Note this original post Space Energy Matters – a 30 Year Outlook has been replaced with The Energy Emergency and the Space Option and remains online momentarily as a redirect to the newest version. The new text is below.  A.Woods  November 11, 2019

 

The Energy Emergency and the Space Option

Arthur R. Woods, Marco C. Bernasconi [1]

 

Abstract

This article looks at current world energy consumption levels published in the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 and uses this information to estimate the anticipated level of world energy consumption in the year 2050 for an expected population of 9.7 billion. The analysis shows that, as the global population increases so will humanity’s energy needs. To give a realistic idea of amount of energy that will be required, four scenarios of energy consumption levels are described – from a minimum of a 25% increase to a probable increase of 2.5% per year. 85% of world energy consumption currently comes from fossil fuels and the United Nations, many governments and environmental organizations have declared a Climate Emergency  and are calling for net-zero CO₂ emissions targets by the year 2050 in order to lessen the effects of CO₂ induced global warming. This article examines the terrestrial energy resources which are alternatives to fossil fuels – nuclear, wind and solar – to ascertain if these can be realistically scaled to achieve the goal of divesting from fossil fuels by the year 2050. Finding each of these terrestrial energy options to be inadequate as well as environmentally problematic and the fact that proven reserves of fossil fuels are limited and could reach exhaustion levels at mid-century, humanity is facing instead an imminent Energy Emergency.  The only technically feasible alternative currently available to humanity to achieve net-zero CO₂ levels and fossil fuel independence while providing the necessary energy to sustain civilization is to implement the Space Option by using existing space technologies to harness energy in outer space to meet the growing energy needs on Earth.

The Climate Emergency

Due to the many assessments and reports issued since 1990 by the United Nation’s IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – and the subsequent international commitment to address the climate issue achieved in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change which, as of March 2019 has now been signed by 187 countries, the world population has become increasingly alarmed that a period of global warming has commenced which may lead to environmental catastrophe by the end of this century.  Numerous scientific studies have shown that this warming is caused by rising levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere which is attributed to the continued dependence on the use of fossil fuels to satisfy most of humanity’s energy needs. A worldwide program to address the impending climate disruption has been incorporated into the United Nation’s Agenda 2030 including the Paris Agreement and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals as well as through a number of international conferences, sub-organizations and public-private partnerships.  Similar measures are being promoted, developed and adopted by environmental and scientific organizations worldwide. Many prominent people such as former US vice-president Al Gore and the young Swedish activist Greta Thunberg have brought the Climate Emergency to the world’s attention.

As it is the Sun which warms the surface of Earth and drives the hydrologic cycle, it is the primary source of energy for the climate system which keeps Earth suitable for life. The sunspot cycle of the Sun also has much do with the changes in the climate and scientists report that the current long period of no sunspots may indicate that the Sun is entering a Solar Minima which could lead to a severe cooling effect similar to the last Little Ice Age.  Solar activity which modulates the influx of galactic cosmic rays (high-speed particles that strike the Earth from space), has been shown to have a direct influence on cloud formation and has been correlated with warmer periods during high solar activity and cooling periods during low levels of solar activity. Severe global cooling would probably be much worse for humanity than the predicted rise in global temperatures as this would directly affect food production and require additional energy for maintaining all aspects of society. In either case the Climate Emergency will need increased levels of clean energy production for humanity to adapt and survive the situation.

The Energy Emergency

However, the proposed measures to address the Climate Emergency have apparently overlooked what may be a more imminent and serious issue which is the Energy Emergency – an issue that concerns the viability of civilization as it approaches the year 2050 and beyond if this issue is not addressed immediately. To put this discussion into a broad perspective one first has to have a picture of the amount of energy humanity is currently using and how much will it need in the future to sustain its civilization and provide some hope for prosperity for all humanity.

How much energy do we need?

There are several sources of energy data available in order to have a picture of the energy demands now and in the future. One commonly used is the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 which can be downloaded in PDF format. [2]  Page 9 of this document  (shown below) lists Primary Energy Consumption by fuel, i.e. oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear energy, hydroelectricity and renewables by region and country.

The above chart extract shows that in 2018 the Total World Primary Energy consumption was 13,864.9 million tonnes of oil equivalent expressed as MTOE. Of that amount 11,743.6 MTOE (85%) was from oil, gas and coal. 611.3 MTOE (4%) was from nuclear energy, 948.8 MTOE (7%) from hydroelectricity and 561.3 MTOE (4%) from renewables (wind and terrestrial solar).

The chart below is a visualization of this data.

In order to understand and compare fossil fuels with other energy alternatives it is necessary to make some conversions.

What is 1 MTOE – one million tonnes of oil equivalent?

In terms of volume of oil:
1 TOE (one ton of oil equivalent) = 7.143 BOE (barrels of oil equivalent)
1 MTOE (one million tonnes of oil equivalent) = 7,142,857 BOE (barrels of oil equivalent)
11,743.6 MTOE =  83,882,857,143 BOE – Current Total Fossil Fuel Consumption (I used the online Unit Juggler to make the conversions.)  [3]

In terms of electrical power:
1 MTOE = 11,630 gigawatt-hour [GWh] = 1.328 GW /Gigawatts)
(11,630 ÷ 365 days = 31.86 ÷ 24h = 1.3275) = 1.328 GW
13,865 MTOE x 1.328 = 18, 412 GW = 18.4 TW (Terawatts) Current Total Energy Consumption Level
(I used the online Unit Converter at Translator Café to make this conversion.)  [4]

Therefore, if we wanted to replace fossil fuel use which accounted for 85% of global energy consumption in 2018 with electrical power from another energy source, we would have needed to generate 15,600 GW or 15.6 TW of electrical power in addition to the energy derived from nuclear, hydroelectric and renewable sources.

Wikipedia has a list of nuclear power stations which shows that a typical nuclear power unit produces +/- 1-GW of energy running at 100% capacity. Thus, to replace today’s carbon based energy consumption levels with nuclear generated electricity we would need approximately 15,600 1-GW nuclear power stations operating a 100% capacity. As of April 2018, there are 449 operable nuclear power reactors in the world with a combined electrical generation capacity of 394 GW (thus the overall average capacity is less than 1-GW – i.e. 0.88 GW each). [5] [6] Under optimal conditions a nuclear power plant can only achieve a 95% operating capacity due to maintenance factors.

To do this with nuclear power and adding a 5% adjustment means we would need to deploy 16,380 new 1-GW nuclear power plants. Using the current real world efficiency levels of 89%, we would actually need 17,316 new 1-GW nuclear power plants.

A typical 1-GW nuclear power facility needs about 3.4 square kilometers (1.3 square miles) of land area whereas a wind farm requires up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear power plant, and a solar photovoltaic (PV) facility needs up to 75 times the land area. However, the most important factor to consider is that due to the intermittent aspects of wind and sunlight, a wind farm would need approximately 1.9 – 2.8 GW of installed power generating capacity to equal the output of one 1-GW nuclear reactor. Likewise, a solar PV facility must have an installed capacity between 3.3 GW and 5.4 GW to match the output of a 1-GW nuclear power plant. There is no wind farm or solar photovoltaic facility in the United States today that can match the output of a 1-GW nuclear power plant. [7]  Thus, if we use an average of the installed capacity requirements for wind and solar installations (1.9 + 2.8 + 3.3 + 5.4 ÷ 4) which is 3.35, we can make the following assumptions.

Instead of the 16,380 GW or the 17,316 GW of power from nuclear power plants which would be required to replace the world’s 2018 fossil fuel consumption, approximately 55,000 GW to 58,000 GW or 55-58 TW of combined wind and solar (PV) electrical generation capacity would have been required. Recall, in terms of electrical power, current total world energy consumption is 18.4 TW
(Averaged Capacity: 3.35 x 16,380 = 54,873 GW & 3.35 x 17,316 = 58,008 GW )

A 2.5% yearly increase in global energy consumption in MTOE from 2018 – 2050

As the world’s population is expected to increase from today’s 7.7 billion to 9.7 billion by year 2050, so will its energy consumption especially as the level of the standard of living is directly correlated with the increasing level of energy consumption.  At current levels of energy consumption this means, that due to population increase alone, at least 25% more energy will be required by 2050 to meet the needs of 9.7 billion people.  The U.S. Energy Information Association projects a 50% increase in world energy use by 2050.[8] However, the BP Statistical Report also states that primary energy consumption grew at a rate of 2.9% in 2018, almost double its 10-year average of 1.5% per year, and the fastest since 2010. These increases are shown in the four scenarios below and, the chart above shows a 2.5% yearly increase between now and 2050, which indicates a total estimated world energy consumption level of 32,102 MTOE in just 30 years.

Scenario A: 13,865 MTOE + 25% increase = 17,331 MTOE
Scenario B: 13,865 MTOE + 50% increase = 20’797 MTOE
Scenario C: 13,865 MTOE + 1.5% increase per year = 23,002 MTOE
Scenario D: 13,865 MTOE + 2.5% increase per year = 32,102 MTOE

The table below makes some energy and power comparisons of the 2018 energy data.

Terrestrial Energy Options

Converting MTOE to GW (Gigawatt) to TW (Terawatt)
[1 MTOE = 11,630 gigawatt-hour [GWh] = 1.328 GW (11,630 ÷ 365 days = 31.86 ÷ 24h = 1.3275) See above reference.]

Current     :  (13,865 MTOE x 1.328 = 18,414 GW) = 18 TW
Scenario A:  + 25% increase (17,331 MTOE x 1.328 = 23,016 GW) = 23 TW
Scenario B:  + 50% increase (20’797 MTOE x 1.328 = 27,618 GW) = 27 TW
Scenario C:  + 1.5% increase/year (23,002 MTOE X 1.328 = 30’547 GW) = 31 TW
Scenario D: + 2.5% increase /year (32,102 MTOE x 1.328 = 42,631 GW) = 43 TW

Converting MTOE to electrical power expressed in Gigawatts GW or Terawatts TW allows us to compare the energy value of fossil fuels with electrical power values produced by alternative energy sources. This indicates that current world energy consumption is about 18.4 TW a year and, using the four scenarios, by the year 2050 yearly energy consumption can be expected to be between 23 – 43 TW.

 Using Nuclear Power to meet this 2050 Prediction

If the 23 – 43 TW of power was to be provided by nuclear power, this would require that between 800 – 1,500 new 1-GW nuclear power stations would theoretically have to be built every year between now and the year 2050 to replace carbon energy sources with an alternative CO₂ free energy source. To do so, two to four nuclear power plants would have to come online each day for the next 30 years. At a cost of $5 billion per 1-GW facility, the basic construction cost of these would be approximately $4 – $7.5 trillion per year or $120 – $225 trillion over the 30 year period.  Not included in this cost estimate are the costs of financing, cost of fuel, waste disposal, regulations, operations and decommissioning which would further significantly impact this cost.

Two examples of nuclear power plants currently under construction are the:

• Hinkley Point C nuclear power station – a 3.2 GW facility in Great Britain that is expected to eventually cost £22.5 billion ($29 billion) [9]
• Flamanville in Manche, France begun in 2007 a- 1.6 GW facility is now expected to eventually cost € 12.4billion ($14 billion) [10]

Nuclear energy issues:  location near massive water supplies and away from dense population zones, unresolved waste disposal, geopolitical issues, uranium supply limited to only for 90 years at current levels, facility location needs much water for cooling, accidents, cost of construction, long construction time, regulation, approval process, public resistance, nuclear weapon proliferation, lifetime – each nuclear power station needs to be decommissioned after 40-60 years.[11]

Can Wind and Terrestrial Solar meet this 2050 Prediction?

As mentioned above, to match the output of nuclear power generation wind and solar (PV) need to have a higher capacity due to their intermittency factors.. By combining both wind and terrestrial solar systems to meet the above 2050 predicted estimates, we can average the installed capacity requirements (1.9 + 2.8 + 3.3 + 5.4 ÷ 4 = 3.35) necessary to match nuclear power and then multiply the projected energy consumption levels by 3.35 to arrive at the installed capacity needed:

Scenario A:  + 25% increase (23,016 GW x 3.35 = 77,102 GW )= 77 TW
Scenario B:  + 50% increase (27,618 GW x 3.35 = 94,487 GW) = 95 TW
Scenario C:  + 1,5% increase/year (30’547 GW x 3.35 = 102,332 GW) = 102 TW
Scenario D:  + 2,5% increase/year (42,631 GW X 3.35 = 142,813 GW) = 143 TW

Combined wind and terrestrial solar solutions would therefore need to deploy between 77 TW and 143 TW electrical power generating capacity systems in total in order to achieve the goal of replacing fossil fuels by the year 2050. As with nuclear power, the construction of these facilities would have to begin today in order to do so.

Wind Power 2018

The World Wind Energy Association reports that worldwide wind power capacity reached 597 GW and that 50.1 GW was added in 2018.[12]  Recall that a wind farm needs approximately 1.9 – 2.8 GW of installed energy generating capacity to equal the output of one 1-GW nuclear reactor. If we divide 597 GW by 2.35 (1.9 + 2.8 ÷ 2 = 2.35) this is equivalent to 254 GW of nuclear generated power.

While most of a wind turbine can be recycled or recommissioned, researchers estimate that over the next 20 years, the U.S. will have more than 720,000 tons of blade material which is a mix of resin and fiberglass to dispose of, a figure that doesn’t include newer, taller higher-capacity versions. As these used turbine blades do not have much value as scrap material, there is little commercial interest from recyclers. [13] [14]

Wind farm issues: unreliable and intermittent power generation, weather sensitive, energy storage, land use, 20-25 year lifetime,  low frequency amplitude modulation is a problem for people living nearby, environmental impact on birds, bats and insects, disposal or recycling of the turbine blades problematic.

 Terrestrial Solar Power 2017

The International Energy Agency reports that in 2017 solar photovoltaic capacity reached almost 398 GW. [15] As stated earlier, a solar PV facility must have an installed capacity between 3.3 GW and 5.4 GW to match the output of a 1-GW nuclear power plant. If we divide 398 GW by 4.35 (3.3 + 5.4 ÷ 2 = 4.35) this is equivalent to 91.5 GW of nuclear generated power.

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050. [16],  [17]

While solar generation is considered CO₂-free, the manufacture of solar panels and related technologies can involve some environmentally unfriendly substances. Nitrogen trifluoride is a common byproduct of electronics manufacture; including those used in solar photovoltaics, and it is a greenhouse gas 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. In addition, many photovoltaics include small amounts of the toxic metal cadmium, and the batteries required to store generated electricity can contain a host of other heavy metals and dangerous substances.[18]

Terrestrial solar (PV) issues: unreliable and intermittent power generation, energy storage, dust and rain, manufacturing process uses toxic materials, efficiency of less than 25%, land use,  environmental impact related to manufacturing process, waste disposal and recycling issues, thermal burden adds heat to the environment.

In the book Astroelectricity, author Mike Snead estimates that, if deployed maximally, wind and terrestrial solar could potentially meet 93% of US energy needs in the year 2100 (45.6 million GWh/5,205 GW capacity) . However, this would entail building 4.6 million square kilometers of wind farms and about 225,000 square kilometers of solar farms covering nearly 60 percent of the contiguous United States. Extrapolating these numbers onto a world scenario indicates the unviability of this solution.[19]

The Paris Agreement on Climate Change

The Paris Agreement is an agreement the UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) negotiated and adopted by 196 state parties at the 21^st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCC held in Paris in 2015 and entered into force on November 4, 2016 to deal with greenhouse-gas-emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance. As of March 2019, 187 member nations have since become party to it.  The long term goal is to keep the increase in global average temperature well below 2 ^oC above pre-industrial levels; and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 ^oC in order to substantially reduce the risks of climate change.

The aim of the agreement is to decrease global warming with a strategy that involves energy and climate policy including the so-called 20/20/20 targets, namely the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions by 20%, the increase of renewable energy’s market share to 20%, and a 20% increase in energy efficiency. Countries furthermore aim to reach “global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible”. The agreement has been described as an incentive for and driver of fossil fuel divestment. [20]

Using the UNFCC target of achieving a 20% energy market share, combined wind and terrestrial solar solutions would therefore need to deploy an operational power generation capacity of between 15.4 TW and 28.6 TW in order to deliver between 4.6 TW – 8.6 TW of power to meet the 20% targets of in the year 2050.
Scenario A: (77 TW x 20% = 15.4 TW) — Scenario D: (143 TW x 20% = 28.6 TW)
Scenario A: (23 TW x 20% = 4.6 TW) —- Scenario D:  (43 TW x 20% = 8.6 TW)

This can be compared to the 2018 levels of deployed renewable energy: 745.4 GW or 0.75 TW.
(561.MTOE x 1.328 GW = 745.4 GW = 0.75 TW) and to current world energy consumption in terms of power which is 18.4 TW. (See the table above.)

As such, the above analysis, strongly suggests that none of these terrestrial energy solutions – nuclear, wind, solar – are feasible alternatives because of the inherent problems with each when trying to scale to meet current and/or anticipated energy requirements of humanity and/or for meeting the United Nations Paris Agreement targets by the year 2050. In addition, each has various unresolved and specific environmental impact issues which are often overlooked when these are promoted as “green” solutions to humanity’s energy problem.

Estimated Years of Remaining Fossil Fuels

Due to the many environmental and geopolitical issues associated with the continued use of fossil carbon fuels, humanity must soon make the transition to an alternative source of energy if it wants to preserve and sustain present civilization. Based on the estimates provided by the “BP: World Reserves of Fossil Fuel”, [21]  the chart below indicates that the remaining proven extractable reserves of fossil fuels are critically finite. As shown, at current rates of consumption, humanity will exhaust the proven reserves of Crude Oil in the year 2068, Natural Gas by the year 2070 and Coal in the year 2151. This significantly adds to the urgency of finding a viable energy solution and defines the imminent Energy Emergency that humanity is facing.

The Space Option

The Space Option concept [22] is an evolutionary plan to meet the basic and anticipated needs of humanity with the addition of utilizing near Earth resources -­ not for the in-situ support of science or exploration – but rather to apply these resources and/or their products for use on Earth at a conspicuous level. Most immediately, the harnessing of energy from space would replace humanity’s dependence on the continued use of fossil fuels – oil, gas and coal – which are finite, environmentally negative and geopolitically contested and likewise, on alternative terrestrial energy resources including nuclear, wind farms and solar photovoltaic systems which cannot be deployed on a scale sufficient to meet the growing needs of present or future populations.

Inexhaustible amounts of clean energy from space, on the other hand, could meet all of humanity’s future energy needs and would significantly contribute to the restoration of the environment while avoiding the environmental and geopolitical consequences associated with the continued use of fossil fuels. Having an inexhaustible supply of clean energy and other space resources would continue to provide the basic means for stimulating and improving the economies of the developing countries while preserving the lifestyle of the developed nations. This inexpensive and plentiful energy could also power desalination plants and contribute to solving the water crises.  As such, future generations would be guaranteed a sufficient supply of energy and other material resources for their further development while today’s less fortunate societies would be provided with hope that they, too, could still aspire to improve their living standard beyond their present situation.

In current discussions about transiting from fossil fuels to some other alternative energy source, it is generally assumed that renewables such as wind and terrestrial solar photovoltaics will provide the necessary energy once government mandated commitments to energy availability and CO₂ reduction targets are established and enforced. It is surprising that energy from space which is generally referred to as Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP), a technologically feasible idea that was introduced as the Solar Power Satellite by Peter Glaser in 1968 and patented in 1973, is rarely considered or even discussed as a possible alternative to terrestrial energy sources. [23] The standard criticism of SBSP has been the cost to implement such a space power system. When considered in the context of the demand and the value of the global energy market in the year 2050, this criticism should have lesser relevance as terrestrial energy alternatives prove to be insufficient, impractical or undesirable and the magnitude of Energy Emergency becomes apparent. Some initial insight is provided below when estimating the value of the energy market in the year 2050.

Space Energy Options

Solar Power Satellites in Orbit

As mentioned, Peter Glaser envisioned the first space power system – the Solar Power Satellite (SPS) concept – in the early 1970’s. Although Dr. Glaser is credited with inventing the basic concept, it had been popularized by science fiction authors such as Murray Leinster, Olaf Stapledon, Isaac Asimov and Clifford Simak for at least a generation. In 1941, science fiction writer Isaac Asimov published the science fiction short story “Reason”, in which a space station transmits energy collected from the sun to various planets using microwave beams. [24]

Glaser’s basic concept consisted of building a series of large 2-10 km wide photovoltaic solar collectors in Earth orbit. With the same principle used in photovoltaics on Earth, sunlight would be converted into electricity. This electricity would then be beamed via microwaves to Earth at specific sites where rectifying antennas or rectennas would collect the energy beams and transform them into usable electricity. This energy would then be fed into the existing electrical grid for distribution. Several thousand individual rectennas strategically located around the Earth, with a total area of 100,000 km², could continuously provide 20 TW of electric power, or 2 kW per person, considered a minimum for a world of 10 billion people in 2050. The required land area for the rectennas is 5% of the surface area that would be needed on Earth to generate 20 TW using the most advanced terrestrial PV solar-array technology of similar average capacity. As the first satellites would come online and integrated into the global power grid and thus become economically productive, further satellites would be built as needed.

Since then, a number of studies have described the feasibility of supplying Earth with solar power from space. The largest study was “Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program” conducted by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA from 1977 to 1981 at a cost of $19.7 million. Ralph Nansen, a participant in this study, writes in Sun Power: The Global Solution for the Coming Energy Crises that the study had come to a conclusion that Space Solar Power relying on large reusable rockets and automated assembly systems in orbit was technically feasible. However, the DOE was influenced by its preference for nuclear power canceled any further work on the project. Nansen writes, had the project gone forward, an investment of $2 trillion then would save the United States $22 trillion by 2050 and would have adverted the energy crises we are now facing forty years later.[25]

A recent study by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) and a subsequent book The Case For Space Solar Power by the IAA study’s lead author John Mankins, realistically describes how a SPS located in Earth orbit would use the latest technologies and be built by robots out of modular components – a concept that has both economic and maintenance advantages.

“The seven billion people living today use a total of roughly 120,000 billion kilowatt-hours of energy each year ^*, including electricity, transportation fuels, heating, and other purposes. A dozen or so countries use the majority of that energy, and the most energy per person is used by the United States.  Affordable and abundant energy is essential to modern society. However, there are challenges on the horizon: (1) competition spurred by growing global populations and surging demand for the energy essential to prosperity, (2) increasing concerns regarding the long-term accumulation in Earth’s atmosphere of fossil fuel-derived greenhouse gases, and (3) the prospect that during the foreseeable future global production of fossil fuels will peak and begin to decline.” [26]

(*) Note: 120,000 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) = about 14 TW
(120,000 ÷ 365 = 328.767 ÷ 24 = 13.7 x 1 billion = 13,700,000,000)

In the book Electric Space: Space-based Solar Power Technologies & Applications by Danny Jones and Ali Baghchehsara published in 2014, the authors write: “Space Solar Energy is the only near term, large scale space technology that actually has the potential to pay for itself. Access to energy in space is the key to developing its resources and those resources are required to support large scale space settlement. Once our civilization moves into space in a way that is sustainable our capabilities will grow in ways never imagined.”  While most SPS concepts are designed for geosynchronous orbit (GEO), the authors’ preferred configuration is called the Sun Tower which ideally could be placed in Middle Earth Orbit (MEO) as thus would have a number of economic advantages.[27]

The most recent book (2019) to discuss SPS is called Astroelectricity by James Michael Snead who begins by defining the two threats to America’s energy supply 1.) rising levels of CO₂ and 2.) inadequate domestic oil, gas coal supplies to meet the U.S. future energy needs. He then describes how the United States needs to transition from reliance on non-sustainable fossil fuels to sustainable power from space before the end of this century. The book continues by evaluating the domestic options for sustainable energy. Each of the three primary terrestrial options—nuclear, wind, and solar—are quantitatively assessed and were found by Snead to be impractical solutions at the scale needed to replace fossil fuels. Snead then examines what will be required to use geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) space solar power – or Astroelectricity as he calls it – to replace the use of fossil fuels on Earth and the cultural and military implications of transitioning to sustainable future energy.[28]

The Japanese space agency JAXA has been developing a Space Solar Power system for a number of years with plans to install an operational 1-GW satellite by 2030 and it has successfully demonstrated wireless transmission of power.[29]  Likewise, both India[30] and China [31]  – countries with large populations and growing energy needs – have begun their own space solar power initiatives. In the United States, research is continuing and recently Caltech University announced new progress in the development of an ultralight prototype module with an areal density of less than 1kg/m2 for collecting and transmitting solar power in space. [32]

There are a number of technological approaches to building the optimal SPS. These range from very large structures placed in Geosynchronous orbit (GEO) to smaller satellites in Middle Earth Orbit (MEO) and in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The size and mass of the satellite and the choice of orbit will have much impact on the overall efficiency and cost of an eventual SPS system. These various approaches are covered in detail in the four books mentioned above.

For the purposes of this discussion and in order to compare a SPS system with terrestrial alternatives as a possible energy solution, we will use a 5-GW space solar power system as a reference. Assuming that 25% of the generated power will be lost due to maintenance, time in the Earth’s shadow, and transmission and conversion factors of the beam we can make some simple calculations. In this example a 5-GW SPS system would optimally deliver 3.75-GW of continuous power to the Earth. Therefore 266 power satellites with a 5-GW rated capacity would be necessary to supply 1000 GW or 1 TW of power. Scaling this to meet humanity’s energy needs, about 4,000 of these SPS systems would be necessary to deliver 15 TW (4000 x 3.75 GW = 15,000 GW) of power which is approximately what is needed to replace fossil fuels today. Approximately 8,000  5-GW SPS systems would be required to provide 30 TW of continuous clean solar power, and 11,500 to supply 43 TW – an optimal amount necessary for world prosperity in the year 2050.

Solar Power from the Moon

In the mid-eighties, David Criswell[33] introduced a significant variation of the SPS concept called the Lunar Solar Power (LSP) System. Instead of building the photovoltaic system in Earth orbit using materials transported from Earth, he proposed a potentially more efficient approach by using an existing platform – the Moon – for the location of the solar collectors and to use lunar materials for their construction. Thus, instead of sending tons of materials from Earth into space at great environmental and financial cost, and constructing these enormous and complex power satellites in orbit, one would send a small team of humans accompanied by the necessary robots to the lunar surface to carry out the job on site.

The primary material necessary for the manufacture of photovoltaic collectors is silicon, which, as on Earth, is in great quantity on the Moon. The solar converters would be thin-filmed photovoltaics made out of lunar glass. Robots would mine the lunar soil for silicon and the photovoltaics would be manufactured in an automated factory constructed for this purpose. The basic technology for manufacturing photovoltaics with a conversion efficiency factor of less than 10% already exists and the engineering aspects are typical of major construction techniques. Of course these activities would be carried out in a new environment but thanks to Apollo, there exists substantial information about the lunar environment. The photovoltaics would be mounted on a grid that would also be constructed from of lunar materials.

The basic LSP System uses 10 to 20 pairs of bases – one of each pair on the eastern edge and the other on the western edge of the moon, as seen from Earth – to collect on the order of 1% of the solar power reaching the lunar surface. Each of these would collect and transmit power for a period 12.5 days out of each lunar month. The power would be transmitted to rectennas located on Earth via hundreds to thousands of low-intensity microwave beams. Each lunar power base would be augmented by fields of solar converters located on the back side of the Moon, 500 to 1,000 km beyond each visible edge and connected to the Earthward power bases by electric transmission lines.

Each rectenna on Earth would measure about 100 square kilometers in diameter and would require about 150 square km land space. These would convert the microwaves into electricity and feed this into the local electrical power grid. The rectennas would be located away from population centers or areas of high air traffic and ideally on or near water. Although higher-intensity beams would be more efficient, lower-intensity beams would be safer than governmental standards for current microwave appliances. Rectennas located on Earth between 60º N and 60º S can receive power directly from the Moon approximately 8 hours a day. With the addition of relatively low mass microwave reflector satellites in Earth orbit, continuous power could be made available to locations on Earth that could not be reached directly from the Moon. These satellites would also limit the need for long distance power transmission lines on Earth. Similar reflectors in orbit about the Moon could direct sunlight to the photovoltaic increasing the efficiency of the lunar collector system. Power storage units on the Moon and on Earth would insure an uninterrupted power supply. [34]

Criswell estimated that within 10 years from startup, a LSP system could be providing 50 GWe (Gigawatt electric) per year of electric power and a small scale 100 GWe demonstrator system could show a net profit within 10 years. This would be steadily increased in average yearly installments of 560 GWe/year over a 30 year period eventually reaching a 20,000 GWe or 20 TWe which, at 2 kW per person, is considered as a minimum sustainable energy level for a population of 10 billion. This estimate was made some years ago and, as current world energy consumption is already reached the 18 TW level and is increasing by 1.5% to 2.5% a year, 1 TW/year or more would need to added to reach the 30 TW – 43 TW level that would be necessary for a prosperous civilization beyond year 2050.

In the initial phase, research and development, space transportation, the installation of a lunar base constitute significant start-up costs that could be underwritten or incorporated in various national space programs. An additional major expense would be for the construction of the rectennas on Earth. The rectennas would be 200-300 meters in diameter and would be built as energy producing capacity on the Moon allows and would become cheaper as more are built. Advanced production and operating technologies currently under development such as Additive Manufacturing (3D printing) could significantly optimize the viability of this approach both on the Moon and on Earth.

Following in Criswell’s footsteps, the Shimizu Corporation in Japanhas proposed the Luna Ring – a gigantic, 400km-wide and 11,000 km-long mirrored structure positioned on the lunar equator which would capture solar energy and beam it back to Earth with lasers. [35]

Helium-3 Astrofuel

Helium-3 is sometimes referred to as Astrofuel. Helium-3 is transmitted with the solar wind, but Earth’s magnetic field pushes the isotope away so that only extremely small quantities of it are found on Earth. It is seen as an ideal isotope for nuclear fusion reactors on Earth once these become operational since Helium-3 reaction produces no radioactive byproducts.  Thanks to the Moon’s negligible magnetic field, it is estimated that up to 1,100,000 metric tonnes of Helium-3 have been deposited in the lunar regolith, however in concentrations of less than about twenty parts per billion.

Extracting Helium-3 from the lunar regolith will require the mining and processing of hundreds of millions of tons of regolith. This would also require a very large lunar operation which would also depend on large amounts of energy such as Lunar Solar Power to heat the regolith to a temperature of about 600 degrees centigrade. It has been estimated that 1 million metric tonnes of Helium-3, reacted with deuterium, would generate about 20,000 terawatt-years of thermal energy. To put this into perspective, 25 tonnes of Helium-3 would power the United States for one year at current consumption levels.[36]

This technology may become viable once nuclear fusion has been demonstrated at a commercial level and eventually, there may be some synergies once this technology advances. The book “Return to the Moon” by Apollo 17 astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmitt discusses this approach in detail. [37] Once humanity has become a true spacefaring species, Helium-3 could perhaps be easier obtained from the four giant gas planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune; all of which have very large amounts of Helium-3 in their atmospheres. [38]

***

Although the engineering and logistical challenges would be formidable, except for the case of Helium-3 fusion power, no new technology needs to be invented and no scientific breakthroughs are necessary for the SBSP/LSP approaches. The generation of electrical power in space and the transmission of power via microwaves have been demonstrated. Additional research is needed to control and direct these low-intensity beams over the required distances of space. The logistics of establishing and supplying a manned lunar base community, though a large task, is comparable to similar large scale engineering projects that have been accomplished on Earth.

It should be pointed out that the money spent to finance and construct a SPS/LSP system would be spent on Earth and flow through the global economy. Considering the value and ever increasing demand for energy, the potential revenues of such a clean energy producing system would certainly be immense and the initial investment quickly amortized. The real challenge of implementing this system is this initial financial investment and gaining the public’s confidence in the system.

The main advantage of the SBSP/LSP concept is that it relies on existing technologies and these technologies are developing rapidly because of their value in the terrestrial marketplace. Thus, with the necessary capital investment a demonstration system could be producing power in just a few years, paying the way for the further expansion of the system. As the use of lunar materials could be adapted to Glaser’s, Mankin’s and Snead’s SPS concepts, i.e. constructing the power satellites with materials found on the Moon, many of the above estimates would apply to both systems.

A very large number of rocket launches will be needed to install a SBSP system – particularly if the power satellites are constructed on Earth. Obviously, this will entail some environmental considerations, although the new reusable launcher systems and the use of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as rocket fuels reduce some of the environmental impact. However, using lunar materials and constructing the infrastructure in space and especially, adopting the LSP concept, will optimize the environmental aspects as less mass from Earth would have to be placed in orbit.  As these systems are outside the biosphere, they avoid some of the waste issues associated with decommissioning or refurbishing nuclear, wind and terrestrial solar systems. Moving other industrial processes outside of Earth’s biosphere is another positive feature integral to the Space Option concept and SBSP could be the first example which could stimulate other industries to move their manufacturing processes to the space environment. Another important consideration when developing a SBSP system to meet humanity’s future energy needs is that SBSP would be the ultimate market driver for lowering the launch costs for accessing the space environment and enabling the expansion of human civilization beyond the home planet.

For the latest news about energy from space please visit: Energy from Space News [39]

 The World Energy Market

The information from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 also gives us a simple means to estimate the market value of the world energy market. Converting 13,365 MTOE (million tonnes of oil equivalent) into BOE (barrels of oil equivalent) = 99,035,714,285 BOE. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019, the current production price (2018) of a barrel of oil is about US $70. If one adds refining, transportation and distribution costs we can conservatively increase this amount to $150/barrel. Based on this estimate, the 2018 energy market value of 99,035,714,285 BOE would be approximately US $ 14’855’357’142’750 or US $14.9 trillion dollars.

Year 2050 Market Estimates

Using this information we can make some projections based on current oil prices noting that, as oil becomes more difficult to produce, it will surely impact the future price of this finite energy resource. Furthermore, as the world’s financial system is sensitive to the price of oil as well as to the role and value of the US dollar in this market, disruptions in this market will have major consequences for the world economy. The control of this energy resource has been and will continue to be a major factor in geopolitical conflicts which also directly impacts the energy market. Finally, the proposed Carbon Taxes and Carbon Trading schemes will also impact the price.

However, relying on the current situation, the following projections provide some useful insights into the anticipated 2050 energy market.

Scenario A: 17,331 MTOE = 123,792,857,143 BOE x $150 = $ 18’568’928’571’450
or $18.6 trillion dollars
(based on a 25% population increase with steady energy consumption rate)

Scenario D: 32,102 MTOE = 229,300,000,000 BOE x $150 = $ 34’395’000’000’000
or $34.4 trillion dollars
(based on a 2.5% yearly increase in energy consumption from 2018 – 2050)

Again using the Unit Juggler, another way to calculate is to convert 50 BOE which equates to 81,410 kWh of electrical energy per year. This works out to approximately 9.3 kW of continuous electrical power (81,410 ÷ 365 ÷ 24 = 9.29) which is close to the per capita energy use in North America.[40] As such, 25 BOE or 4.6 kW per capita would sufficient for meeting future European needs and a goal for achieving worldwide prosperity.

Thus with Scenario A: 17,331 MTOE = 123,792,857,143 BOE ÷ 9.7 billion people = a worldwide per capita of 12.8 BOE would require a reduction in the standard of living expectations worldwide.

Whereas in Scenario D: 32,102 MTOE = 229,300,000,000 BOE ÷ 9.7 billion people = a worldwide per capita 23.6 BOE that would indicate worldwide energy consumption at close to the European standard if distributed equally.

Considering the space energy option, in Astroelectricity, looking closely at the United States energy projections for the year 2100, Michael Snead writes: “Today hydroelectricity has a cost of generation of about $0.01 per kWh or $10,000 per GWh. (For comparison, the cost of coal-generated electricity is about $0.04 per kWh.) Using this hydroelectric cost as a benchmark, in a year’s time, a 5-GW GEO space solar power system, with a 95 percent capacity factor, would generate $416 million worth of electricity at $0.01 per kWh. The 825 U.S. GEO space solar power systems needed would produce about $343 billion worth of electricity annually. Worldwide, the 10,000 systems would provide $4 trillion worth of electricity annually. Total annual commercial revenues would, of course, be some multiple of this amount.” [41]

Ralph Nansen writes in Sun Power: The Global Solution for the Coming Energy Crisis “If we assume that electricity will sell for eight cents a kilowatt hour and that the satellites will operate at full capacity as baseload systems, each 1,000 megawatt satellite will generate $675 million a year in revenue. This adds up to $20 billion over a thirty-year period for each satellite. If each satellite lasts one hundred years we will be able to reduce the price of electricity after thirty years when its capital cost has been paid off and the cost of generating electricity drops below two cents a kilowatt hour. If they are used to supply energy to the developing nations of the world the revenue generated by the stream of energy pouring down from the sky could be over $1 trillion a year. The magnitude of the numbers is staggering. These satellites will produce enough revenue to pay off the original investment, including the support systems, and return a very handsome profit. After return of the initial investment, the cost of energy from the satellites will drop to the cost of operating and maintaining them. There is no fuel to buy and no more debt to pay. The benefits will come to all of us in the form of very low-cost energy.” [42]

As shown above, with the 2050 global energy market estimated to be valued at $18 – $35 trillion in today’s dollars and using the 20% market share target of the Paris Agreement as a reference, this indicates a potential market value of $ 3.6 – $7 trillion for the initial development of a SBSP alternative by 2050 which could eventually lead to a 100% space energy solution by the end of the century.

See also: Assessing Our Civilization’s Future Energy Needs  – which arrives at a similar energy market estimate using different data sets. [43]

 Conclusions

This analysis shows that, as the global population increases so will humanity’s energy needs. However, it is clear that humanity must urgently transition from the use of fossil fuels as continued use of these has severe environmental and geopolitical consequences and the fact that estimated proven reserves of crude oil and natural gas will be exhausted in the second half of this century at current consumption levels.  None of the current terrestrial alternative energy solutions can be realistically scaled to meet the United Nation targets for reducing greenhouse gases or for the eventual goal to divest from fossil fuels. If this is the case, then future investments in these technologies as well as government policies for CO₂ reduction measures which are now being implemented should be reexamined. As the Climate Emergency may actually have another variation which could lead to severe global cooling, having sufficient clean energy would be imperative in either case.  The only way current and technically feasible way to achieve this energy independence is by harnessing energy in space to meet humanity’s energy needs on Earth and the urgent need to do this soon indicates that the Energy Emergency has arrived.

The enormous scale of the space energy option is also its disadvantage.  However, the advantages of SBSP over any terrestrial alternatives is that it can actually be scaled to meet essentially all of humanity’s future energy needs and that it would have minimal environmental impact inside the biosphere, especially when looking for a CO₂ neutral solution to replace oil, natural gas and coal as humanity’s primary energy resources. To transition from a carbon based energy dependence while meeting Earth’s growing energy and CO₂ reduction requirements requires building a really large infrastructure off Earth with an eventual colony of humans permanently in orbit or based on the Moon to maintain the system. Advances in robotics and automated manufacturing will optimize this process. A large number of SPS systems will need to be constructed and placed in orbit, in the case of LSP, the power grids on the Moon would be between 10 to 100 km in diameter, the orbital reflectors would not be small nor few in number and the 100 -1000 rectennas located on Earth will be substantial construction projects. At some point in the future, Helium-3 Astrofuel fusion power may also become technologically feasible and could be integrated into this concept.

Over the years the biggest obstacle and standard criticism for developing any of these space energy options has been their cost – specifically manufacturing and launch costs – as these factors ultimately impact the price per kWh in comparison with terrestrial alternatives. Although, when considered in the context of the demand and the value of the global energy market in the year 2050, this criticism should have lesser relevance as terrestrial energy alternatives prove to be insufficient, impractical or undesirable and the Energy Emergency becomes apparent. As such, it not necessary to prove that the space energy option is price competitive when compared with terrestrial energy options if these cannot supply the needed energy. In any case, due to the negative environmental aspects and finite quantities as well as being a source of perpetual geopolitical conflict, continued reliance on fossil fuels is also no longer a long term energy option for humanity. If undertaken as a global cooperative effort, it would reduce the geopolitical tensions and the potential for conflict currently associated over the control of fossil fuels.  Considering a potential energy market of $20-34 trillion or more in the year 2050 and beyond – even if SBSP supplies just 20% of that future market – providing energy from space would appear to be an attractive financial opportunity.

Addressing the Energy Emergency in an environmentally neutral manner is no small task. On the one hand, there is the United Nation’s proposed “Agenda 2030 option” to transform industrial society by implementing regulated terrestrial solutions to Earth problems in order to cope with an increasingly energy poor and environmentally stressed world, that may unfortunately eventually lead to global war, although they don’t seem to think so,  or there is the “Space Option”, which is to harness the inexhaustible resources of space to meet humanity’s present and future needs on Earth – of which energy is the most important – which could optimistically lead to universal peace and prosperity and eventually, to the expansion of human civilization beyond the home planet.

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

The United Nations is proposing 17 Sustainable Development Goals to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all.[44]

SD Goal 7 concerns affordable and clean energy. On their website they state:

“Energy is central to nearly every major challenge and opportunity the world faces today. Be it for jobs, security, climate change, food production or increasing incomes, access to energy for all is essential. Working towards this goal is especially important as it interlinks with other Sustainable Development Goals. Focusing on universal access to energy, increased energy efficiency and the increased use of renewable energy through new economic and job opportunities is crucial to creating more sustainable and inclusive communities and resilience to environmental issues like climate change.

At the current time, there are approximately 3 billion people who lack access to clean-cooking solutions and are exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution. Additionally, slightly less than 1 billion people are functioning without electricity and 50% of them are found in Sub-Saharan Africa alone. Fortunately, progress has been made in the past decade regarding the use of renewable electricity from water, solar and wind power and the ratio of energy used per unit of GDP is also declining.

However, the challenge is far from being solved and there needs to be more access to clean fuel and technology and more progress needs to be made regarding integrating renewable energy into end-use applications in buildings, transport and industry. Public and private investments in energy also need to be increased and there needs to be more focus on regulatory frameworks and innovative business models to transform the world’s energy systems.”

The United Nations also has an Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) founded in 1958 which has a section dedicated to Space Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals called Space4SDGS with a link to each of the 17 SDG goals and a mention of how space technologies are making a contribution. [45]

Concerning SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy they write that space technologies are central in:

• Critical infrastructure monitoring, particularly with regards to energy networks
• Power grid synchronisation
• Seismic surveying
• Identification of optimal sites for the production of renewable energy
• Solar and wind energy production forecasting to estimate the amount of energy that needed from other sources

If, as shown in this article, the existing alternative terrestrial energy resources cannot be scaled to meet humanity’s future energy needs, then neither will the identification of optimal sites for the production of renewable energy, solar and wind energy production forecasting, regulatory frameworks nor innovative business models solve humanity’s energy problem.

Most people would agree that it would be preferable to live in an energy rich world rather than in an energy poor world. This applies not only to our standard of living but also having sufficient energy to tackle other global problems such restoring the environment and ending poverty as well as providing hope for a positive future. If, as shown in this article, the existing alternative terrestrial energy resources cannot be scaled to meet humanity’s future energy needs, then neither will the identification of optimal sites for the production of renewable energy, solar and wind energy production forecasting, regulatory frameworks nor innovative business models adequately address humanity’s Energy Emergency.

The Space Option implies that there is a choice to made – a choice between pursuing terrestrial solutions or implementing space solutions to address humanity’s problems on Earth which are not all about energy; although energy is the key element in many of these. However, choosing the Space Option requires commitment and engagement – it will not happen on its own and there are those who will not want to see it happen. As energy becomes more difficult and more expensive to generate, resources become more scarce and demand increases, it is ultimately about choosing between a space age or a stone age. The choice should be obvious and, indeed, this is humanity’s Cosmic Choice – a decision that our generation will have to make in order to insure the sustainability, viability and the future survival of our species. As mentioned above, this choice could have been made in the 1980’s by the United States, but lobbyists for nuclear power interests prevented this from happening. Forty years later, humanity has one last chance to make the right choice, it will be interesting to see who will try to prevent it.

Therefore, the time to solve the Energy Emergency is now. It is too late to wait any longer. A step-by-step approach on how to do so will be discussed in a future article.

References:

[1] Arthur R. Woods  and Marco C. Bernasconi are the co-founders of the Space Option concept. https://thespaceoption.com

[2] BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 – https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf

[3] Unit Juggler – https://www.unitjuggler.com/convert-energy-from-toe-to-boe.html

[4] Unit Converter –  https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en/energy/60-18/megatonne%20of%20oil%20equivalent-gigawatt-hour/

[5] Wikipedia, List of nuclear power stations,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations

[6] Wikipedia, List of nuclear reactors,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

[7] Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant’s Footprint  https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants

[8] EIA projects nearly 50% increase in world energy usage by 2050, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433

[9] Hinkley Point nuclear plant building costs rise by up to £2.9bn https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/25/hinkley-point-nuclear-plant-to-run-29m-over-budget

[10] EDF warns of added costs of Flamanville EPR weld repairs. World Nuclear News, http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-warns-of-added-costs-of-Flamanville-EPR-weld-r

[11] Why nuclear power will never supply the world’s energy needs, Lisa Zyga, Phys.Org, https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

[12] WWEA – Wind Power Capacity worldwide reaches 597 GW, 50.1 GW added in 2018, https://wwindea.org/blog/2019/02/25/wind-power-capacity-worldwide-reaches-600-gw-539-gw-added-in-2018/

[13] Unfurling The Waste Problem Caused By Wind Energy, NPR, https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-waste-problem-caused-by-wind-energy

[14] Can Wind Turbines Be Recycled?, Earth911, https://earth911.com/business-policy/wind-turbines-recycle/

[15] IEA, Solar Energy, Solar Photovoltaics, https://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/solar/

[16] If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#3c2bebf1121c

[17] End-of-life management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels, IRENA, https://www.irena.org/publications/2016/Jun/End-of-life-management-Solar-Photovoltaic-Panels

[18] Future of Solar Power: Obstacles & Problems, Sciencing.com, https://sciencing.com/future-solar-power-obstacles-problems-21852.html

[19] James Michael Snead, Astroelectricity , Spacefaring Institute LLC (January 4, 2019) Amazon  Kindle location 952

[20] Paris Agreement, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

[21] BP: World Reserves of Fossil Fuels, 2018 – https://knoema.com/infographics/smsfgud/bp-world-reserves-of-fossil-fuels

[22] Arthur Woods & Marco C. Bernasconi, The Space Option – Website: https://thespaceoption.com

[23] Solar Power Satellite, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

[24] Danny Jones and Ali Baghchehsara, Electric Space: Space-based Solar Power Technologies & Applications: Amazon Kindle February 19, 2014

[25] Ralph Nansen, Sun Power: The Global Solution for the Coming Energy Crises, Nansen Partners, 2012, Kindle location 391

[26] John Mankins, The Case for Space Solar Power, Virginia Edition Publishing; First Edition, January, 2014, Kindle Location 422

[27] Danny Jones and Ali Baghchehsara, Electric Space: Space-based Solar Power Technologies & Applications,  February 2014, Page 2

[28] James Michael Snead, Astroelectricity , Spacefaring Institute LLC (January 4, 2019)

[29] Japan Demoes Wireless Power Transmission for Space-Based Farms https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/solar/japan-demoes-wireless-power-transmission-for-spacebased-solar-farms

[30] National Space Society Will Pitch Space-based Solar Power To G8 Nations: https://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/18/national-space-society-will-pitch-space-based-solar-power-to-g8-nations/

[31] China sets up laboratory to research building solar power station in space: http://bit.ly/2nzOo9t

[32] Caltech Space Solar Power Project: https://www.spacesolar.caltech.edu/

[33] David R. Criswell, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Criswell

[34] David Criswell, Solar Power via the Moon, The Industrial Physicist American Institute of Physics, April/May 2002 http://www.public.asu.edu/~gbadams/moonpower.pdf

[35] Luna Ring, Solar Power Generation on the Moon, https://www.shimz.co.jp/en/topics/dream/content02/

[36] Lunar Helium-3 as an Energy Source, The Artemis Project, http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html

[37] Harrison H. Scnmitt, Return to the Moon, Copernicus Books, Praxis Publishing Ltd. 2006

[38] Dennis Wingo, Moonrush, 2004, Apogee Books Publication, page 70

[39] Energy from Space Headlines –  The Space Option – https://thespaceoption.com/energy-headlines/

[40] Wikipedia, List of Countries by energy consumption per capita, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

[41] Michael Snead, Astroelectricity, 2019 Kindle location 1,247

[42]  Ralph Nansen, Sun Power: The Global Solution for the Coming Energy Crises, Nansen Partners, 2012, Kindle location 3,445

[43] Assessing Our Civilization’s Future Energy Needs, Arthur Woods, The Space Option,2013, https://thespaceoption.com/assessing-our-civilizations-future-energy-needs/

[44] UN Sustainable Goal 7 – Affordable and Clean Energy – https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/energy/

[45] UNOOSA – Space4SDG – Sustainable Development Goal 7 – Affordable and Clean Energy – http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/space4sdgs/sdg7.html