Value chain · CLM-0538
In plain terms
The US and UK studies are not just using different toughness levels for the same test -- they are answering different questions. The US study asks "what would this cost the government to build and pay for entirely by itself," which is why its rate is so low. The UK study asks "what return would a private investor need to put money in," which is why its rate is so high. Whether the same would hold for a real UK project like the new nuclear power station has not been checked against a held source.
The claim as recorded
NASA's 3% and Frazer-Nash's 20% discount rates reflect two different financing premises, not two points on the same scale: NASA's report states its baseline "assumes Government financing" with no equity return considered at all, pricing SBSP as a wholly state-owned, state-financed public asset; Frazer-Nash prices CASSIOPeiA as a commercial venture requiring private capital at a private-market, risk-adjusted rate. (Whether applying NASA's zero-equity premise to UK infrastructure such as Sizewell C would understate its cost is not stated here: see limits.)
Evidence behind this: T3 (NASA, primary); T4 (Frazer-Nash, primary but consultancy-tier)
Scope and limits
This is a qualitative, not quantitative, reconciliation; it does not produce a single "corrected" LCOE figure putting both institutions on an identical financing basis, only explains why their headline figures should not be compared as if they were. A FABRICATED QUOTATION WAS REMOVED FROM `support` ON 2026-09-06 (VER-1081). A phrase was presented as a direct quotation and returns ZERO hits across all eight Frazer-Nash documents in the register. It is not reproduced here, or anywhere, because explaining a defective quotation by repeating it is how the defect survives its own correction. The SUBSTANCE stands on real text at SRC-021 p13 and p19 - the claim's numbers and its argument are unaffected, and a correction to one field is not a reason to discard the others. The phrasing was inherited from CLM-0522, which carries VER-806 NOT CONFIRMED, so the defect propagated between records before it was caught. The former final sentence of the claim, that applying NASA's zero-equity premise to Sizewell C and offshore wind would sharply understate their cost, rested on CLM-0537, whose cited Ofgem, CEPA and NAO documents are not held (VER-1080 NOT-CHECKABLE); it is withdrawn from the claim until a held source carries it.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
NASA OTPS report (SRC-012 PDF p.73, printed p.56), quoted directly: "Our primary divergences from NREL's calculator are in the consideration of more refined financing inputs. We do not consider the rate on return of equity in our calculations for example, as our baseline scenario assumes Government financing." Frazer-Nash (SRC-021) p.13: "the first of a kind SBSP asset developed requires a hurdle rate of 20%, for it to be commercially viable"; p.19: the rate "is based on the projected hurdle rate required by institutional investors". (A fabricated quotation was removed from this field on 2026-09-06; see limits.)
Basis: qualitative synthesis on financing premise, not a rate figure
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-039 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0538
CLM-0538, Energy Aperture, as of 2024; 2021.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-012
- CLM-0006None of the five main studies mentions the international radio-frequency exposure limits, or any safety standard, or a restricted area...CLM-0123NASA's own 2024 study puts space solar power at 12 to 80 times the cost it expects in 2050 from power stations on the ground, a set it...CLM-0124NASA also found that if several things improve at once, rather than just one, space solar power does become cost competitive.CLM-0125On carbon, NASA found space solar power within the range of five renewable ways of making power on the ground (wind, solar, solar thermal...CLM-0144A NASA study found that launching everything into space is by far the biggest cost of a space solar power system, and that most of those...CLM-0192The full list of assumptions behind the headline result of NASA's 2024 study, that space solar power would cost far more than ground...CLM-0193To get to a competitive cost, NASA's own 2024 analysis needs launch costs to halve, solar cells to get much more efficient, satellites to...CLM-0240A from-scratch cost model of the "Innovative Heliostat Swarm" design gets almost the same electricity cost as NASA's own study: about 62...More on the source page.
- Also from SRC-021
- CLM-0170A UK government-commissioned study estimates the cost of electricity from a mature (fifth-built) space solar power satellite at roughly 3.5...CLM-0171The same model shows the cost of electricity is noticeably higher for the first unit built than for the fifth, and when this study compares...CLM-0172The study uses a high assumed rate of return (20%) to work out the headline cost-per-unit-of-electricity figure, but uses a much lower...CLM-0173Developing a working space solar power system for the UK is estimated to cost somewhere between about 7.5 and 16 billion pounds (in 2021...CLM-0174On the study's own numbers, a first space solar power system would not, by itself, earn investors the return they would expect (20%) - it...CLM-0175For every pound of public money put into the whole programme, the study estimates the UK economy gets back between GBP 1.30 and GBP 1.80...CLM-0522The UK study used a 20% return requirement, based on what institutional investors are expected to want. The US study used 3%, on a one-line...CLM-0714The 2021 UK study by Frazer-Nash Consultancy proposed that the satellite fly itself to its final orbit, using its own solar panels to run...More on the source page.