Value chain · CLM-0171
In plain terms
The same model shows the cost of electricity is noticeably higher for the first unit built than for the fifth, and when this study compares its solar-power-satellite cost to wind and solar costs, those comparator figures do not include the cost of storing or backing up wind and solar power, so it is not a fully like-for-like comparison.
The claim as recorded
The same Frazer-Nash CASSIOPeiA model defines an nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) system as "the 5th such system constructed" and reports a first-of-a-kind (FOAK) LCOE of GBP 51.3/MWh (p10), GBP 66.3/MWh (p50) and GBP 96.0/MWh (p90), all 2018 prices, versus GBP 35.2/49.7/79.4/MWh for NOAK under identical assumptions; the report's cross-technology comparison (Figure 14) uses a 20% hurdle rate for SBSP against technology-specific (lower) hurdle rates for each comparator technology, and explicitly states that "the costs of managing intermittent supply to the grid is not included in the published LCOE values" for the wind and conventional solar comparators.
Scope and limits
Does not establish that SBSP is cheaper than wind/solar on a like-for-like (firmed) basis - only that unfirmed LCOEs are similar at the low end of SBSP's range. Does not establish NOAK is achievable; NOAK is itself a modelled construct (5th unit), not an observed outcome.
What it assumes
The comparator LCOE values (Figure 14/15) are sourced from BEIS Electricity Generation Cost Reports for plant "commissioned in 2040" - i.e. this is a forecast-vs-forecast comparison for all technologies, not current costs.
Where it comes from
"The system costed is an 'nth of a kind' (NOAK) system, defined as the 5th such system constructed." (p.19). Table 4: FOAK 51.3/66.3/96.0 GBP/MWh vs Baseline (NOAK) 35.2/49.7/79.4 (p.23). "It should be noted that the costs of managing intermittent supply to the grid is not included in the published LCOE values, so the baseload supply from SBSP may be preferable to wind and conventional solar given similar LCOEs." (p.29).
Basis: GBP, 2018 prices, GBP/MWh
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-037 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0171
CLM-0171, Energy Aperture, as of 2021.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-021
- CLM-0170A UK government-commissioned study estimates the cost of electricity from a mature (fifth-built) space solar power satellite at roughly 3.5...CLM-0172The study uses a high assumed rate of return (20%) to work out the headline cost-per-unit-of-electricity figure, but uses a much lower...CLM-0173Developing a working space solar power system for the UK is estimated to cost somewhere between about 7.5 and 16 billion pounds (in 2021...CLM-0174On the study's own numbers, a first space solar power system would not, by itself, earn investors the return they would expect (20%) - it...CLM-0175For every pound of public money put into the whole programme, the study estimates the UK economy gets back between GBP 1.30 and GBP 1.80...CLM-0522The UK study used a 20% return requirement, based on what institutional investors are expected to want. The US study used 3%, on a one-line...CLM-0538The US and UK studies are not just using different toughness levels for the same test -- they are answering different questions. The US...CLM-0714The 2021 UK study by Frazer-Nash Consultancy proposed that the satellite fly itself to its final orbit, using its own solar panels to run...More on the source page.
- Cited in articles