Value chain · CLM-0378
In plain terms
If every number in this exercise is compared at once, including each study's own best-case and worst-case scenarios, the spread looks even wider than before -- over a hundred times. That is not evidence of new disagreement between institutions; it happens because comparing one study's optimistic best case against another's pessimistic worst case will always look wide, on any subject.
The claim as recorded
The full range across every restated estimate in this exercise (FOAK, NOAK, NASA's own optimistic multi-variable sensitivity, and all three Caltech technology tiers) spans GBP21.1 to GBP2,647.6/MWh at 3% real (125.8x) and GBP36.8 to GBP4,626.6/MWh at 10% real (125.8x, ratio-invariant here because both extremes scale proportionally under this pairing); this is wider than CLM-0360's pre-restatement "factor of twenty" but is NOT a like-for-like comparison, because CLM-0360 compared FOAK baseline figures only, while this range additionally includes two studies' own stated best-case and worst-case bookends.
Scope and limits
This full-range figure should not be quoted as "the spread has doubled" or similar without the immediate caveat that it mixes baselines with bookends; CLM-0379 (core comparison) is the figure that answers the actual question CLM-0360 posed.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
restate-lcoe.py trace, Section 6(i).
Basis: GBP2024, 20-year asset life, 3% and 10% real discount rate
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-004 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0378
CLM-0378, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-09.