--- In spacesettlers 10566, ANTIcarrot wrote:
> SSP 'back of the envelope' study for the UK grid.
> 10GW satellite weighs 100,000 metric tons with 1980s
> tech; same as a Nimitz aircraft carrier.
> Assume a transmitter twice as big, which produces a
> rectenna half the size.
> Assume $10B for material and assembly costs; as for a Nimitz.

That would be $1/watt, right? Would that include PV panels? If so,
what kind?

> From: hitssquad
> That would be $1/watt, right? Would that include PV panels? If so,
> what kind?

Why the magic kind that runs on kitten whiskers and pixie dust of course...

There are many poor and unfortunate reasons why solar panels are so
expensive. This is due in no small part to the labout intensive
manufacturing process devoting so much effort to the panel part, which is
needed to cope with earth's gravity and atmosphere. We can also blaim the
low production runs and monolithic nature of the design. Comercial panels
also assume exposure to very poor sunlight in their power estimates. Solar
concentrators have been demonstrated operating at greater than 100x, which
would turn a $10 panel into a $0.10 panel.

The UK numbers also assume the full NASA weight. If we assume we can be
clever and cut it in half (because mirrors weigh less than PV panels) when
we free up another $30 billion per satellite from the launch budget. So yes,
I feel fairly safe in that figure.

In any case, those numbers aren't about the cost of silicon. The purpose
behind them is that even with very expensive estimates (200B for the UK)
the project still makes sense since that is the same amount we spend each
decade on fuel for power stations. It's worth it at twice the price (for any
nation) to plug that hole in the national economy and free up foreign
policy.