Value chain · CLM-0696
In plain terms
NASA's own comparison table shows exactly why its headline "0.02 to 0.05 dollars per kilowatt-hour" figure needs care. The cheapest entries in that table are wind and solar without storage, which are not firmed: they generate only when the wind blows or the sun shines. The solar panel entry with storage barely changes how much of the time it can generate, only 30 percent instead of 29 percent, so it is not a round-the-clock supply either. The two entries that genuinely can run almost all the time, nuclear and geothermal, are priced at the top of the range, not the bottom, and so are solar-thermal power with heat storage and hydro.
The claim as recorded
NASA's own Table 14/22 shows its "0.02-0.05 USD/kWh" 2050 terrestrial comparator (already recorded as CLM-0123) is built from 2022-vintage NREL ATB data at a flat 3% real discount rate applied to every technology; the two cheapest lines (land wind, PV utility, both 0.02 USD/kWh) are unfirmed, the PV Utility + Storage line (also 0.02 USD/kWh) shows a capacity factor of 0.30 against plain PV's 0.29 and states no storage size in its own row (the table prints "Class 5, 4 hrs Li-ion 50 MW capacity" in the plain PV Utility row's notes), and the two firmed lines (nuclear, geothermal, both at 90%+ capacity factor) are priced at 0.05 USD/kWh, the top of the quoted range, as are CSP + TES (capacity factor 0.63) and hydro (capacity factor 0.34, 100-year life).
Scope and limits
This finding is about NASA's own worked calculation, not an independent re-derivation; it has not been checked against the underlying 2022 ATB edition itself, only read as printed in the NASA report. The 3% discount rate's net effect on the SBSP-vs-terrestrial comparison has not been quantified by re-running the calculation at a market rate; this claim states the qualitative direction (a uniform low rate favours capital-intensive technologies generally) without a re-computed number. The storage duration is not stated unambiguously: the "4 hrs Li-ion" note is printed against the plain PV row (render, PDF p.75 = printed p.58), possibly a misplaced cell. Table 22 also lists "Offshore Wind 2050" at 0.04 USD/kWh, which Table 14 does not detail.
What it assumes
30-year lifetime and 8760 hours/year for all comparator technologies except nuclear (60-year) and hydro (100-year); capacity factors as tabulated (0.29-0.997); flat 3% real discount rate for every technology, including SBSP itself; no fuel cost for renewables, gas-equivalent fuel/heat-rate terms only for nuclear.
Where it comes from
Table 14 (p.58): "Land Wind 2050 ... 0.47 ... Class 4 wind ... 0.02"; "PV Utility 2050 ... 0.29 ... 0.02 ... Class 5, 4 hrs Li-ion 50 MW capacity"; "PV Utility + Storage 2050 ... 0.3 ... 0.02 ... Class 5" (read at render, PDF p.75); "CSP + TES 2050 ... 0.63 ... 0.05 ... Class 2"; "Nuclear 2050 ... 0.94 ... AP 1000 ... 0.05"; "Hydro 2050 ... 100 ... 0.34 ... 0.05 ... NPD 1"; "Geothermal 2050 ... 0.9 ... Hydro / Flash ... 0.05". Table 22 (printed p.61, PDF 78) gives the same four at 0.05. Methodology (p.56): "NREL is the most authoritative USG source for electricity production technology data. NREL's Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) (NREL, 2022) provides assessments... We use the data published in 2022." Discount rate (printed p.56 / PDF p.73): "Capital Recovery Factor... with a default discount rate of 3%."
Basis: USD FY22, REAL (per NASA's own labelling), MIXED FIRMED/UNFIRMED WITHIN ONE TABLE
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-021 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0696
CLM-0696, Energy Aperture, as of 2024-01.
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.
- Cited in articles