Value chain · CLM-0815
In plain terms
The 2020 study of the 1978 NASA/DOE design did not count any warming from the microwave beams themselves, saying that is too hard to express as a CO2 figure and, on an outside estimate it quotes, would warm the planet by only about six thousandths of a degree even with thousands of satellites; it also assumed that at end of life the ground receivers are dismantled and the satellites recycled in orbit, an assumption the authors added because the original 1978 design never specified one.
The claim as recorded
The model excludes wireless power transmission heating effects from its CO2e accounting, stating this is due to difficulty quantifying the effect in CO2e terms and that the aspect "is considered to be insignificant" for global warming, citing an external estimate that heating from several thousand SPS at an installed capacity of 15,000 GW would be on the order of 0.006 degrees C; the model also departs from the reference scenario at end of life by assuming full rectenna decommissioning with land returned to a natural state and in-orbit recycling of SPS units, because the reference programme documents provide no end-of-life scenario or salvage and disposition costs.
Scope and limits
The 0.006 degrees C figure is a MODELLED estimate from a separately cited source, not measured, and it is stated for several thousand SPS at 15,000 GW installed capacity, NOT for the 300 GW 60-unit programme this paper models. It may not be presented as this paper's own calculation and may not be scaled to this paper's system. The end-of-life assumption is the authors' own substitution for a gap in the source documents (p8 to p9): it assumes a lunar base exists to reuse the recycled satellites and that the space transport vehicles are kept in museums rather than decommissioned, it is not a demonstrated outcome, and the paper does not say how it moves the result against any other end-of-life case.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
p8: "Heating effects from the WPT are not considered within this analysis due to difficulties in quantifying this effect in terms of CO2e. With respect to global warming, this aspect is considered to be insignificant [40], with current estimates predicting that the heating generated would be on the order of around" 0.006 degrees C (printed with a degree sign) "for several thousand SPSs with an installed capacity of 15,000 GW [1]." And: "No end-of-life scenario is provided for by the CDEP [13] as the system does not factor in salvage value or disposition costs at end of life. As such, this is the only part of the analysis where the applied system boundary deviates from the stated scenario of the CDEP."
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-008 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0815
CLM-0815, 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-0813The paper's detailed component-by-component calculation gives a carbon figure five to six times higher than an older top-down calculation...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-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.