Endless Sunlight, Endless Costs: The Economic Reality of Space Solar Power
Support CleanTechnica's work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.
Space-based solar power is having another moment in the sun. The idea has been circulating for more than half a century, rising and fading with each new wave of optimism about technology’s ability to overcome gravity. The renewed excitement today stems from one thing: China has joined the conversation. When the United States, Japan, or the European Space Agency talk about orbital power stations, it tends to stay in the research-paper realm. When China starts funding hardware and building test facilities, the world pays attention. But attention is not the same thing as feasibility, and nothing about the physics or economics of launching and maintaining a solar array in orbit has changed since the last time this dream caught fire.
The attraction of space-based solar power is easy to understand. Above the clouds and outside the day-night cycle, solar panels in orbit would receive nearly constant sunlight. They could, in principle, convert that light into electricity, beam it down as microwaves, and deliver steady clean power to Earth. On paper, it sounds like a cure for intermittency. The first detailed studies came out of NASA in the 1970s, backed by the same enthusiasm that gave the world the Space Shuttle. Japanese researchers and later the European Space Agency kept the flame alive, publishing concepts for kilometer-scale arrays and phased microwave antennas that could light up cities at night. Every few decades the idea resurfaces, wrapped in a new generation’s optimism about reusable rockets or breakthroughs in wireless power transmission. Then the costs are tallied and the story fades again.
China’s space program has revived the story because it fits neatly into its broader ambitions. The Chinese Academy of Space Technology has outlined a roadmap that begins with a small test satellite later this decade, scales to a one-megawatt demonstrator in the 2030s, and imagines a full-scale one-gigawatt orbital station by mid-century. Official statements compare the project to building a new Three Gorges Dam, only in orbit. Geopolitically, it’s coherent. Space-based solar power offers a grand civilian narrative for technologies that also serve military and industrial goals: heavy-lift rockets, autonomous assembly, and high-power microwave transmission. It positions China as the country that might finally make good on a half-century of unfulfilled space-energy dreams. It is also a way to justify massive investments in the Long March 9 super-heavy rocket, the same vehicle intended for lunar missions and cislunar infrastructure. None of this makes it economically rational as an energy source.
The limiting factor has always been cost per kilogram. With today’s rockets, getting payloads to geosynchronous orbit costs between $5,000 and $10,000 per kilogram, depending on vehicle and configuration. SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy is currently the cheapest operational heavy launcher. Its list price is about $97 million to lift 26.7 tons to geostationary transfer orbit, roughly $3,600 per kilogram. Once the payload completes its apogee burn to circularize in geosynchronous orbit, the effective cost rises to about $5,900 per kilogram. I ran some numbers and even with 100 launches for a single customer in a constrained construction window and with limited SpaceX profits, the cost to get to geosynchronous orbit is still around $4,500 per kilogram. That is the benchmark for the best reusable rocket flying today.
China’s current Long March 3B and Long March 5 rockets operate closer to $9,000 to $10,000 per kilogram to the same orbit. Even under the most optimistic projections for the upcoming Long March 9, Chinese engineers suggest they might achieve $1,500 per kilogram to low Earth orbit and somewhere between $2,000 and $5,000 per kilogram to geosynchronous. Those are targets, not realities. Long March 9 has not flown, and its reusable variant is still a concept on paper. The near-term truth is that space solar power would require tens of thousands of tons of material to be lifted to orbit at costs that still round to hundreds of billions of dollars.
When the numbers are worked through, the picture becomes clear. A one-gigawatt orbital array might require around 10,000 tons of panels, trusses, electronics, and transmission hardware. At $6,000 per kilogram, that is a $60 billion lift bill before a single watt is generated. Adding fabrication, assembly, and ground infrastructure doubles the cost. It’s a classic megaproject pattern—ambition first, arithmetic later. Even if everything went perfectly and with decades of operation, the levelized cost of electricity would be on the order of $500 per MWh, compared to well under $50 per MWh for terrestrial solar backed by storage. The only way to close that gap is to drive launch costs down by at least an order of magnitude. That is the scale of improvement needed to move from heroic engineering to commercial sense.
SpaceX’s Starship program was meant to revolutionize access to orbit by achieving full reusability and slashing launch costs. It promised payloads of 150 tons to low Earth orbit for only a few hundred dollars per kilogram, a claim that drew comparisons to the early jet age in terms of transformative economics. Several test flights have failed to meet mission objectives, and the company has gradually backed away from its early mass-to-orbit and cost targets. The combination of engineering limits on heat shielding, high refurbishment demands, complex launch logistics, and upper-stage recovery challenges have made those projections unrealistic. Even if Starship eventually becomes operational and reliable, the cost per kilogram is unlikely to undercut Falcon Heavy by more than a modest margin. The hoped-for revolution in launch economics remains aspirational, not achieved.
Reusable rockets promise lower costs per launch, but the compromise is reduced payload capacity and added complexity. Returning boosters requires carrying extra propellant, adding landing hardware, and accepting performance penalties compared to expendable missions. That means the cost per kilogram does not fall in direct proportion to reusability gains. Operators must balance lower marginal launch prices with smaller payloads and higher refurbishment overheads, which keeps actual costs per kilogram higher than the most optimistic projections suggest.
Reusable launchers have already harvested most of the achievable savings for chemical propulsion. The Falcon family demonstrates what partial reusability can do, and even with dozens of successful landings, the cost per kilogram has settled in the mid-thousands. Full reusability with rapid turnaround could cut that further, but not to the point where space-based power becomes competitive with panels and batteries on the ground. Even if Starship or Long March 9 perform perfectly, the price of lifting bulk material to orbit will still be measured in thousands of dollars per kilogram for the foreseeable future. Every kilogram of orbital infrastructure must still fight gravity with propellant and precision hardware that has to survive the harshest environment known.
Before orbital power could ever make economic sense, an entire industrial ecosystem in space would have to exist. Heavy construction, mining, refining, and assembly would need to happen routinely off-planet, with thousands of permanent workers and millions of autonomous machines operating in orbit or on the Moon. Only then would the marginal cost of building new satellites or solar arrays fall low enough to make sense, because the infrastructure to support them would already be amortized across a thriving off-world economy. But that future presupposes the very profitability that space-based solar is meant to create. The cause becomes circular: orbital power only works once space industry is cheap, and space industry only becomes cheap if orbital power already pays for itself.
Short of that science-fiction economy, some advocates suggest using solar-electric tugs to cut launch costs by hauling components from low Earth orbit to geosynchronous altitude with ion or Hall thrusters. It sounds elegant, but physics and time make it impractical. Electric propulsion offers superb efficiency but minuscule thrust. Moving multi-ton components would take years, with hardware repeatedly crossing the radiation belts. The tugs themselves would need large solar arrays and propellant reserves, adding back much of the mass they were meant to save. For the scale required, the transfer times, exposure, and wear would erase any cost advantage. Without a pre-existing space industry, every proposed shortcut collapses under the same gravity well that keeps this dream earthbound.
Even if the orbital engineering could somehow be made routine, the real obstacle lies at the point where energy meets the ground. The microwave or laser beam that delivers power from orbit cannot be concentrated too tightly without creating unacceptable safety and interference risks. To stay within public health and aviation limits, the average power density must stay around 10 W per square meter, far below the intensity of direct sunlight at noon. At that level, a gigawatt-class space beam needs a rectenna covering tens to hundreds of square kilometers. The land under the mesh could be grazed or farmed, but it would still be tied up by restricted airspace, electromagnetic safety zones, and expensive grid interconnections. The same footprint could host conventional photovoltaic panels that would quietly produce the same or greater power without any orbital complexity.
When that ground solar farm is paired with batteries, the contrast becomes starker. Utility-scale PV combined with lithium-ion or sodium-based storage can already provide firmed, dispatchable electricity for less than one-tenth the modeled cost of orbital power beaming. These hybrid projects are expanding across sunny regions precisely because the economics close easily. The land they occupy can often support agrivoltaics, where crops or grazing coexist under elevated panels, generating both food and energy. The regulatory, ecological, and technical burdens of a space-based rectenna are orders of magnitude higher, and the energy delivered far more expensive. In any realistic comparison, firmed ground-based solar with batteries will always outcompete power beamed from orbit, even before accounting for the risk of rockets, radiation, or spectrum coordination.
Bent Flyvbjerg’s research on megaprojects offers a useful lens for understanding why space-based solar power continues to overpromise and underdeliver. His work shows that large-scale projects consistently underestimate costs, overestimate benefits, and downplay risk, a pattern he calls the “iron law of megaprojects.” By that measure, an orbital solar array is the ultimate case study in optimism bias. Every variable—launch cost, in-space assembly, power-beaming efficiency, and long-term maintenance—is subject to enormous uncertainty, yet advocates present their projections as if they were infrastructure on Earth. Flyvbjerg would likely point out that such projects succeed only when they can tolerate massive cost overruns or have non-economic motivations, such as national prestige or military capability. Space-based solar sits squarely in that category. It is not a business plan but a statement of technological ambition, one that will follow the same trajectory as other megaprojects built more for symbolism than for sound returns.
The fundamental measure of any energy technology is cost per MWh delivered to the grid. Even with best-case assumptions—cheap launches, perfect microwave transmission, and zero maintenance losses—space-based solar cannot approach terrestrial alternatives. The most optimistic studies using $2,000 per kilogram launch costs still yield electricity at hundreds of dollars per MWh, while the global market is already moving toward single digits for onshore wind and utility solar, and adding storage keeps costs well under $100 per MWh. Space solar looks less like a competitor to renewables and more like a demonstration project for national capability.
That does not mean it lacks value. The engineering challenges it confronts—high-efficiency wireless power transfer, autonomous assembly of large structures, lightweight materials, and precise orbital control—are directly relevant to other space activities. Developing these technologies will benefit communications satellites, space telescopes, and planetary missions. The work also gives China a civilian framework for investments that serve multiple strategic purposes. Building a prototype space power station is not about solving the energy transition. It is about developing the industrial and military technologies that will shape the next phase of competition in orbit.
Looking further ahead, the idea of a massive space-based industry remains more speculative than strategic. The near-term commercial space economy is still grounded in communications, navigation, and observation—services that sell data, not hardware. The satellite sector, launch services, and ground networks already account for almost all the money made in space. Manufacturing in microgravity, asteroid mining, or orbital power generation could find niche markets, but none have the scale to transform global economics. The reason is simple: almost everything that can be done in space can be done cheaper on Earth, unless the product is bandwidth, surveillance, or scientific discovery. Even with another hundred years of progress, space will likely remain a realm of specialized industries and state-backed projects rather than a general industrial base.
The renewed excitement around space-based solar says more about geopolitics than about the future of energy. China’s program offers a story of technological confidence and a justification for the super-heavy launcher it is already building for lunar ambitions. For other nations, it provides a reason to reexamine their own capabilities and ambitions in orbit. Yet the physics and economics remain immovable. Lifting thousands of tons of machinery out of Earth’s gravity well to generate electricity that can already be produced cheaply on the ground is still a losing bargain.
And yet, the dream persists because it is beautiful. The image of endless sunlight captured in orbit and beamed gently to Earth has a poetic pull that spreadsheets cannot diminish. It embodies the same hope that once drove us to the Moon—the belief that human ingenuity can transcend limits. But the arithmetic of mass and money remains unyielding. Until the cost of moving and maintaining matter in orbit falls by orders of magnitude, space-based solar will stay what it has always been: a luminous symbol of imagination, circling forever just out of reach.
Sign up for CleanTechnica's Weekly Substack for Zach and Scott's in-depth analyses and high level summaries, sign up for our daily newsletter, and follow us on Google News!
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Sign up for our daily newsletter for 15 new cleantech stories a day. Or sign up for our weekly one on top stories of the week if daily is too frequent.
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
CleanTechnica's Comment Policy
