Value chain · CLM-0523
In plain terms
Changing the assumed investment-return rate moves a cost estimate a lot on its own, but the cheap study already uses the tough rate and the expensive study already uses the gentle one, so making the rates match does not bring them together.
The claim as recorded
Discount rate is the largest single mechanical lever measured in isolation in the LCOE restatement work done here: moving from NASA's native 3% to Frazer-Nash's native 20% (holding life at 30yr) is worth 3.9x on its own (the 4.5x in CLM-0380 is measured from Caltech's native 2%, not NASA's 3%), but the direction is the one that widens rather than narrows the Frazer-Nash/NASA disagreement, because the cheaper study uses the harsher rate.
Scope and limits
Describes the pattern in this corpus's two main institutional anchors specifically, not a universal claim about discount rate's explanatory power generally.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
From CLM-0380 and CALC-065: CRF(20%,30yr)/CRF(3%,30yr) = 0.20085/0.05102 = 3.9x is the NASA-to-Frazer-Nash move; CRF(20%,30yr)/CRF(2%,30yr) = 4.5x uses Caltech's 2% baseline and is not part of this two-study comparison.
Basis: dimensionless ratio (CRF-based)
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-004 not published in this releaseQST-039 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0523
CLM-0523, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-09.