Value chain · CLM-0831
In plain terms
This is a conference paper from October 2024 that does not claim to have been independently peer reviewed, states that it calculated no uncertainty figures, and argues it did not need the independent review that the life-cycle standards normally ask for because it says it is comparing methods rather than making an environmental claim.
The claim as recorded
SRC-009 is a conference proceedings paper, IAC-24,C3,1,9,x85020, presented at the 75th International Astronautical Congress, Milan, 14-18 October 2024, whose pages do not state that it underwent independent peer review, and which states of its own analysis both that "uncertainty values were not calculated as part of this study" and that a third-party critical review of the kind ordinarily required by the ISO LCA standards for comparative studies "is not strictly required" here because the paper "is not actually making an environmental sustainability claim, but rather demonstrating methodological approaches".
Scope and limits
Records only what the paper's own pages state about its venue, review status and uncertainty treatment. It does not by itself re-tier the source; the register grades SRC-009 T5 and this record does not contest that. The absence of a stated uncertainty range applies to all four gCO2e/kWh figures in CLM-0826, and any use of those figures must carry it. No funding, acknowledgements or conflict-of-interest statement was found in the paper; the abstract, sections 1 to 5, the reference list and the annex were each checked, so this is an absence established by search rather than an unread section.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
Header on every printed page: "75th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Milan, Italy, 14-18 October 2024. Copyright (c)2024 by the authors. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms." Printed p.9: "It is also important to note that uncertainty values were not calculated as part of this study." Printed p.9: "...according to the ISO LCA standards..., ordinarily a third-party critical review would be required for comparative LCA studies or when making a public environmental sustainability claim. However,... the comparative analysis is regarding different environmental assessment methodologies on the same SPS systems, meaning that a critical review is not strictly required... the paper is not actually making an environmental sustainability claim, but rather demonstrating methodological approaches..."
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-008 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0831
CLM-0831, Energy Aperture, as of 2024.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-009
- CLM-0182When two different research teams assessed the exact same 1978 space solar power design, the older accounting method (which spreads...CLM-0825The authors argue that the cost-based way of estimating carbon is too coarse for a custom-built industry like spacecraft, and they conclude...CLM-0826When the authors redid NASA's own 2024 figures for two satellite designs using their materials-based method instead of NASA's cost-based...CLM-0827The authors say NASA's 2024 carbon figures for two satellite designs came out of a model built on NASA's own cost estimates, and that NASA...CLM-0828The authors say ESA's own space life-cycle guidance advises against the cost-based method because it tends to overstate environmental...CLM-0829The authors leave alumina, black carbon and water vapour from rocket exhaust out of their own carbon study because the atmospheric effects...CLM-0830The authors say an environmental claim about a space technology counts for nothing unless a proper standardised life-cycle study backs it...CLM-0849The range of 13 to 43 grams that NASA compares its satellites against comes from one US laboratory's dataset, and the two ends are the...More on the source page.