“I don’t think 2 cents a kilo watt hour is necessary to make SSP a profitable business.”

I agree, but it depends on what you want to do. If it is to undercut and wholesale replace fossil fuels, then 2 cent (1 cent off peak) is about right.

What you want to do is get into the business at lowest cost. That actually might be at a lower per kWh cost (and higher volume).

Keith

We shouldn’t be looking at what is paid for the first kilowatt we should be looking at what is being paid for the last kilowatt.

What are power companies paying for power when they are skirting brown outs and black outs? I remember in Seattle during one cold snap they were running a coal fired plant even though they were having to pay astronomical EPA fines to do it.

With one Space Solar Power Satellite and startegically placed recievers power could go to the highest bidder nationwide. Pitting New York agianst LA on a moment to moment basis. Which one willl lose power depends on what the other is willing to pay.

If we believe Mike Snead’s predictions of future power demand and supply it is not a matter of if Space Solar Power will be commercially viable but when.

The killer issue of power satellites is getting the parts to make them to GEO at a cost where the power can be sold for that little (and make a profit).

The math is here: http://www.htyp.org/dtc The target for two cent per kWh is under $100/kg to GEO.

It looks like a combination of chemical for the first step and lasers for the second will get down to perhaps $50.

If that can be done, then you build power sats for the *peak* load. And since shutting them off doesn’t save anything, any power above the current load would be diverted into making hydrogen. That can be used to make carbon neutral synthetic fuel.

More including the pro forma financial model if anyone wants it.

Keith Henson
hkhenson@rogers.com