Value chain · CLM-0247
In plain terms
NASA's published cost figure for the "Mature Planar Array" design may be counting the effect of its low duty cycle twice by mistake, which would make the true figure closer to 1.0 dollars per kWh rather than 1.59.
The claim as recorded
NASA OTPS's published RD2 LCOE of 1.59 USD/kWh may double-count RD2's low (0.60) capacity factor -- once implicitly, by normalizing overnight capital cost and fixed O&M cost by capacity-factor-adjusted average delivered power (2,021.95 MW) rather than nameplate power (3,369.9 MW), and again explicitly in the formula's (8760 x capacity factor) denominator -- because correcting this (using nameplate power in the normalization step) gives 0.958 USD/kWh, closely matching this model's independently-built multi-year discounted cash flow of 1.015 USD/kWh for the same design.
Scope and limits
MEDIUM confidence, not certainty. This is a specific, falsifiable hypothesis about a calculation error in the published study, offered because it is checkable and because two independent methods converge on the same corrected answer -- but an alternative, unidentified explanation for the same RD2-specific, capacity-factor-correlated pattern cannot be ruled out without the source spreadsheet.
What it assumes
This model's reconstruction of NASA OTPS's formula and cell references (report p.56) is an accurate representation of what NASA OTPS actually computed; this could not be confirmed against their underlying spreadsheet, which was not available. UNACQUIRABLE - INTERNAL WORKING FILE. The spreadsheet behind the report's p.56 was never published alongside it, is known only through the report, and gets no source row on the same AQ1 grounds as CLM-0151. So this record's MEDIUM confidence cannot be raised by reading anything currently obtainable, which is a stronger statement than limits makes on its own. Recorded as a state and not as a property of the world: a release, a later publication or an independent reconstruction would each change it, and "unfalsifiable" would claim more than is known.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
Trace, Section 6B: RD2 LCOE with CF-adjusted power normalizer = 1.597 $/kWh (matches published 1.59); with nameplate power normalizer = 0.958 $/kWh; independent multi-year DCF (Section 6) = 1.015 $/kWh. RD1 (CF=0.997, near unity) shows no equivalent gap (0.612 vs 0.610 vs 0.623 $/kWh across the same three methods), consistent with the proposed mechanism being invisible when capacity factor is close to 1.
Basis: FY2022 USD, nominal; discount rate 3%
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-004 not published in this releaseQST-038 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0247
CLM-0247, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-09.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-012
- CLM-0006None of the five main studies mentions the international radio-frequency exposure limits, or any safety standard, or a restricted area...CLM-0123NASA's own 2024 study puts space solar power at 12 to 80 times the cost it expects in 2050 from power stations on the ground, a set it...CLM-0124NASA also found that if several things improve at once, rather than just one, space solar power does become cost competitive.CLM-0125On carbon, NASA found space solar power within the range of five renewable ways of making power on the ground (wind, solar, solar thermal...CLM-0144A NASA study found that launching everything into space is by far the biggest cost of a space solar power system, and that most of those...CLM-0192The full list of assumptions behind the headline result of NASA's 2024 study, that space solar power would cost far more than ground...CLM-0193To get to a competitive cost, NASA's own 2024 analysis needs launch costs to halve, solar cells to get much more efficient, satellites to...CLM-0240A from-scratch cost model of the "Innovative Heliostat Swarm" design gets almost the same electricity cost as NASA's own study: about 62...More on the source page.