Japan is going to build a solar power satellite, and it will only cost twenty-one billion dollars.
21 thoughts on “What A Bargain”
Comments are closed.
Japan is going to build a solar power satellite, and it will only cost twenty-one billion dollars.
Comments are closed.
The article was about a 1 GW (1000 MW) power capacity, which is a common size for a nuclear power plant or a very large coal plant.
So they are saying they can build the solar equivalent of a nuke plant, in capacity and availability for about 4 times the amount that has been tossed around as the turn-key price of a new nuke plant.
Of course this is the first one, all they need to do is “bend the cost curve downward” and they are golden.
The other thing about such a plant is that it can in theory beam power down to more than one location on Earth, assuming that it has the capability of steering the transmitting antenna. This means it can “wheel” power to different receiving stations without the need for terrestrial high tension lines.
The US military was thinking about beaming power from space to get around the logistical problem of supplying power to front line equipment and soldiers, expensive in treasure and in blood on account of enemy IED attacks or other interdiction of supply convoys. There was some number tossed around about gasoline costing an equivalent to $200/gallon to a front line unit.
Perhaps a much smaller satellite power station, but one supplying premium-priced power to remote areas/forward military bases, perhaps using lasers to supply smaller receiving stations, would be a better starting point on space-based power, even if the desire is to “go up the learning curve.”
One example of using the military as a premium customer was the proposal for the US Air Force to make all of their jet fuel from coal, so that the Air Force would have a 100% interdiction-proof embargo-proof source of jet fuel from the Continental US, but this ran afoul of that enviro-pecksniff Henry Waxman. A real shame because not only would this be a step on the road to effective coal-to-liquids for eventual civilian use, it would make our Air Force ever more credible as a fighting force — you know the old dictum, amateurs talk weapons and tactics and strategy, professionals discuss logistics.
One can build a gigawatt coal plant every year with the interest on $21 billion.
The article says that they assume lower transportation costs but haven’t figured out how to do that yet.
So the actual cost could turn out to be higher or lower. Without knowing their assumptions about transportation cost, the $21 billion figure is meaningless.
If their new leftish government their is intent on make-work stimulus anyway, this is as good as any and better than most of what our borrowed money has been spent on…
The problem with the space industry is that many working in it are still living in the 1960’s in terms of how they perceive costs. A billion dollars in costs is still frightening to them. Actually its nothing in terms of today’s 50 trillion USD plus global economy.
$21 billion is just noise in system in the 3.5 trillion USD plus global energy industry. Its less then half of the profit Exxon-Mobile made in 2008. And a drop in the bucket to the estimated $400 billion that will be spent just on exploring for oil in 2009.
The cost are also in line with the estimated $27 billion USD to be spent on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Although the current estimate is for it is $13.8 billion USD those involved are estimating the cost to double for what will be only a 500 megawatt experimental system.
http://www.physorg.com/news164558159.html
Really if you want to make changes in the future you need to stop being afraid to invest some money into it and not be worrying about the “B” word.
Actually to me the $21 billion cost actually makes this project far more credible.
And as a advocate of commercial space I hope it’s a great success as SSP will make a great market for RLV and a far more stable one then space tourism. Add in the potential cost advantage from using lunar resources and you have the potential to create a viable lunar economy. In my mind this decision by the Japanese is far more important to the future of humans in space then anything likely to common out of the Augustine Commission.
The problem with the space industry is that many working in it are still living in the 1960’s in terms of how they perceive costs. A billion dollars in costs is still frightening to them.
No, that’s clearly not the problem. The people pushing Constellation, or increased NASA budgets (with no agency reform) don’t seem to be afraid of the “B word.”
No, the problem is that if that’s really what it costs, it can’t possibly be competitive with ground-based energy solutions.
C’mon Rand, you know the 21 billion is for the first one, and the idea is for the cost to come down. The fact that it is 21 billion instead of 210 billion means that it is at least semi-feasible as a demonstration project. This can also be the big application driving commercial RLV’s finally.
If the Obama Adminstration proposed 21 billion for a pilot 1 GW space solar power plant, I would think them to be serious about all of their green power talk. Windmills, with a 20 percent capacity factor, is completely unserious talk about green power — 80 percent of the rest of the power has to come from natural gas.
It would be nice to know the estimated cost of the second one. But as Ed says, the numbers are meaningless absent a statement of assumed launch costs.
Well, I’m glad to see Tom admit RLVs might work instead of telling us that capsules are the only way to go.
And $21 billion for a solar power satellite seems like a bargain compared to $28 billion for Shuttle C.
Let’s see which one Tom actually supports.
(I’m afraid he’ll simply say we should do both because there’s no limit to how much money the government is willing spend on space, and space advocates are too stupid to realize that.)
But Thomas, if $21 billion is only a mere 0.14% of the $15 trillion US economy, which it is, it’s also the case that a 1 GW plant would provide a mere 0.03% of the 3350 GW annual energy needs of that economy.
Your own figures should have given you pause: is it really plausible that Exxon Mobil would plow half it’s entire year’s profit into a single power plant? Good luck selling that to the stockholders — grannies expecting a decent return on their 401k’s, for example.
Carl,
[[[is it really plausible that Exxon Mobil would plow half it’s entire year’s profit into a single power plant? Good luck selling that to the stockholders — grannies expecting a decent return on their 401k’s, for example.]]]
That was just a touch stone for cost since the “B” word seems to worry space advocates so much. The fact that a single corporation’s profits are equal to nearly 3 times what the U.S. spends on NASA each year places NASA’s budget in much better perspective then just looking at the dollar amount. It shows just how pitiful our spending on space has been and why it should be no surprise NASA is in crisis.
But point is also why the government needs to build the first SSPS, to lower the technical risks and financial risks associated with it. Industry is not going to gamble on it when easier profits are to be found elsewhere. The same was true with nuclear power with the first reactors being paid for by the government. Its also why governments are funding the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor and not energy corporations like Exxon. And for the record don’t forget the government funded the first computer in the 1940’s not an entrepreneur or corporation. You need to start the journey somewhere and with big ticket high tech that is usually the government. Then the entrepreneurs take the technology and make it work financially.
Rand,
The only way to have an accurate cost estimate for the second one is to build the first one. The experience curve only kicks in to lower costs once you have experience to building the first one. I predict its an investment the Japanese will be glad they made.
The same is also true for spacecraft. After Challenger the U.S. should have building a Shuttle 2.0 fleet that used the lessons learned in the first one to reduce operational costs and increase reliability. That is exactly what the AAF did when the P-59 failed to meet expectations.
But the U.S. took the cheap way out by just building a new orbiter out of spares and here we are today with a “crisis” in human space flight.
That was just a touch stone for cost since the “B” word seems to worry space advocates so much.
Can you please provide some basis for your strange belief that “the ‘B’ word seems to worry space advocates so much”? Which “space advocates” are you talking about that “worry so much” about “the ‘B’ word”?
The only way to have an accurate cost estimate for the second one is to build the first one. The experience curve only kicks in to lower costs once you have experience to building the first one.
If they have a guesstimate for the first one, then they have a guesstimate for the development costs, and they have a guesstimate for the marginal cost of building another one. I’d like to know what it is.
I am not nearly so sure of the value of government pump-priming when it comes to fully mature industries as you are, Thomas. And I also doubt the applicability of your examples, viz.:
* The first nukes were built by government because they were used to make fissionables for the Manhattan Project, which you’ll recall was a rather closely-held national secret. After the war private industry was very eager to get into nuclear power — to their later regret, of course, when Congress stabbed them in the back with all kinds of politically-driven after the fact rule changes. It surprises me not one bit that no sane public utility is keen on getting back into nuclear power, not after having been hung out to dry by those scum in Washington the first time.
* Computational devices have been tinked with for centuries. If you mean electronic computers, it’s true ENIAC was paid for by the Army, but it was a dead end, a case of Stalinesque giganticism. You’ll note that computers based on vacuum tubes, like ENIAC, never caught on. The real breakthrough in computational hardware was the transistor (invented at Bell Labs) and the integrated circuit (invented at Fairchild and Texas Instruments).
I would be the last to deny that government should spend our money on blue-sky research that typically doesn’t pay off for decades or centuries, if at all. But I’m very doubty about the value of technological pump-priming. That path is littered with the corpses of Sematech, the Synfuels Corporation, and perhaps Apollo and the ISS itself.
Indeed, the larger and more important the gamble, the less likely government funding is the way to go. Such gambles become matters of national pride — or at least the pride of Presidents and Senators — and their successes become mandatory. It becomes not possible to recognize a bad gamble and walk away from it. This is very bad news for innovation, because an early recognition of a failed gamble is the key to freeing up capital for better solutions elsewhere.
One of the better arguments against NASA is that its existence sucks up all the oxygen in the area of space transport entrepreneurship. Who wants to risk capital if taxpayer-funded NASA will undercut you? These costs of government intervention are very hard to quantify or even recognize — they’re some of Bastiat’s “unseen costs” — but they are real and important.
After Challenger the U.S. should have building a Shuttle 2.0 fleet that used the lessons learned in the first one to reduce operational costs and increase reliability.
Tom, Tom, Tom… 🙂
You’ve forgotten that NASA spent tens of billions of dollars trying to build a Shuttle 2.0 and failed. Repeatedly.
But the U.S. took the cheap way out by just building a new orbiter out of spares
Out of curiousity, Tom, is there anything in the world you don’t consider “cheap”?
You’re living in a fantasy world where politicians are willing to spend an infinite amount of money on space. That world doesn’t exist, which is why the Bush Vision of Space Exploration failed.
Now, you want the government to continue funding the BVSE — and build SPS and Shuttle 2.0 and maybe buy a pony, too? Ain’t gonna happen.
Last week, you said you preferred realistic “bread and butter” markets like suborbital science. Now you’ve gone off the deep end again. Do you not see any contradiction?
BTW, Tom, I listened to the 2005 “Space Show” where you talked about your Space Markets Act.
Your idea seemed sound but was missing one thing — a funding mechanism. Many of the things you were calling for, like buying launches for universities, are already funded by existing government programs although not quite at the level you were calling for. Unfortunately, funding for all those things was cut back to pay for Ares and Orion. So, getting increased funding would have been an uphill battle.
Comparisons to coal and nuclear are completely irrelevant here.
Comparison to ITER is more apt.
What was the cost of the first prototype of nuclear power station, again ?
Rand,
The sarcasm in the title for this thread is a good example. Actually $21 billion is not a bad down payment on developing the technology and building a demonstrator for a sustainable source of energy like SBSP. Its about the same as the money being spent on a fusion demonstrator plant and the recent stimulus bill had nearly $30 billion for various energy projects.
But just suggest the idea to space advocates that the government invested 20-30 billion in a TSTO to replacement the Shuttle and space advocates seem shocked at the amount. Yet the C-17 program to develop a cargo aircraft, a project involving mature commercial based technology, to replace the aging C-141 cost about $60-70 billion. The 787 program has cost Boeing some $10 billion so far by mid-2007 without any revenue yet. It may well reach $20 billion before the first revenue starts to flow and you are still talking a project that requires far less investment in technology then a TSTO would require.
Edward.
The $5 billion for the five-year program would be from the Department of Transportation. Basically the bill would create a new office for funding the development of space transportation infrastructure. Several of the provisions, such as the 9 to 1 matching funds for building public spaceports, are modeled after similar programs for public airports already administered by the DOT. The $57 billion annual DOT budget is also far more suitable for an transportation infrastructure program then NASA pitiful $16 billion dollar budget.
But to get support the Space Markets Act would require space advocates to undergo two paradigm shirts. One, is that sub-orbital science, not tourism is the killer app for reusable sub-orbital vehicles. The other is that there are other agencies besides NASA they should focus on for funding the development of RLVs.
Actually $21 billion is not a bad down payment on developing the technology and building a demonstrator for a sustainable source of energy like SBSP.
I would agree if, after the down payment, we were capable of building cost-effective powersats that were competitive with ground-based systems. But I haven’t seen any numbers to support that.
Reader,
The first commercial reactor, Shippingport, cost $84 million in 1957 dollars, a cost nearly double the estimated cost of $48 million. But it had behind it some $12 billion dollars spent on nuclear power and reactor design prior to 1957 for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Army reactor programs. Here is a quick reference.
http://www.americanheritage.com/places/articles/web/20071218-shippingport-nuclear-power-atomic-energy-dwight-d-eisenhower-hyman-rickover-three-mile-island.shtml
I