Value chain · CLM-0380
In plain terms
Changing the assumed investment-return rate moves any single study's cost estimate a lot on its own, about four to five times. But the cheapest study in this comparison already uses the harshest rate, and the most expensive study already uses the gentlest one. So making the rates the same does not bring the studies together -- it makes clear that something other than the rate is doing the real work of making one study's numbers so much lower than the other's.
The claim as recorded
Discount rate is the largest single mechanical lever measured in isolation in this corpus (CRF(20%,30yr)/CRF(2%,30yr) = 4.5x; CRF(20%,30yr)/CRF(3%,30yr) = 3.9x), but it is assigned in the direction that deepens, rather than resolves, the observed disagreement between Frazer-Nash and NASA: the study with the lowest raw LCOE (Frazer-Nash, 20% hurdle rate) carries the highest discount rate, and the study with the highest raw LCOE (NASA, 3%) carries the lowest, so restating both to a common rate does not converge them (CLM-0379).
Scope and limits
This is a description of the pattern observed in this corpus's two main institutional anchors (Frazer-Nash, NASA); it is not a general claim that discount rate never explains cost differences between studies, only that it does not explain this one.
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 7(b): CRF(2%,30yr)=0.04465, CRF(3%,30yr)=0.05102, CRF(10%,30yr)=0.10608, CRF(20%,30yr)=0.20085.
Basis: dimensionless (ratio/mechanism finding, not a currency-denominated claim)
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-004 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0380
CLM-0380, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-09.