2006, 137, 571 TWh was produced globally 15, equivalent to 15.7TW of power generation per
hour. 16 That would mean that the current production of energy would have to be increased by a factor
of two - without any consideration of the fact that the global population and energy use is increasing.
Further to this, most electrical generation capacity currently in place goes into base load power, while
virtually 100% of transportation energy (cars, trucks, boats, trains, airplanes) come from fossil fuels.

That said, consider our current consumption levels. As a percentage, 86% of 2006 global energy
production was supplied by fossil fuels 17. This means that if fossil fuels were to cease tomorrow as a
viable energy source, 13.5 TW of energy would have to be replaced with other forms of energy. This is
equivalent to 15,845 Three Mile Island (TMI) generating plants 18 that would have to be built before we
run out of fossil fuels; if waited until afterwards, we would not have the energy to build them. We
would also have to build additional plants to cover peak usage, as well as unexpected down times, but
for the purposes of this paper, these will be ignored.

So what does that mean?

Assume that we have 60 years 19 until fossil fuels need to be replaced as a dominant fuel source 20. That
would mean 264 TMI class nuclear plants would have to be built globally every year for the next 60
years; currently, there are only 436 plants in operation 21. The average lifespan of a nuclear power plant
is 30-40 years 22, but could conceivably be extended to the 60 year range. That means, in 60 years, the
process of replacing the plants that are now in operation would have to start, and 264 TMI class reactors
would have to be built/replaced, every year, forever, in order to maintain the status quo. As mentioned,
demand is steadily increasing, which means there will be a need to build even more capacity every year
in order to compensate for growing demand.

Certainly, the nuclear option is not necessarily a preferred one. Since it represents a relatively stable,
understood and high density power source, it will be used as an example for the moment. A TMI class
nuclear power plant would cost around $1.7 billion in capital costs alone 23. If the full shortfall was built
as nuclear, over the 15,845 plants, $148 trillion will be spent in capital costs at, $458B/yr.

Current nuclear technologies cannot be expected to be scale well to this level. There are other nuclear
technologies 24, but their development will be hampered through the regulatory and safety processes
imposed on the nuclear industry, and as such are not likely to be ready for mainstream power
generation for several decades. There is also the issue of scaling up nuclear fuel production, as well as
the need for disposal of wastes. 'Not in my back yard' (NIMBY) protests that greatly limit locations for
construction of these facilities cannot be forgotten, either.

Many suggest that fusion is the solution. However, a commercially viable fusion reactor has yet to be
developed. It has yet to be proven that such technologies will ever be commercially viable, even though
billions of dollars have been spent over decades trying to create energy positive fusion 25. Best estimates
suggest that the first commercially viable reactor will not be available until 2045 or 2050, 26 which is
more than likely too late to be able to build enough of them to compensate for the described shortfall.
The large reactors being built currently, like ITER and NIF 27 are still being built or just completed, and
large amounts of fundamental research have yet to be done to turn these very expensive machines 28
into commercially feasible technologies.

As a result, the suite of "green", or renewable technologies, must be the next set of technologies that
are looked at to provide a solution. We will consider typically described options of ground based solar
(photovoltaic or PV) 29, wind, geothermal, hydro, biomass, and wave/tidal. The reality is that these
technologies are not completely green, and have been somewhat misrepresented. While their power
generating processes are green, this is not the complete picture.

Stable Green Technologies

A fair breakdown of these energy sources needs to be determined in order to better quantify what is
required. There will be a lot of estimation in the following paragraphs, as there is little conclusive data
to form these numbers. However, optimistic estimates are used in order to further the discussion, and
it can be expected that actual values are lower. There are two types of energy sources in this context,
stable and unstable. These are differentiated by their availability. In other words, if they fluctuate with
weather and time, they are unstable.

Stable sources will be the starting point. Nuclear will be considered as a stable source, being that it does
not directly result in the release of greenhouse gasses, and there is a relatively large amount of available
fuel remaining. Assume 4,000 additional TMI class nuclear power plants globally are built. This would
cost approximately $6.8 Trillion 30.

Next, assume that another 260,000MW 31 of hydro electric power can be developed. This number is
hugely speculative, and would require that most of the rivers in the world be dammed; this is neither
practical nor desirable. In any case, this would cost at least $650 Billion 32.

Now, consider geothermal. Like many renewable energy sources, it cannot be built everywhere. As a
result, it is not viable for all areas; but, once again, that fact will be ignored. In the US, it is estimated
that there is 18,880 MW of potential geothermal power 33. It will be assumed that available geothermal
is relative to the rest of the planet from the US context, giving a total of 288,195MW 34. We'll double
that, to compensate for the use of building-specific geothermal installations, and some error. This
would cost $1.96 Trillion 35, although some of the building-specific installation costs could be absorbed
by the consumer, likely with a high level of government subsidy.

Biomass is the next energy form to consider. This would be using agricultural lands and forests to
produce materials that could be used for energy. Estimates range significantly, but twice the current
production of 4,756,469 MW, or 4.75TW will be used, likely derived from advances in the use of residues
and organic waste, cropping systems, and marginal land 36. This, again, has much room for debate.
However, it can be argued that the higher-end values can be disregarded, because as global populations
increase, so too will the use of land for food, not fuel. To generate this much power, we would need
~170, 000 biomass generators, at 40 MW each, totalling an estimated $5.1Trillion 37. One important
aspect to consider with biomass is that it cannot be relied on all of the time, as drought, floods, and
other events (which may include global warming) may drastically affect the ability to grow in some
locations, or destroy a percentage of a given crop cycle during a season. It will also create substantial air
pollution, adding millions of tons of particulate into the air, which will undoubtedly cause its own
problems.

These energy sources are summarized in the following table;

Energy Source Power (MW) Cost (Trillion $)

Total Shortfall 13,505,837

Nuclear 3,408,000 6.82
Hydro 260,000 0.65
Geothermal 576,390 1.96
Biomass 4,756,469 5.10

Remaining Shortfall /
Total 4,504,978 14.52

After spending $14.5 trillion, there would still be a need to build an additional 4.5 TW of generating
capacity to replace fossil fuels.
Unstable green technologies

In order to compensate for that shortfall, the unstable renewable resources must be considered.
Wave/tidal generation is likely the least unstable 38, and like most other renewable resources, has
variable estimates to the potential generation capacity, as well as viability. It has been estimated by the
World Energy Council that there could be as much as 2,000 TWh/year of potential 39, which equates to
228,311 MW, leaving a continued shortfall of 4,276,667 MW. The estimated cost for this installation is
$571 billion 40, which does not account for installations destroyed in storms 41.

The rest, using terrestrial sources, must be split between solar PVs and wind. Both forms require the
cooperation of the weather, for both to provide sufficient energy in the form of sunlight or wind.
Further, both are subject to the day/night cycle, which results in a cosine loss for solar energy 42. There
is also a cosine loss North and South of the equator, but it will be ignored. These losses can be a
considerable issue, because power systems must be relied upon to provide base load, and be available
for peak usage. Without base load, we are then required to build extensive and complex power storage
systems, which is neither practical nor affordable at this scale 43. Without availability at peak demand
times, which do not usually coincide with solar peak availability, rolling brownouts and full blackouts will
likely occur. This is especially true in northern climates, where long periods of low/non-existent light
levels make PVs very impractical for 4-6 months of the year. We will look at both of these energy
sources, under the assumption that they are stable 44. We will split solar/wind in the ratio of 60/40,
because it is generally much more practical to deploy solar over wind 45.

For the moment, it will be considered that most PVs are placed in Southern areas, and the wind
generators are placed in windy areas. In the case of PVs, it can be expected that in prime conditions (no
cloud cover), they will be generating power for a maximum of 6 hours per day 46. The best solar panels
currently available are around 40.7% efficient 47. Keep in mind that most panels currently used in
industrial scale applications are around 25% efficient. For the purposes of this paper, it will be assumed
that all solar panels are placed in areas comparable to Las Vegas, with an average annual solar
insolation 48 of 5.3 kWh/m2/day 49. At a 40.7% panel efficiency, 2.1571kWh/m2/day would be
generated50.

In the case of wind, it will be assumed that an average wind turbine will generate 2.5MW; where an
average inland wind turbine will generate 1.5 MW, and a sea-based turbine would produce 3.5MW 51.
This assumption is that there will be an even split between land and sea based turbines. The annual
efficiency of these turbines would be around 35% 52, giving an average instant generation of 0.875MW
per turbine. 53

From our outstanding shortfall of 4,270,667 MW, we will need 2,566,000 MW of solar and 1,710,667
MW of wind capacity 54. Because of variability in weather, we will assume that we will only be able to
get 75% of potential sunlight to correct the fact that Las Vegas isn't the norm for overcast conditions.
This means that we will need 38,066km2 of solar farms 55, and 1,955,048 wind turbines covering 187,532
km2 at a minimum 56. These are staggering numbers - one would have to cover 53% of California from
horizon to horizon in wind and solar 57. The actual areas suitable for construction of utility grade plants
is far lower, however, as they require relatively flat land without obstacles 58. This will not help people in
northern climates, however, because transmission distances would be too great.

There is already widespread resistance to large scale implementation of solar and wind farms in some
communities, 59 and as more land is required, the stronger the resistance will become. The cost for such
an installation would also be astronomical. Solar and wind, as described, would cost approximately $5
trillion 60 and $2 trillion 61, respectively, which does not include the cost of the land and other costs.

Another consideration is that neither solar nor wind are particularly environmentally friendly, when
viewed holistically. In the case of PVs, the process can be very toxic 62. The installations themselves are
also problematic; little to nothing will grow under a solar farm, and if built in foliated areas, the entire
area of the farm will have to be clear cut. Wind farms are hazards to birds 63, and have numerous other
potential problems 64. The amount of materials necessary for production is also prohibitive, requiring
large amounts of input energy, including many plastics that are derived from oil, and will have to be
created from alternative sources after oil runs out 65. Furthermore, these technologies have a finite life
span, at a maximum of 30 years 66,67. This is equivalent to $228 billion/year 68, not including input energy,
forever.

Other considerations

Another additional point to add to ground based technologies is the electricity grid itself. Most are
aware that our current infrastructure is aging and needs to be upgraded. This should not be confused
with the so-called "smart grid", which will do little to resolve increasing demand, other than to manage
the power we have, and it is estimated to cost $1-2 Trillion itself 69. The infrastructure must be
upgraded, and in the case of most renewable energy sources, completely new power runs will have to
be built, costing at least $200 Billion70. Having to transmit power long distances (from sunny areas, for
example, to more northern latitudes) will also introduce transmission loss. This, in turn, will require the
generation of more power to compensate.

Conclusion to existing technologies

To summarize the costs of all of the alternative energy options, consider the following table;

Energy Source Power (MW) Cost (Trillion $)

Total Shortfall 13,505,837

Nuclear 3,408,000 6.82
Hydro 260,000 0.65
Geothermal 576,390 1.96
Biomass 4,756,469 5.10
Tidal/Wave 228,311 0.57
Solar 2,566,000 5.13
Wind 1,710,667 1.71
Smart Grid N/A 1
Grid Upgrade N/A .2

Remaining Shortfall/Total 0 23.14

In order to replace fossil fuels, using existing technologies, a minimum of approximately 23 trillion
dollars will have to be spent globally, much of which will have to be subsidized. This is just to maintain
the status quo; not to compensate for the imminently improving quality of life in developing countries,
nor for any growth whatsoever.

At this point, one must pause to consider the assumptions made. It has been assumed, firstly, that
4,000 nuclear facilities could be built, which is a considerable task itself. It has also been assumed that
all other forms of renewable energy are able to produce at a maximum, all of the time. Any shortfalls
from the above will have to be compensated for by wind and solar. The complications due to weather
and day/night cycles have also been largely ignored, where 75% uptime is a dramatically optimistic value
for most locations. Variability due to seasonal fluctuations has also been ignored, where many
favourable areas see a decline available solar energy in the winter months, depending on latitude, by
more than fifty percent 71. In addition, the input energy into a solar panel must also be considered,
which will become more relevant as fossil fuels wane in availability 72.

Transmission losses have also been completely ignored. In the United States, for example, much of the
available renewable energy sources are located West of the Mississippi 73, which means huge amounts of
power would have to be transmitted across the country. There are various estimates for losses, and
some improvements may be possible. However, it has been estimated that as much as 7.2% of power is
lost in the US to transmission, and if a comparable scale can be made globally, one terawatt will have to
be generated to compensate 74. Again, made up for by wind and solar.

The expense of these systems must also be considered, as they need to be completely replaced every 30
years, 60 years for nuclear at the most, which is a significant economic burden. Further, the additional
mining and manufacturing capability to build these systems will be problematic 75. As such, additional
capacity must be built, and it is unknown if the required manufacturing capability can be built in time 76.

It is clear, then, that something different must be done. And it must be cost effective, on the scale of a
planetary power system. It must also be able to deliver energy to many locations without an
appreciable difference in energy delivered. It must be stable, expandable, and it must be built without
appreciable impact on global ecosystems.

So what are we to do?

As a baseline, everything must be done. Ongoing development, refinement, and installations of new
and existing green technologies (such as ground based solar, geothermal, wind, tidal/wave, nuclear),
existing oil/coal/gas technologies from extraction to combustion must be made more efficient and cost
effective, the effort to conserve energy must be continued in order to ensure that oil reserves are
maintained so that there is more time. Yet that will not be enough, especially when considering the
rising global energy demand 77.
The true ultimate solution, in the view of the authors, is to do everything mentioned above, and to look
up. The surface of the planet must not be a limiting factor. Above the earth's atmosphere, the sun
shines at 136% more intensely than it does at the Earth’s equator, and is available virtually 24/7 78.
Further, the construction of the systems to collect it will not happen in anyone's back yard, and all the
materials required to build it exist off-planet. Systems can be operated outside the geopolitical
sandbox, and energy can be beamed anywhere it is needed. Having said that, one must understand the
concepts, costs, technologies, and issues related to these systems in order to understand how this can
be done.

Building this system will allow us to stop using fossil fuels for energy, instead allowing us to use what is
left of them for comparably green uses, such as turning them into plastics, lubricants and other
petrochemical derivative products.

Space Solar Power Primer

As a basic primer to the concept of Space Solar Power (SSP), one must build a large array of photo-
voltaics (PVs) in space. There are different approaches to this, but ultimately, the solar energy is
concentrated/collected, and then converted into electrical power. This can be done either on a satellite,
or built on the moon 79. From there, the energy is beamed via microwave or laser beams to ground
receiving antennas, where it is transmitted to the user through the traditional grid. The first system is
built with materials launched from Earth, and follow on construction uses materials already in space.
Power can be beamed to a single ground station, redirected to different locations as needed, or split
between several locations simultaneously 80.

Figure 1. A basic concept of space solar power satellite. This is a design created by John Mankins.
Image ©Mafic Studios, Inc.
On its surface, this is a simple concept, but has often been portrayed as science fiction. Good science
fiction is, however, rooted firmly in scientific fact. Currently, most of the technologies that are required
for an SSP satellite do exist 81, but need to be refined and/or scaled up82. The science itself is completely
understood, and we are at the point of engineering and design. Further, the concept of SSP has been
around for almost half a century, and is a natural progression of space technologies. (See figure 2.) On a
small scale, we already do SSP; communications satellites receive a signal, amplify it and transmit that
energy wirelessly back to the Earth to a receiving station, using solar panels as their power source.
Communication satellites simply use a different frequency, and embed information in the signal.

Figure 2. Progression of space technologies since the early 1950s.

Wireless energy transmission in a non-space context is similarly done on a regular basis, and was first
proposed by Nikola Tesla in 1904 83. Modern examples can be found everywhere; a cell phone receives
and transmits energy signals to the local tower, and microwave relay towers and satellite uplinks send
energy carrying that signal around the world. Radar, GPS, wireless networks, analog and satellite
television, and radio are all examples of wireless energy transmission 84. In the case of SSP, there is some
debate within the community between using lasers or microwaves as a transmission medium; the latter
having preference because frequencies can be chosen where the atmosphere is transparent, which,
therefore, limits losses due to cloud cover. Lasers allow for higher energy densities, but tend to have
more opposition, and are less practical because of the atmosphere. For the purposes of this paper,
microwave transmission will be used as the preferred system for this reason. The ground stations, in
most concepts, tend to be very large, which is due to the optics of a microwave beam. These receivers
would be in the neighbourhood of 2km in diameter; essentially as a grid of wire 85. These antennas can
be strategically placed, in relative proximity to large consumers. This will keep transmission losses in
check, and guarantee that the existing high-voltage transmission system can be used.

Because the energy density is so low, and with the simplicity of the system, the receiving antenna can be
raised above ground level, and the ground below can be cultivated. The system could also be
incorporated into other structures, and placed in unpopulated areas. Placement only requires
reasonably flat land, and could even be built in the middle of a forest 86. The power will be available
24/7/365 87.

Before building a system

Opponents often give the idea that these systems could be used as a weapon, or are not safe, but the
proposed energy densities are very low, and controls can be put in place to ensure that fact. Energy
densities are not much higher than being near a cell phone tower, and simply cannot be weaponized
after construction88. This system also removes one of the main historical motivators for conflict, namely
energy shortages.

Keeping energy density low and with failsafe systems in place, aircraft could fly over the receiver, as
could birds, with no ill effects, 89 and the area around the receiver can be restricted to humans as a
precaution, if deemed necessary. One must keep in mind that a microwave oven works because the
beam is tuned to the resonant frequency of the water molecule. All other safety concerns simply
require proper engineering.

The largest hurdle is likely the cost. Anything in space, with the exception of telecommunications
satellites, are for the most part considered to be prohibitively expensive in a business context. In some
ways, the same can be said for SSP. If a government decided to build the system today, the cost would
be in the trillions; though in the context of our other options mentioned earlier in this paper, this should
not be a limiting factor. Ultimately, the cost of the space segment is about a tenth of the cost in building
the rectennas 90, which are comparatively less expensive than a comparable PV installation 91.

Very few companies could afford such a price, even though the expenditures would happen over the
next 10 to 15 years 92. That said, both core and secondary technologies within the SSP framework have
high intrinsic values on Earth for every day applications. This includes improving the efficiency of both
green and fossil-fuel based technologies, as well as other commercially profitable products. These
technologies, in the short term, can be used to offset the cost of the whole, developing a revenue
stream very early. Governments can play a part, where they can retire some of the risk by funding the
technology maturation research and development, as well as being proactive in policy that will
encourage development and incentivise private investment.

Within the context of the system, work must be done to lay the groundwork for laws and regulations as
they apply. Specifically regarding ownership rights to the satellites, orbital locations and the energy
itself, as well as transmission through the atmosphere, frequency issues, etc. A level of cooperation
between governments will also have to be established, since a single satellite could potentially transmit
energy into multiple jurisdictions concurrently.
There are also national security benefits from a system that is both very difficult to interfere with 93 and
is reliable. Such systems can also be used for humanitarian efforts, by transmitting power into areas
with no other affordable energy sources, or where the local power grid has been destroyed. Delivery of
a small rectenna, as rolls of wire, could be laid out and connected to a small, localized grid.

Moving towards construction

The SSP system will require an initial outlay of ~$400B to get to first light 94, though some of this cost can
be offset by technological development and commercialization early on 95. However, as the system is
expanded, the delivery of power pays for the balance of the system. Indeed, the initial costs can be
repaid during the first year after first light. From another perspective, SSP is no more expensive than
comparable national projects, such as building highways and rail for a nation 96, building a new (or
upgrading an old) power transmission system, maintaining a military, or other similar initiatives. It is
simply national (and international) infrastructure for the benefit of all stakeholders, both public and
private. Unlike other types of infrastructure, however, SSP can pay for itself with its sales.

There are many issues that are often cited suggesting that there is no viable business case for SSP.
Launch costs, complexities of construction, and efficiencies of power transmission are often used. Each
one, if considered outside of the context of the whole system, could easily seem like a show-stopper.
Each one should be considered individually.

Launch costs, for example, are currently in the range of $5,000-$10,000 kg97, and to launch several
thousand tons would be very expensive. Just like communications satellites, these costs would be
justified by revenues achieved after launch. Most space systems are typically viewed like the
International Space Station (ISS), which will ultimately cost upwards of $54 billion to complete 98. These
dollars have produced a station which does fundamental research, but does not generate any revenue,
save for the few tourists who have gone there. In the case of SSP, the system will generate real
revenues, both in commercialized spin-off products, as well as the power to itself which will ultimately
make the system extremely profitable. Beyond that fact, a properly funded system will see very large
economies of scale, where launches would occur several times a day or week, rather than once or twice
a month.

Complexities of construction are an issue for any large scale construction project. For SSP, no manmade
object has ever been built in space that is of the scale of an SSP satellite, nor has anything been built on
the lunar surface, and will require considerable expertise. It will also require many advancements and
developments in order to make it efficient. Each of those, too, can turn into spin-off technologies. They
are simply engineering problems that require careful thought, modeling, and testing. Advancements in
robotics and automation will likely play a key role in ensuring efficient and cost effective construction,
and will likely replace any in-space human interaction. Using well studied techniques for In-situ Resource
Utilization (ISRU), 99 autonomous robotics and space manufacturing drastically reduce the number of
launches required from Earth.

Efficiencies of power transmission are also considered to be a problem, due to the false assumption that
only 10% of the collected energy reaching the ground. While it is true that only 10% of the sun's energy
may be collected per unit area in space, 80% of the energy reaching the rectenna on the ground will be
converted to usable electricity. While every step will be made to ensure a maximum of received energy,
it does not really matter what the efficiency is. Once in situ resources are being used, more solar panels
are built, and more energy is transmitted until any deficiency is made up for. As long as the energy on
the ground is in a cost effective range, the efficiency is irrelevant.

Once the first system is installed and proven, follow on stations can be built from lessons learned, and
new and innovative technologies can be developed. Materials are readily available in space, on the
moon, and in asteroids 100. With a stable space infrastructure, these resources become even easier to
access 101, and those materials are vastly cheaper than those launched from Earth 102.

Consumers

The potential for early consumers is extensive. The first transmitted power will be more expensive, but
will be able to reach consumers not normally able to connect to a traditional grid. These consumers
typically already pay a premium for their power, either via traditional electricity, or needing to convoy
fuels for local generation. For example, remote communities, military bases and research stations
would all benefit from transmitted energy. Energy companies themselves would also stand to greatly
benefit; the Canadian Tar Sands, for example, could be made much more profitable and environmentally
friendly if substantial green power could be transmitted to the site. There are many similar examples.

Profitability

In the longer term, an SSP network will be immensely profitable 103, easily earning $17.52 trillion/year for
a full scale system 104. In the short term, $1 trillion in profits 105 can be expected after the first couple of
years after first light (~14 years). The operator(s) of the system will be providers of a global energy
source. With plentiful and inexpensive energy, GDP will be able to rise quickly, and a new boom cycle
will begin.

Once built, an SSP system also serves as a platform for other initiatives, such as the construction of
other structures, incorporating manufacturing and habitation elements, primary research, and so on.
SSP then becomes a first step in a space economy, that once opened, will be a new economic frontier; a
boom of its own. It will also fulfill the dream of many, and be a real step from the cradle of the earth.

When properly designed, and SSP system will maintain itself, incorporating off-planet construction and
maintenance facilities. Computer monitoring and robotic systems and will constantly analyze
productivity, and install replacement elements, paid for by the energy generated by the system itself.
Any elements destroyed or damaged (meteors, debris, cosmic radiation, etc.) will not be noticed in the
system context, and would be replaced before it became an issue.

What do we need to do now?

What's needed now is action. The time for continuous architecture studies and contemplation of what
might be is past. As outlined here, the time remaining for using oil as an energy source is finite and
short, and the non-space replacement energy sources are cost prohibitive with considerable
complications. Further, it is more than likely that they cannot be built in time to make up for the
shortfall.

A clear plan to commit dollars to begin work is needed, and a team of talented and skilled engineers
under the supervision of talented and visionary leader, akin to a Rickover, Schiever, Johnson or
Lindley, 106 must be put to work as soon as possible. Care and due diligence must be done, of course, but
continued inaction has too many consequences. All parties must become engaged, from government,
the legal sector, existing energy companies, both space and non-space companies, and the general
public. This is a global problem and requires a global solution. It is human nature to be reactionary, and
we must make a concerted effort to be proactive in our survival as a civilization.

At the end of the day, an SSP system is about ensuring long term energy stability on Earth. It represents
the ability to create a very large scale system to provide a significant percentage of the worlds power
requirements without being subject to local conditions or threats. It is a system that will provide that
level of energy without the environmental consequences of other alternatives. It will take
approximately one decade to first light and another two to be completed as a viable full power system,
but the work will provide benefits from it almost immediately.

The cost, too, is insignificant when compared to what will have to be spent very soon; $400 billion to
reach the breakeven point versus $23.2 trillion of traditional Earth based alternatives that will be wholly
inadequate, even when completed 107. With this system, it will be possible for humanity to continue to
grow, and to do so in a way that does not compromise the environment around us. Power will no
longer be a deciding factor on our potential, and the focus of our economy can remain focused on
improving the human condition, rather than covering square kilometre after square kilometre with solar
panels and wind turbines.

----------
Kris Holland is an active member of the space solar power community, working with many key players
on a regular basis. He is the owner of Mafic Studios, Inc., a 3D Graphics company catering primarily to
the R&D and engineering communities, and Barycentric, a newly formed high tech consulting firm
drawing on the expertise of some of the world's top scientists and engineers. He is also currently
working towards a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering.

Edward McCullough is an engineer and scientist with over 43 years of experience spanning project and
systems management in the fields of software, civil, nuclear, electrical mechanical and chemical
engineering, physics, and chemistry. He has worked for firms such as Bechtel, Syncrude, Rockwell Space
Systems, and Boeing, and has served on numerous committees, councils and boards, among them for
the National Research Council, AIAA, USRA and others.

Special Thanks to Louis Grenier of the Canadian Space Agency and Dr. Gerardo Ulibarri of Laurentian
University for providing insights and commentary on this paper.
1
Estimated population of the planet in 1600, as estimated by the US census bureau, itself a compilation of sources.
This population level was chosen because it was prior to the exploitation of fossil fuels, but also because current
society would not be able to sustain higher population levels until civilization reorganized itself to relearn lost
survival skills. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
2
Currently, there are millions of acres of land that are made arable by the use of heavy industrialization, for
example, making deserts green.
3
Based on the current population of the earth, of ~6.7 billion. It is assumed that the population will continue to
grow before whatever future collapse may occur, hence the forecast of a loss of that magnitude can be made
regardless of the lower sustainable levels ranging from 550M-1.2B.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&q=earth+population#
4
Each successive population explosion over the last 300 years, and recovery from previous collapses, has come
with the discovery and exploitation of new energy sources, such as coal, oil, nuclear.
5
Both solar and wind generators have a short lifespan, which will be addressed later. The other issue is that most
solar emplacements will not be in areas particularly well suited to survival. (i.e. deserts)
6
Shahria, Shafieea and Erkan, Topal, "When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished?", Energy Policy, Vol 37, Issue 1,
January, 2009.
7
"World Fossil Fuel Reserves and Projected Depletion", The Colorado River Commission of Nevada, March 2002.
8
The stark reality is that many believe the drop in oil availability will come much sooner. Simmons, Matthew.
"Twilight in the Desert: The coming Saudi oil shock and the world economy," Wiley, 2006.
9
Mouawad, Jad and Werdigier, Julia. "Warning on Impact of China and India Oil Demand," New York Times,
London, England, Nov. 7, 2007.
10
Current extraction rates are roughly equivalent to demand, and there is substantial time and cost to develop
things like natural gas drilling rigs and coal drag lines that cannot be done in very short timeframes.
11
Just like SSP, there is an energy cost that is required to build these new systems. Post oil, it will be very difficult,
if not impossible, to build them.
12
The per capita energy usage of the European Union in 2006 was 146.2 million BTU, equivalent to 42,858 kWh, or
42.9 MWh, from the International Energy Annual 2006, US Department of Energy;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1c.xls
13 14
6.7 billion * 90% * average consumption of 41MWh = 2.4723 X 10 kWh = 247 230 TWh
14 14
2.4723 X 10 kWh /365/24 equals ~28.2TW per hour of generation per hour.
15 14
Total Energy production of the planet in 2006 was 469.412 qBTU, equivalent to 1.37X10 kWh, from the
International Energy Annual 2006, US Department of Energy; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/wepbtu.html
16 14
137X10 kWh /365/24 equals 15.7TW per hour.
17
International Energy Annual 2006, US Department of Energy; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/wepbtu.html
18
Three Mile Island Unit one generates 852MW. 13.5TW/852MW = 15,845 units.
http://www.threemileislandinfo.com/lib/pdf/TMI-PlantFactSheet.pdf
19
This number is chosen to be between the range of estimates, and excludes the notion of increased consumption
in the years going forward. Some credible estimates are dramatically shorter for oil, which will be the fulcrum
point for energy in our civilization. http://www.energy.eu/#non-renewable
20
This timeline also provides a number of years of exponentially higher natural gas and coal consumption, and the
assumption is that a replacement would have to be rapidly found as energy costs begin to rise.
21
Many of the plants currently running are not as large as Three Mile Island. "Nuclear Power in the World Today",
World Nuclear Association, March 2009.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html
22
"Extending the Operational Life Span of Nuclear Plants", IAEA.org Staff Report, November 2009.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/npp_extension.html
23
It is estimated that a nuclear plant costs approximately $2000/kW. For a TMI class reactor, the cost would be
852MW*1000kW/MW *$2000, or $1.7B. "The New Economics of Nuclear Power", World Nuclear Association,
p.18.
24
Molten salt reactors are a prime example.
25
Energy positive fusion is where you get more energy out of a reactor than you put into it.
26
"Q&A: Nuclear fusion reactor", BBC News, February 6, 2006.
27
ITER and NIF are the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor the National Ignition Facility,
respectively, with websites at www.iter.org and lasers.llnl.gov.
28
ITER and NIF are estimated to cost $16B and $3.5B respectively. McGrath, Matt, "Fusion falters under soaring
costs," BBC World Service, June 17, 2009, and Hecht, Jeff, "Photonic Frontiers, The National Ignition Facility, NIF is
up and running at last," Laser Focus World, Nov 1, 2009.
29
For the purposes of this paper, we will also ignore solar thermal plants. There is still enough debate about the
relative efficiencies that it isn't worth considering for the moment.
30
Again, this does not include any land acquisition, regulatory, fuel, or operating costs. It also does not cover the
vast legal expenses that will be associate with NIMBY movements.
31
This total is an estimate based on proposed and under construction projects, listed in Wikipedia. It is intended
to be an estimate, only, and 50,000MW would come from the Red Sea dam, which may never be built. An extra
100,000 MW of capacity is estimated for project that could possibly be built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Proposed_major_hydroelectric_projects
32
Using the estimated cost of $2500/kW, installed, which is slightly higher than some examples, but much less
than others. It is assumed that the majority of potential hydro generating stations will not be very large.
"Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2005 Update", International Energy Agency, 2005, p. 56.
33
Long, Jane, and Shevenell, Lisa, "The Potential of Geothermal Energy", Joint Department of the Interior and
Department of Energy Conference on Opportunities to Expand Renewable Energy on Public Lands", Washington
DC, November 28, 2009.
34 2 2
Total surface of the planet is 150,000,000 km , total surface of the US is 9,826,675km , resulting in a ratio of
15.3:1. Science Desk Reference American Scientific. New York: Wiley, 1999: 180, and CIA World Factbook
35
Using the estimated cost of $3400/kW, installed. http://www.geo-energy.org/aboutGE/powerPlantCost.asp
36
Lysen, E. and S. van Egmond, eds (2008). "Assessment of Global Biomass Potentials and their Links to Food,
Water, Biodiversity, Energy Demand and Economy." The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Jun 2008,
p. 76, using the maximal value of 150 EJ as described, converted MW.
37
The 40MW generator referenced was quoted to be 70% efficient, and costing between $20 and $40 Million. The
number of plants was derived from taking the biomass energy divided by 40MW*70%. The efficiency ensures that
the numbers are more accurate. A median cost of $30M/plant is used. Martin, John. "Biomass Energy
Economics", Western Forest Economists, 43rd Annual Meeting, May 7, 2008, p. 14.
38
Tides are certainly predictable, as are some waves. However, they do not necessarily produce power with at a
maximum output all of the time, there will also be periods of time with near zero production.
39
"Survey of Energy Resources 2007," World Energy Council, September 2007, p. 556.
40
There really are no clear indications of how much an industrial scale wave generation system would cost;
however, it is known that these installations are routinely destroyed by storms. For the purposes of this paper, we
will assume that industrial scale ocean generators will be comparable to other renewable energy systems for
installation, at around $2500/kW, and are stable through a predictable lifetime.
41
Any installations destroyed in storms will have a double effect; causing a loss of generation capacity that will
need to be compensated for, and require energy (and dollars) to replace the systems.
42
The cosine loss is the decrease of power relative to peak; the lower the sun is in the sky, the lower the available
energy.
43
Energy storage could easily double, if not triple, the cost of this component of the energy grid.
44
Except in the prime areas, however, this assumption can be very dangerous. In many 'good' locations, windmills
can stay idle for weeks at a time.
45
Large utility scale wind turbines must be a good distance from residential areas, whereas solar panels can be on
roof tops. Also, a single wind turbine of this scale is a massive thing, around 265 tons.
46
Giving 6 hours/day for power generation includes the lower light levels induced by cosine losses, but will be
considered to be included in this time period..
47
Blass, Evan, "Solar cell breakthrough: 40% efficiency achieved", Engadget, December, 2006.
48
Insolation is a measure of the solar radiation received on a given surface area in a given time.
49
http://www.apricus.com/html/insolation_levels_usa.htm
50
This means that for a given hour, relevant to our other comparisons, that we would only get ~.08988 kW in a
given hour, averaged over a 24 hour period. Obviously, there would be 0 generation at night, but we will assume
that there is some storage capacity to overcome this fact.
51
Snead, James Michael. "The End of Easy Energy and What To Do About It", Beaver Creek, OH, Nov. 19, 2008, p.
67.
52
Snead, James Michael. "The End of Easy Energy and What To Do About It", Beaver Creek, OH, Nov. 19, 2008, p.
68.
53
This is a gross overestimation of available power from wind turbines, where they will typically be generating far
less power than this. Snead, James Michael. "The End of Easy Energy and What To Do About It", Beaver Creek, OH,
Nov. 19, 2008, p. 70.
54
Derived from the 60/40 split
55
This number is the total wattage to be compensated for divided by the instant generation capacity (in MW),
-5 2 -6
times 75% efficiency, 2,993,667MW * / 8.98 X 10 *.75, converted to km , a factor of 10 .
56
This area calculation comes from an average wind turbine that a blade diameter of 73m, which would require an
2
individual turbine area of 73m(3) by 73m(6), or 95,922m . This does not accommodate for setbacks required for
populations or terrain, which will dramatically increase the required areas. Donovan, S. "Wind Farm Optimization",
University of Auckland, Dept. of Engineering Science, New Zealand, 2005, p. 4.
http://www.orsnz.org.nz/Prizes/Papers/2005WindFarmOptimization.pdf
57 2 2 2
(38,066 + 187,532)km = 187,832 km . California is 423,970km , making the ratio 53%.
58
In reality, vast tracts of land would have to be expropriated to build these, displacing many individuals and
families.
59
Rosenthal, Elisabeth. "Disputed Solar Energy Project in California Desert is Dropped", New York Times, Sept. 18,
2009
60
Thin film solar has lowered costs significantly, down to as low as $1/W. For this estimation, we are using $2/W,
in order to compensate for the infrastructure (protective frames, mounting systems, internal power transmission).
Ongoing costs, like cleaning the panels, as well as storage, are not included in this cost; storage alone could double
or triple the cost of the system. Madrigal, Alexis. "Thin-Film Solar Startup Debuts With $4Billion in Contracts,"
Wired Science, September 9, 2009.
61
Based on a cost of $1000USD per kW, from the Danish Wind Industry Association, 2003.
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm
62
Generally, the production of silicon based solar panels is much more toxic than that of thin-film. "Toward a just
and sustainable solar energy industry", A Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition White Paper, January 14, 2009.
63
Bird deaths are highly debated, where unlit turbines have a relatively low death rate. However, with a million
more turbines, deaths will become statistically significant.
64
Wind farms are unsightly, and may have health concerns. Harry, Amanda. "Wind Turbines, Noise and Health,"
February 2007.
65
Likely decreasing the amount of biomass for energy.
66
"Wind Turbine Facts", National Wind, Minneapolis, MN, p2.
67
"Wind Turbine Facts", National Wind, Minneapolis, MN, p2.
68
$7 Trillion/30 years equals $228B/year.
69
Jackson, Jerry. "Shining the Light on Smart Grid Investments: A Duke Energy Case Study," November, 2009.
http://www.energycentral.com/download/products/SmartGridModel.pdf
70
Quote from T.Boone Pickens, Hendricks, Bracken. "Challenges to building a sustainable transmission
grid".Center for American Progress, February 2009, p.23.
71
http://www.apricus.com/html/insolation_levels_usa.htm
72
Different manufacturing processes have different energy inputs, that can range significantly. It is nevertheless a
real consideration when you're building terawatts of capacity, regardless of the input required.
73
Almost all geothermal is in rocky mountain states, and solar and wind are have significantly higher availability in
the west.
74
Technology Options 2003. (2003). US Climate Change Technology Program.
http://climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-2.pdf
75
For wind turbines alone, 5-10 billion metric tons of materials would need to be extracted just to make the
turbines themselves.
76
This stems from the fact that the current infrastructure for building renewable power systems is well below
demand; if the need scales up by two orders of magnitude, tremendous additional investments (and delays) would
be required.
77
Snead, James Michael. "The End of Easy Energy and What To Do About It", Beaver Creek, OH, Nov. 19, 2008, p.1.
78
The only exception is in the shadow of the planet.
79
The lunar surface has considerable advantages over space, namely that after construction the issues around
station keeping are not an issue, as well as the fact that it can simply be laid on the lunar surface, rather than
having a massive supporting structure. In order to get energy to the far side of the Earth, relay satellites would
have to be built.
80
Mankins, John C. "A Fresh Look at Space Solar Power: New Architectures, Concepts, and Technologies",
International Astronautical Federation IAF-97-R.2.03. 12
81
The technologies involved are in varying states of readiness, from defacto proven concepts, like the receiving
technologies, the transmitters which have been built in private industry, various prototypes made by private
companies and organizations like NASA. Some technologies have been used in other industries for decades, and
can be adapted as necessary; for example, transmitting techniques have been used by the US navy since the 1950s.
82
Wood, Laura, "Analyzing Microwave Power Transmission & Solar Power Satellite Systems", Reuters, Oct 22, 2009.
(Example of technologies.)
83
Tesla, Niokla. "The Transmission of Electrical Energy Without Wires", Electrical World and Engineer, Mar. 5,
1904.
84
Different types of wireless transmission have different directional requirements; some very directional, others
very general. (i.e. the difference between radar and radio.)
85
Nagatomo, Makoto. "An Approach to Develop Space Solar Power As a New Energy System for Develop
Countries", Solar Energy, Vol. 56, No.1, pp 111-118, 1996.
86
The microwaves would pass through trees without harming them.
87
Depending on the orbital location of the satellite, and its distance from the earth, there is the possibility of a
very brief window where the satellite crosses the shadow of the earth. Proper orbital placement should limit this
to 5-10 minutes per day (or less), per year on the equinoxes.
88
The concept of weaponized technologies should also be treaded carefully - in the right hands, everything made
by man can be used as a weapon; even a pencil can be used as such. Clearly, systems need to be made to limit any
likelihood of this occurring. With proper engineering foresight, it is possible to make the system aim only towards
receiving stations, and therefore require any undesired alterations become completely impractical.
89
Criswell, David. "Lunar Power System: Industrial Research, Development, and Demonstration", World Energy
Council, 18th Congress, Buenos Aires, October 2001, p.5.
90
A rectenna is short for "rectifying antenna".
91
The substance of the rectenna, the wire, is much simpler (i.e. requiring fewer manufacturing steps, and less
input energy) and therefore less expensive per unit area. Technological development greatly lower costs.
92
The speed of construction of such a system is directly proportional the rate of expenditure; 10-15 to breakeven,
30 years to 20TW. The requirement is to stay ahead of the projected demand curve.
93
While it is certainly possible to interfere with such a system, the cost and technical capability required is
prohibitive.
94
i.e. initial commercial access to power
95
The method to arrive at this sum are proprietary.
96
US interstate system cost $425B, adjusted. Neuharth, Al. "Traveling interstates is our sixth freedom", (2006-06-
23).
97
"Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000", Futron Corporation, September
2002, p. 2-3.
98
Estimated cost, assuming it's finished. http://historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-space-station-pg2.htm
99
ISRU is the derivation metals, ceramics, powders and fibres from the lunar regolith in this context, but is simply
the use of materials at a given location, rather than the importation of said materials.
100
There is obviously a cost for using off-world systems, especially with development. However, this is paid for by
the sales of the system itself.
101
Using local resources is known as In-Situ Resource Utilization, or ISRU, and has been the subject of ongoing
research for decades. There is certainly more work to be done to do ISRU at an industrial scale.
102
The largest cost in moving materials from the Earth's surface to space is launch, which is expensive because of
the deep gravity well of the Earth and resultant velocity that needs to be achieved, requiring larger and more
complex launch systems. This is why, for example, the Apollo rockets were so large.
103
Boyle, Alan. "Making Space Solar Power Pay", MSNBC.com, September 18, 2009.
104
A 20TW SSP system, transmitting power 24/7/365, at $0.10/kWh.
105
This includes primary sources such as power, as well as secondary sources, such as spin-off technologies, etc.
106
These are talented individuals who have previously been charge of large and successful projects, like the AVRO
arrow, US nuclear submarine fleet, and others.
107
There are actually estimates where the true cost of a renewable energy replacement system will be an order of
magnitude higher than $23 trillion.