Value chain · CLM-0813
In plain terms
The paper's detailed component-by-component calculation gives a carbon figure five to six times higher than an older top-down calculation of the same 1978 design, and the paper is itself inconsistent about whether that older figure counted carbon dioxide only or all greenhouse gases.
The claim as recorded
Wilson et al. state that their process-based silicon result of 112.27 gCO2e/kWh is 5.62 times, and their gallium arsenide result of 122.63 gCO2e/kWh is 6.13 times, the approximately 20 g/kWh estimate produced for the identical 1978 DOE/NASA SPS Reference System by the Asakura et al. environmentally-extended input-output study; the source states that comparator once as "20 gCO2/kWh" on p3-4 and once as "20 gCO2e/kWh" on p12, which are different quantities.
Scope and limits
The ratio is against Asakura's single baseline point estimate only. It is NOT against Asakura's breeder-scenario figure of about 11 g/kWh or its nuclear comparator of about 22 g/kWh, both also reported in the same section. This ratio may NOT be generalised into an EEIO-versus-process-based factor for SBSP as a class: it is specific to one EEIO study and one process-based study of one reference design, and the same authors' later work on the NASA 2050 concepts found the opposite direction, see CLM-0826. The gCO2 versus gCO2e ambiguity means the ratio's denominator is not certainly a like-for-like quantity.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
p12: "the calculated value of the silicon option is over 5.62 times higher than the prediction of 20 gCO2e/kWh for the DOE/NASA SPS Reference System made by Asakura et al. [17] whilst the calculated value for the gallium arsenide option is 6.13 times higher." Compare p3-4: "the results suggest that the CO2 emissions produced by the system per unit of energy generated would be around 20 gCO2/kWh."
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-008 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0813
CLM-0813, Energy Aperture, as of 2020.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-212
- CLM-0316In 2009 three researchers guessed that, once the energy to deliver and use it is counted, an oil-based fuel must return at least about 3...CLM-0810A 2020 modelling study estimated that, across its whole operating life from 2040 to 2100, the 1978 NASA/DOE space solar power design would...CLM-0811In a 2020 modelling study of the 1978 NASA/DOE space solar power design, the carbon per kilowatt-hour fell the longer the satellites were...CLM-0812A 2020 modelling study of the 1978 NASA/DOE design estimated that its ozone-depleting emissions, almost all from burning rocket fuel at...CLM-0814A 2020 conference paper's own cost model put the whole 60-satellite programme of the 1978 US reference design at about 3.86 trillion US...CLM-0815The 2020 study of the 1978 NASA/DOE design did not count any warming from the microwave beams themselves, saying that is too hard to...CLM-0816In their 2020 study of the 1978 NASA/DOE design, the authors list their own weak points: only whole-system detail rather than part-by-part...CLM-0817The authors state openly that a space-solar-power advocacy non-profit paid for this study, that part of the reason was to test or support...More on the source page.