Value chain · CLM-0817
In plain terms
The 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 the environmental marketing claims made for the technology and potentially justify funding future missions, and that the lead researcher says the work was kept rigorous regardless; two of the four authors work for that funder.
The claim as recorded
The paper's disclosure statement records that the analysis was funded by SPACE Canada, described in the paper as "a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to the promotion of SBSP", which also part-funded development of the assessment tool alongside the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, that the funding was provided "to address and/or support the currently precarious green marketing claims surrounding SBSP and potentially justify funding for future SPS missions", and that despite the funder's potential vested interest the principal investigator states academic vigour and integrity were maintained; the paper's own p1 byline lists two of the four authors under the affiliation "SPACE Canada Corporation".
Scope and limits
This is a self-disclosure by the study's own authors, not an independent conflict-of-interest audit. It may be used to flag funder motivation when relying on this source's other findings. It may NOT be used on its own to assert that the results are biased, nor that they are unbiased, since the paper offers no evidence either way beyond the statement. Note the direction of the finding: the paper's carbon result is unfavourable to the funder's stated aim, which cuts against a simple funding-bias reading.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
p7 s3.4: "...the funding of this analysis was provided by SPACE Canada, who are a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to the promotion of SBSP... to address and/or support the currently precarious green marketing claims surrounding SBSP and potentially justify funding for future SPS missions. For this reason, despite the potential vested interest and motivations of the funder, the principal investigator of this study... ensured that academic vigour and integrity was maintained throughout the study..."
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-008 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0817
CLM-0817, 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-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...More on the source page.