Orbital solar power, since its introduction nearly 15 years ago, has grown considerably.** Various new stations are now in place, able to provide continuo

Orbital solar power, since its introduction nearly 15 years ago, has grown considerably.** Various new stations are now in place, able to provide continuous power to Earth. Extremely doubtful. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/03/space-based-solar-power/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/03/space-based-sola... On a yearly basis, then, getting continuous 24-hour solar illumination beats the California desert by a factor of 2.6 averaged over the year, ranging from 2.0 in the summer to 3.5 in the winter. One of my points will be that launching into space is a heck of a lot of work and expense to gain a factor of three in exposure. It seems a good bet that it’s cheaper to build three times as many panels and stick them on the ground. It’s not rocket science. [...] At this level, our 3.6 km diameter collecting area would generate about 40 GWh of energy in a day, at an assumed reception/conversion efficiency of 70%. By comparison, a flat array of 15%-efficient PV panels occupying the same area in the Mojave Desert would generate about a fourth as much energy averaged over the year. So these beaming hotspots are not terribly more concentrated than what the sunlight provides already. Again, I find myself scratching my head as to why we should go to so much trouble. Solar's a great technology. Space based solar ain't.