Value chain · CLM-0379
In plain terms
Once the UK, European and US flagship studies are all put on exactly the same money-year, investment-return and satellite-lifespan basis, comparing like designs to like designs, the gap between the cheapest and most expensive is still about 19 to 37 times -- essentially unchanged from, and in one comparison larger than, the roughly 20 times found before any of this restatement work was done.
The claim as recorded
Restricting the comparison to FOAK baseline figures only (Frazer-Nash BEIS FOAK, Frazer-Nash ESA FOAK p10/p90, NASA OTPS RD1/RD2 baseline) -- the same set compared without any restatement in an earlier record (CLM-0360, since superseded by CLM-0390) -- the ratio of maximum to minimum after full restatement to 2024 GBP, 20-year life is 32.8x at 3% real discount rate and 36.5x at 10% real (36.5x/32.8x against RD2; 19.0x/20.1x if RD2 is excluded and only NASA's cheaper RD1 design is compared).
Scope and limits
This is the single most load-bearing figure in this whole restatement exercise -- it is the answer to the question the restatement set out to answer. It should always be quoted with the mechanism in CLM-0380 attached, not as a bare ratio.
What it assumes
NASA figures use the bottom-up rebuild at CLM-0373, not NASA's raw published figures; Frazer-Nash figures use the CRF approximation (CLM-0377), not a bottom-up rebuild, since no such model exists for CASSIOPeiA in the register.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
restate-lcoe.py trace, Section 6(ii): Frazer-Nash BEIS FOAK 28.1, Frazer-Nash ESA FOAK p10 32.4/p90 63.0, NASA RD1 564.0, NASA RD2 921.7 (all GBP/MWh, 3%, 20yr, 2024).
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-0379
CLM-0379, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-09.