Value chain · CLM-0525
In plain terms
If a gentler, arguably fairer investment-return rate is used instead of Frazer-Nash's tough 20%, its own cost figure gets even lower, not higher -- but this does nothing to close the huge gap with the US study, because the gap does not come from the discount rate.
The claim as recorded
Restating Frazer-Nash's own FOAK LCOE figures to a gentler 3-10% real discount rate (from its native 20%) lowers them further, to roughly GBP 28.1-110.1/MWh depending on study and percentile, still far below NASA's equivalently restated GBP 564.0-1,791.1/MWh; correcting for discount rate does not converge the two institutions and makes the divergence more visible, because the direction of the two institutions' native rate choices runs the wrong way to explain their gap.
Scope and limits
This finding is about the mechanics of discount-rate correction; it says nothing about whether Frazer-Nash's underlying mass and launch-cost assumptions are themselves realistic (Pillars 1 and 2).
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
Reproduced from CLM-0389 and the restatement table in this document's Pillar 4 section.
Basis: GBP2024, 20-year asset life, 3% and 10% real discount rate
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-004 not published in this releaseQST-039 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0525
CLM-0525, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-09.