Solar panels in space ‘could provide 80% of Europe’s renewable energy by 2050’
Anthony Rovinski
News article (fixed link): Solar panels in space ‘could provide 80% of Europe’s renewable energy by 2050’
Paper: Assess space-based solar power for European-scale power system decarbonization
Background:
As part of the goal to limit warming by the end of the century, many countries have pledged to strive towards carbon neutrality. (1) To make these pledges a reality, there must be a shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources, but renewables are not a perfect solution. Some power generation, such as geothermal or hydroelectric, are constrained geographically. For wind and solar, technologies that have seen large increases that are projected to continue increasing, they are held back by their intermittent nature. Both are dependent on the weather and solar power varies across seasons, forcing these technologies to rely on secondary infrastructure to store excess power and mitigate the variability in their power output.
To combat these terrestrial limitations, ideas of deploying solar panels in space have been explored since the 1960s (2) with multiple designs that have all been limited by the need for more advanced technologies to turn them into reality. For science, advances in photovoltaic cell efficiency (3) and wireless power transmission (4) have pushed these space-based solar power (SBSP) platforms further in that direction, but the costs associated with simply constructing a platform are a major roadblock. Additionally, the logistical challenges of keeping microwave lasers focused over tens of thousands of kilometers has not helped.
Research Article (Che et al. 2025):
The paper
focuses on tackling the economic challenges associated with implementing an
SBSP platform, specifically looking at the EU and how the system could be
integrated into existing power grids. Of the multiple designs for these platforms,
this study examines two designs that represent two ends of what the authors
refer to as a technological readiness level (TRL), a measure of how feasible
the design could be implemented with current technology. The high TRL design,
one that could realistically be implemented currently, is a planar array system
(RD2, Fig. 1C). Photovoltaic cells are stacked on top of microwave emitters
that transmit the energy to receiving antennas on the ground with medium
efficiency and power generation. The low TRL design is a heliostat swarm (RD1,
Fig. 1B) that consists of multiple hexagonal mirrors that focus the sunlight
onto a concentrator that then beams the energy to the ground with much higher
efficiency and power generation.
Figure 1 (Che et al. 2025): The designs of (B) a heliostat
swarm concept and (C) a planar array system.
To conduct their investigation, the authors modelled the efficacy of these SBSP platforms with NASA’s 2050 cost projections. Between the two models, RD1 drastically outperformed RD2 and terrestrial solar panels. Overall, this platform was predicted to be economically competitive as predicted technological advancements (modular construction in space, reuseable launch platforms, etc.) can reduce the costs associated with building and maintaining the platform, and the RD1 platform was predicted to be able to offset upwards of 80% of existing solar and wind power and reduce the need for external storage. While many renewables demonstrate intermittent power generation and seasonal variability, RD1 consistently puts out 300-350 GW with little intermittency and variability (Fig. 2).
Figure 2 (Che et al. 2025): Weekly
output variability of SBSP RD1, renewable energy sources, and discharging of storage
devices.
Although
these platforms sound wonderful, the authors do a great job of keeping their
results grounded and describe many of the flaws with the model and the
implementation of the SBSP platforms. For one, wireless power transmission has
been demonstrated on a small scale (4) but remains unproven on larger scales. Many
components used to model the power output of the platforms are very constrained
(deployment restricted to 0 longitude; logic ignores possible impacts from
transmission interruptions or orbital debris; model relies on 2020 climate data
to make predictions for 2050; etc.), limiting the accuracy of the model and
possibly making these platforms sound better than they could be. Above all these
issues is the problem of implementing policies for these platforms. For the EU,
multi-national cooperation is fairly common and a continental effort is likely.
However, expanding this to a global scale will likely remain a challenge.
News Article:
The
article provides a wonderful snapshot of the paper as it highlights the key
points while omitting details that are not needed to get the main idea. They
describe the problems with terrestrial renewable energy sources as well as the shortcomings
of the model that the authors pointed out in the paper itself, which was a nice
touch. Overall, I think the article sells the technology enough to gather public
interest while not reaching beyond the findings of the paper and misconstruing them.
The
last sections of the article focus more on interviews with Dr. Wei He and builds
on the idea of multinational cooperation across Europe mentioned in the paper. Having
comments from the professor and lead author of the study is great, but it would
have been better if there had been another perspective or voice on SBSP. It
does mention, and provide a link to, Japan’s plan to develop SBSP, which sort
of fills this gap as it shows that the EU is not alone in working towards this
technology, but there is no discussion of Japan’s plans or its success in developing
and advancing SBSP technology. As a result, I’m going to give this article a 7.5/10
because it’s well-written and short enough to get the point across, but fails
to put the technology in context with other renewables or other projects
working on SBSP.
References:
- Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit and Oxford Net Zero (2023). Net Zero Tracker. https://zerotracker.net
- Glaser, P. Power from the Sun: Its Future. Science, 1968, 162(3856), 857-861. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3856.85
- Geisz, J. et al. Six-junction III-V solar cells with 47.1% conversion efficiency under 143 Suns concentration. Nature Energy, 2020, 5, 326-335. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0598-5
- Ayling, A. et al. Wireless power transfer in space using flexible, lightweight, coherent arrays. Acta Astronautica, 2024, 224, 226-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2024.08.006
Hi, Anthony! Very good post! I really appreciate how you summarized both the technical and economic aspects of the Che et al. (2025) paper while also critically engaging with the study’s limitations. You did a great job connecting the broader context, like the need for reliable, large-scale renewable energy, to the specifics of space-based solar power (SBSP). I also like that you highlighted how the authors were transparent about the flaws in their model. This helps show that while the concept is exciting, it’s still far from being practical. Your evaluation of the news article was also great. I like how you recognized how the piece engaged the public. First off, do you think the cost reductions from reusable launch systems and modular construction in space are realistic by 2050, or is that still overly optimistic? Also, since you mentioned transmission issues, what alternative methods (besides microwaves) might make large-scale wireless energy transfer more feasible?
ReplyDeleteHey Cody,
DeleteWhile I'm a little skeptical about the 2050 goal post, I do think that it's achievable but is mostly going to depend on how much support it gets from the public and from governments to fund the work (or billionaires with an interest in space and a new market?). Part of the modelling that I didn't talk about was a cost analysis that shows massive decreases in costs for the heliostat design, going from an estimated ~$45,000/kW of R&D, manufacturing, and installation (launch and assembly) to ~$3,100/kW.
For other power transmission, microwave might be one of the better options out there. Lasers have been shown to be effective, but their transmission can be impacted by the atmosphere and clouds (scattering and/or absorption of incoming radiation) and there are the usual safety concerns with lasers having the potential to cause eye damage or more serious injuries.
Hi Anthony, thanks for sharing an article about such an interesting concept! I had never heard about space-based solar power, but it's a really cool idea that honestly sounds like something out of a science fiction story. I agree with your analysis that the researchers take a very measured approach to the study and do a good job highlighting potential challenges in the implementations of SBSP. Although I definitely also think the Guardian article did a good job talking about the shortcomings in the model, I felt like it didn't fully acknowledge that there are still unsolved technological questions. The research study mentions that deploying space-qualified photovoltaic arrays over several square kilometers is unproven, as is scaling up the operation of focused microwave beams. Do you know how certain it is that the required technological breakthroughs will happen? I'm also curious about what the implementation of the terrestrial SBSP infrastructure would look like, because the article mentions that there would be several square kilometers devoted to receiving the solar radiation. Has there been any discussion of the impacts of building these facilities and where they might be located?
ReplyDeleteHey Claire,
DeleteFor terrestrial infrastructure, I would imagine that it would look similar to current solar farms, but with receiving antenna in place of solar panels. Also, Japan has been researching SBSP technology and has a mock image showing a receiver platform built offshore . (https://www.japan.go.jp/kizuna/2023/08/japans_long-planned_photovoltaics.html)
Based on the model, it seems like most of the infrastructure would be in Germany, followed by France and England depending on model parameter, but they don't explain why this is the case. The paper briefly mentions that public acceptance of building these kilometers-wide facilities will be a challenge, so I would imagine that they would be located pretty farm from populated areas.
Hi Anthony, thanks for sharing! This topic was incredibly interesting. Solar energy seems like such an obvious energy source, I have always been curious why solar panels aren't more universally used. The sun is already expending enormous amounts of energy, so we might as well make use of it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your rating of the news article. It was well written and gets the point across without being too complicated for the average non-scientific reader. Though it doesn't actually contribute much to the article, I really liked the picture of the sky above the solar panels. It was really beautiful and got me excited about reading the article.
Other than in Europe, what other places could realistically establish SBSP as their primary energy source?
Hey Mira,
DeleteI think the main reason solar panels aren't used more universally is a combination of geography/meteorology and infrastructure. Fossil fuel infrastructure has been around for a while, and it's a lot easier to spin a turbine by burning coal than it is to manufacture photovoltaic cells. Plus, there's the cost of either implementing new technologies onto old power grids (opposed to building a new natural gas plant) or replacing older facilities with new technology while the demand for energy continues to grow.
There's probably a decent chance that SBSP could be implemented on a global scale with some variation between countries. A big hurdle could be having the space to build the required infrastructure and properly maintain it, so as long as the country can do that or work with neighboring countries to share the electricity, it should be able to be developed anywhere.
Hi Anthony, this was a very interesting topic. The rating for the news article was very fair. For the most part, I agree with you. Aside from this, I wished the paper had gone into more detail on a materials chemistry level about how exactly the solar energy would be converted from the materials to be transmitted as microwaves to the ground. Additionally, I wished the paper addressed limitations involving the durability of the materials used to craft RD1 or RD2 including radiation damage, assuming these systems will be implemented in space.
ReplyDeleteHey Sydney,
DeleteThat's where my mind went with these platforms as well. I would assume that there is some shielding on them, but what's interesting is that the 2020 baseline and the 2050 prediction had the same expected lifetime of 30 years. I guess the modelled technological advancements are focused on decreasing costs for implementation and not extending the lifetime of the SBSPs.
Hi Anthony! Thank you for sharing this really interesting article! I never thought about the possibility of enhancing solar power by using space-based technology. I am impressed by the increased energy production and cost effectiveness of SBSPs. I am curious about the space challenges of SBSPs as well as how SBSPs would change the chemistry of the atmosphere. As we discussed in class, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb IR radiation emitted from the Earth, warming the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases can also absorb microwaves. How do you think SBSPs would impact the greenhouse effect? How are the microwaves emitted from SBSPs directed specifically to the Earth, where they are captured? I am also interested in the lifetime of SBSPs. How would SBSPs be taken down from orbit to be fixed or replaced?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anthony! This was a very interesting paper and I like how you chose to discuss a topic that suggests possible solutions to real energy problems facing the world today. I agree that the news article does a great job summarizing the findings and the challenges outlined in the paper. Reading all of this, I wondered how safe it is for all of the collected energy from the panels to be beamed down to the ground. Could there be potential dangers to humans, especially if the beam is unexpectedly redirected from where energy is meant to be collected? Though I wondered about the safety aspect, I also marveled at the effeciency of the technology. I would never expect something like this to work so well! If solar energy can be absorbed in this way from space, could ways to reflect solar energy back away from Earth also be explored in an effort to reduce the effects of climate change?
ReplyDeleteHey Kevin,
DeleteThere are definitely safety concerns with beaming the energy down to Earth, but transmitting it via microwaves seems to be the safer option. Lasers have been shown to work for power transmission, but seem to be more impacted by scattering/absorption in the atmosphere.
I don't think it would be realistic to reflect solar radiation away from Earth, mostly because it would probably require large structures, depending on how much would need to be reflected. Plus, it would be a hard sell to implement in the name of climate change.
Hello, This paper primarily focusses on the Europe and the EU specifically. Do you think this kind of technology could be potentially seen spreading to other markets like China, Australia, or the US or is that unlikely from a policy or investment stand point as you mentioned global cooperation would be harder? I agree with you in that it is nice to see the paper recognize that essentially something on this scale can't be completely guranteed. The article does provide some of the shortcomings as well which is appreciated but I don't think it quite captures the chemistry much like you said. Also if the numbers aren't with a decent error then I feel like this should have been bigger news as replacing 80% of renewable necessity is a lot although maybe that's partially because of the economic viability problem. It sounds like this could possibly lower prices in the long-run though and be decently expensive to set up, although they don't know how much maintenance will cost unless I'm understanding the economics wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very cool topic and at first I thought it was going to be one of those extremely clickbaity articles. It definitely is focused on future technology, and I feel the news article doesn't do enough to emphasize that, even if it did talk about it. From what I read the 2050 date is using NASA's 2050 cost estimates, so the actual date for the technological challenges and logistics for this to even be feasible are unknown. Were there any estimates in the scientific article or in any background you found? The wireless power transmission seems like the most challenging yet potentially applicable, though I know its something which has been theorized about for a long time, going as far back to people like Tesla.
ReplyDelete